HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 12, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00109
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
http:/iwww.rctc.org
Hemet Neighborhood Center
305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room
Hemet, CA 92543
(See attached Map)
Wednesday, May 12,1999
10: 00 a.m.
AGENDA
• Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2, COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS
3 WELCOME REMARKS BY HEMET MAYOR L YLE ALBERG
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items Not On The Agenda)
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 14, 1999 and April 26, 1999
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after
making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and
that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting
of the Agenda. An action adding an item to the Agenda requires a 2/3 vote of
the Commission, or if less than 2/3 of the Commission members are present, a
unanimous vote.)
7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in
a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific
item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at
the end of the agenda.
7A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS
7A 1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING
CAL TRANS STIP FUNDING TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION
CONCURRENCE Page 1
O vervie w
This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 99-04
requiring local agencies seeking STIP funding allocations to obtain
prior Commission concurrence.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 2
7A2. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
SURVEY Page 4
O vervie w
Commission authorization is requested for staff to 1) Approve the
award of contract to Strategic Consulting & Research for an amount
not to exceed $ 17,961 from the FY 98/99 Measure A Commuter
Assistance Program Budget to perform a study pursuant to the
proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of Advantage
Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride
Programs; (Note: As part of this study, SANBAG's Option Rideshare
in County and Out of County Programs will also be evaluated at
SANBAG's expense); and 2) Execute the contract, pursuant to Legal
Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission.
7B. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
7B1. ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CAL TRANS
AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK CONSTRUCTION BIDS Page 85
O vervie w
This item is to: 1) Approve Construction Contribution Agreement No.
8-1097 with the State for Construction of Sound Wall #98 on Route
91, between Jackson and Monroe; and, 2) Authorize staff to
Advertise for Constructions Bids for SW #98.
7B2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE AND SECURITY
ENHANCEMENTS AT THE EXISTING LA SIERRA AND WEST
CORONA METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 97
Overview
This item when approved will: 1) Authorize the reprogramming of
CMAQ funds and Local Match funds as noted in the staff.
memorandum; and, 2) Award Contract No. RO-9932 to construct
the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures
and Security Systems, to Mallcraft Inc., for the amount of
$3,459,000, with a 10% contingency of $341,000 to cover RCTC
shared flagging costs and potential change orders encountered
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 3
during construction. The award is contingent on the recertification
of WC Brown as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.
7B3. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 108
O vervie w
This item is to support AB 1425, SB 481 with Amendments, SB
1043, and Seek Amendments AB 1571, and receive and file the
State and Federal Legislative Update.
7B4. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF
MURRIETA AND TEMECULA Page 127
Overview
This item requests the Commission to grant extensions to the Cities
of Murrieta and Temecula to complete their respective SB 821
Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities projects.
7B5. ROUTE 74 - /-15 TO 7TH STREET, AMENDMENT # 10 WITH COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE AND AMENDMENT #1 WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR
FINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OF RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES
Page 129
Overview
This item is to authorize: 1) A new Amendment #10 to Agreement
RO 9337 with the County of Riverside at an estimated cost of
$400,000; and, 2) Amendment #1 to SC Engineering Contract (RO
9954) for a total amount of $2, 662,915.
7B6. SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Page 145
O vervie w
It is recommended that Ernst & Young be selected as the
Commission's independent auditors.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 4
7B7. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS
Overview
Receive and file.
Page 148
7B8. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1999
Page 152
Overview
Receive and file.
7B9. UCLA FALL 1999 ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP
Page 162
O vervie w
This is to approve co -sponsoring the annual UCLA Symposium, "The
Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for
October 24-26, 1999 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center in
the amount of $5,000.
7610. CITY OF HEMET'S REQUEST FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT
Page 170
Overview
The Budget and Implementation Committee appointed a Property
Development Subcommittee to: 1) review the Hemet proposal to
determine whether to declare the property as surplus; and, 2) if
so, enter into a license agreement that would allow this property
to be developed. A recommendation on Hemet's proposal will be
presented to the Commission in June.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 5
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8A. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF
PROJECTS AMENDMENT - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO UZA
5 Minutes Page 182
O vervie w
It is recommended that the Commission 1) hold a public hearing and
approve the amended Program of Projects as proposed, and 2) amend
Riverside Transit Agency's FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect
these changes.
8B. DRAFT FY 1999/2000 BUDGET Page 186
10 Minutes
O vervie w
Presented is the draft of the Commission's FY1999/2000 Budget. A
public hearing is scheduled at the Commission meeting on May 12th and on
June 9th. Final adoption of the budget is scheduled to be held at the
Commission's June meeting.
9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 Page 331
10 Minutes
Overview
It is recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed 1999/00 Metro/ink
combined budgets and approval of RCTC's annual allocation to the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority in FY 1999/00 for an amount not to exceed
$3.3 million. (This action does not relinquish nor convey to any other agency any
of the operating rights or capacity entitlements which have been purchased by
RCTC.)
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 6
10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES Page 487
5 Minutes
O vervie w
This item is to adopt the Riverside Transit Agency Financial Policies.
11. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE
TRANSIT AGENCY Page 499
10 Minutes
Overview
This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 1999
Riverside Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes
totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue miles; 2) Authorize
the transfer of $8,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match for the
Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study; and, 3) Authorize the
transfer of $ 12, 000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match toward the
Mountain Communities Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program demonstration
project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle.
12. STATUS OF STRATEGIC PLAN Page 503
5 Minutes
O vervie w
Sean Bo yea, Commission Consultant, will present a brief o vervie w of the progress
in compiling the Strategic Plan.
13. 1998 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM CONFORMITY SUSPENSION Page 504
10 Minutes
O vervie w
This item is to report a court decision impacting the ability to obligate federal
funds for non-exempt projects in Western Riverside and Coachella Valley areas.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
May 12, 1999
Page 7
14. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Page 511
5 Minutes
O vervie w
The Executive Committee is scheduled to meet prior to the Commission meeting
and will report on the status of the Public Information Officer position for RCTC.
15. PRESENTATION
15A. GAS PRICE INCREASE AND ITS BENEFITS
5 Minutes
O vervie w
David Shepherd, RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative Affairs, will make
an oral presentation on the gas price increase and who is benefitting from
the increase.
15B. ANNUAL INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC SURVEY Page 514
10 Minutes
O vervie w
This is a presentation by the Inland Empire Research Consortium on the
results of the annual survey.
16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
17. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
18. ADJOURNMENT - The June meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m. at UCR
Chancellor's Conference Room in Riverside.
w
I—
From the Riverside Area
215 South
74 East (Florida Avenue)
Left on N. Carmelite Street
Corner of N. Carmelite & E. Devenshire
From the Desert
10 West
79 South
Sanderson Avenue
74 East (Florida Avenue)
Left on N. Carmelite Street
Corner of N. Carmelite & E. Devenshire
.OAK Pi
=z r=i
•
yJt kf):
E z; - MID ir
OEVONSMIRE O E HErEr' _
_ S AY LL ' ✓ALLEY' Q
". AV--
�•
V)
5
! :::-- CC'
i'"1—. �—; �i*- , CAMPUS 0-` WY
N IA ; cn
›.. ;
Q
DATE i 1' ST Q o'�
;N ~'
J ACKSON 3 WY
PS CH Ft
a i E■ e z` z LATHAM ` AV
7 ■ i CC i SA It4i
"+ ifiELC0.
zl N: MF1y IB Lf I ��
PAR►1 ! E PARir
N
�
N � ' ` 1,
vS ; a t/9
1::., E KUMBAEL z' I =. AV
a
tN
JOHN PL RAMONA
E PLAZA
N` MORTON 1�_
k AV"
g
C..) 1
Vn
PL o
z
QicnY:iCC
O Q; U
Z. J 0:
�i z; MID : �
�/iyl ►¢— v¢i E ACACIA �
L' I N
Hemet Neighborhood Center
305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room
Hemet, CA 92543
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE— MAY 12, 1999
CONTACT: ERIC HALEY—Executive Director
DEAN MARTIN —Chief Financial Officer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
(909) 787-7141
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GETS BOND RATING
UPGRADE
On Wednesday May 12th, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
received an upgrade in its bond ratings from Moody's Investor Service. The ratings upgrade, from
Al to Aa3 on Senior Lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds and from A2 to Al on Junior Lien Sales Tax
Revenue Bonds, is the result of a six month long campaign by RCTC Commissioners and staff.
The upgrade makes RCTC one of the highest rated transportation agencies in the nation.
The campaign focused on two main points, the economic strength of Riverside County and
the fiscal prudence of the Commission in managing its funds.
"We made a presentation in which we gave several measures of Riverside County's
economic strength," said Jack van Haaster, Commission Chair. "We demonstrated that the
County had successfully weathered the recent recession using data on employment and sales tax
growth. Basically, we argued that Riverside County, by continuing to post gains in both
employment and sales tax, was strong and resilient —more so than other regions experiencing
recession -driven shrinkage in those areas."
Another factor in the decision was the financial strength of the Commission itself. "We
showed that Riverside County is committed to meeting its transportation needs," commented Eric
MORE...
PAGE 2... BOND RATING UPGRADE
Haley, RCTC Executive Director. "Measure A passed in 1988 with 79% of the vote and in 1992,
when bond and sales tax measures uniformly failed statewide, voters approved. increasing RCTC's
bonding limit by 55%." `
Moody's also cited the fiscal conservatism of the Commission. "ROTC has a policy of
maintaining a two times debt coverage ratio and has established appropriate reserves in relation to
that debt," stated Dean Martin, RCTC Chief Financial Officer. A two times ratio means that there
are two dollars in revenue for every dollar borrowed.
The effect of the upgrade will be to make the cost of money less when RCTC borrows by
issuing bonds to pay for transportation construction projects. "The savings to Riverside County
will be considerable," concluded van Haaster. "For example, if we borrow $100 million by
issuing 20-year bonds, the interest we pay on those bonds will be 5 basis points —or .05%—
lower. In today's dollars, that's a saving of approximately a half million dollars in interest."
END
For comment by RCTC Commissioners contact:
RCTC Chair: Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Councilmember (909) 698-1040
RCTC Vice Chair: Tom Mullen, Riverside County Supervisor (909) 955-1050
15/07/99 13:39 ET REF: NO�OD U01- FLNOODYS 1tT:MPS/PRO m l OT s
kTTd: Dean Mar _tin '�
/
Zivers _.
de County Transportation Commission -$f/T?
lOODY'S UPGRADES THE UNDERLYING RATING OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
'.OMMISSION'S SENIOR LIEN SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS TO Aa3 FROM Al
UNDERLYING RATING OF JUNIOR LIEN BONDS UPGRADED TO Al FROM A2
Ziverside County Transportation Commission, CA
Cransportation
:alifornia
SEW YORK, May 7, 1999 -- Moody's has raised the underlying rating on the
senior lien Sales Tax Revenue Bonds of Riverside County Transportation
:ommission to Aa3 from Al, affecting $280 million in outstanding bonds. In
addition, the underlying rating on the Commission's Junior Lien Sales Tax
Zevenue Bonds has been raised to Al from A2.
the upgrade reflects the Commission's commitment to maintaining debt service
:overage of no less than two times on senior lien obligations; demonstrated
resilience of pledged revenues to recessions; and continued growth of taxable
;ales in the county as the economic expansion continues.
STRONG SALES TAX GROWTH SUPPORTS COMFORTABLE COVERAGE
The Commission has been receiving voter approved sales taxes since September,
1989. Despite the severe regional recession, taxable sales in the county have
increased every year except 1991 and sales tax receipts have enjoyed an
average annual increase of 5% since 1989. This growth has supported strong
aistorical debt service coverage. In 1998 the coverage ratio was 2.2 times.
Koody's believes that such comfortable levels of coverage will continue
through the life of the bonds which mature in 2009. Even with two hypothetical
decreases in taxable sales equal to the one suffered in 1991, and modest
increases of 2% in all other years, debt service coverage of the senior lien
bonds would not dip below 2.1 times.
FAVORABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICIES HELP MAINTAIN
OVERAGE.
the Commission has four series of outstanding senior lien bonds issued in
1991, 1993 1996 and 1997, which are secured by a pledge of the 1/2 cent sales
tax imposed on retail and use transactions in the county, less a nominal state
administrative fee. These funds are paid directly to the trustee. The issuance
of additional senior lien bonds is limited by an additional bonds test which
called for revenues to exceed debt service by 1.5 times. The provisions for
calculating the variable rate obligations also have been strengthened to
provide a more conservative test.
In addition to the additional bonds test, there are several other factors
which constrain the Commission's ability to dilute coverage through additional
debt issuance. By policy, the Commission maintains a minimum debt service
coverage on its first lien of two times debt service. In addition, the
original ballot measure which authorized the tax limited the amount of debt
which may be issued; this cap was extended to $525 million in a special vote
in 1992. Also by policy, the Commission has elected to bond only for highways,
commuter rail and regional and arterial roads; local streets and roads, and
151107 59- IT 39 T T AV
RUUMMY8 TR:RUMHZ IV.2maiulinv fi ! z of r
specialized transit are not financed by senior lien bonds. While the full
sales taxes are pledged, by only bonding against a portion of the revenue
stream the Commission has effectively ensured the maintenance of coverage in
excess of the legal covenant.
The tax expires on June 30, 2009 and all debt is to be retired prior to then.
Not only does this constrain the ability to leverage future taxes, it also
creates an unusually rapid payout. The Commission may seek voter approval to
extend the sales tax, and, if it wins approval may issue additional bonds
secured by the additional tax revenues. The rating reflects our expectation
that the Commission current conservative debt policies will be maintained
JUNIOR LIEN MEETS SPECIFIC CAPITAL NEEDS AND AFFORDS STRONG BONDHOLDER
PROTECTION.
The junior lien was created to retire the Commission's commercial paper at
fixed rates and for new money for specific local capital projects. The legal
provisions for this series call for an additional bonds test based on a
conservative calculation of junior lien obligations which includes an
assumption that variable rate obligations are issued at their maximum rate. In
addition to the protections afforded at the senior level, the junior lien
bonds are protected with an additional bonds test that provides that revenues
cover total debt service by 1.15 times. Since the junior lien borrowing is a
function of local participation -- and local participants', namely cities',
ability to leverage their share of the tax -- the level of additional junior
lien borrowing is expected to be modest. Moreover, the Commission does not
anticipate any additional senior lien obligations.
STRONG TAXPAYER SUPPORT.
While many California counties have had voter approved sales taxes, most have
received only majority approval. Nearly 80% of the county's voters approved
the Commission's tax which makes the Commission only one of two counties in
the state to receive voter approval in excess of two thirds majority.. Even
during the height of the recession, when the program was already underway,
voters approved a 75% increase in the Commission's debt limit in 1992.
Because of the high proportion of county residents employed out of the county
and who must commute relatively long distances to urban centers,
transportation is an important issue in the county. The Commission's success
in undertaking transportation improvements, including completion of new
passenger rail links to Los Angles and Irvine, have helped build this strong
support.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY'S ECONOMY CONTINUES TO IMPROVE AND DIVERSIFY.
While the convergence of the national recession, the decline of the
construction industry, and cuts in military spending produced a very prolonged
economic decline after years of rapid expansion, the county has now been
experiencing several years of solid recovery. Building activity was
particularly hard hit and stands to benefit most from the recovery. New home
prices have surpassed pre recession levels while existing home price have been
increasing steadily since 1996. Throughout the recession, the county continued
to add jobs and residents, and employers are attracted by affordable housing
away from the Los Angeles area. New housing prices are rising and industrial
vacancies continue to decline as the inland empire continues to expand its
warehousing and support role to the greater Los Angeles economy. As a result,
the unemployment rates are once again approaching pre -recession lows. The
availability of affordable space for both residents and businesses along with
improved access to employment centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties are
5Z9T-£S5 (ZTZ) :sguaTTO 1101898913
9LE0-Egg (ZTZ) :sgsTTauanor
:sso�sHo�
aoTAaes szogeanul e,Apoom 'dnois aouauTa oTTgna 'geATauv dnxoag 'zgaux ugauua)]
aoTitaas eaogeanul s,Apoopi 'dnoas aouauTa orrgna 'gekreuy 'uazmziux x2onay
:SZSLZVud
%L•S :86-E66T 'eaTae eTgaxaq uT asseavuz Tenuua a2vaand
xET•Z :sanuanas 866T 'aRsaanoo 9DTA.198 qqap x8ad
x0•ZAoTTod 921319n0:
xs•T:gsaq epuoq TauoT4Tppb
ZOOT:eaveL auTu 'gnokad
:egoag Aar
apaa2dn guaaanc
aug aog Tazquessa eT uozuM epuoq aoivae auq uo a2saanoo aozesae qqap eamTq
oMq 2uiuza4uzam go AoTTod sqT 2utquamaTdm7 moag uozeszmmoo auq quenead qov
pTnous eaaaA quaoa= uT agags aug gnougnoagq paoueTaadxa auo alp axzT suinqueloF
ozmouooa •epuoq aug go agTT gzous ATantgaTaa auq u2nomp sagas 2uTAaan qE
Moag oq Amouooa auq goadxa am •aTgags eT uoteeTmmoo alp ao3 xooTgno guzga= aus
: xmaInc
uotsuadxa alp soj suosaai uzam aua
£ io £ aBQd OULL8L606:01 SAOOON:BA 109000N :A38 13 6£IT 661L0I5(
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
MINUTES
April 14, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER.
With the Chairman and Vice Chairman not present, Eric Haley, Executive Director, called
the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at
the UCR Chancellors Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside,
California 92507.
The Commissioners unanimously elected Past Chairman, Commissioner Bob Buster, as the
Chairman Pro Tempore. At this time, Chairman Pro Tem Buster assumed the Chair.
COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT
Gene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
John M. Chlebnik
Alex Clifford
Frank Hall
John Hunt
Dick Kelly
William G. Kleindienst
Al Landers
Jan Leja
Stan Lisiewicz
Kevin W. Pape
John J. Pena
Gregory S. Pettis .
Andrea M. Puga
Robin Reeser Lowe
Ron Roberts
Doug Sherman
Chris B. Silva
John F. Tavaglione *
Frank West
Roy Wilson**
Donald F. Yokaitis
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT
Robert Crain
Juan M. DeLara
Tom Mullen
Jim Smedley
Jack van Haaster
James A. Venable
* Has proxy votes for Commissioners Mullen and Venable.
Arrived after start of meeting
**
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 2
2. SELF INTRODUCTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS.
A round table introductions of Commissioners followed. (A sign in sheet of other attendees
is attached to the minutes.)
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, introduced Michele Cisneros, who was recently hired
to fill the Accounting Supervisor vacancy.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
None.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
MIS/C (Tavaglione/Kleindienst) approve the minutes of the March 10, 1999,
meeting as submitted.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
It was requested that Agenda Item No. 6A3, "FY 1999-2000 Section 5310 Program", be
pulled from the Consent Calendar.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR.
M/S/C (Kelly/Puga) approve the Consent Calendar as follows:
6A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS
6A1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PERFORM THE PROJECT STUDY
REPORT/PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE
STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT THROUGH THE CITIES OF HEMET AND
SAN JACINTO.
Direct staff to issue a request for proposal to qualified engineering and
environmental firms to prepare a Project Study Report/Project Report and
environmental impact report for the State Route 74 realignment project in the
Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Staff will form a selection panel consisting
of the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, County of Riverside, and RCTC staff.
The selection panel will review the submitted proposals, rank the firms to
form a short list, interview the short listed firms and bring back a
recommendation to the Commission for the selected firm or firms to perform
the above task.
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 3
6A2. PROPOSED SB 836 VOLUNTARY RIDESHARE PROGRAM FOR THE INLAND
EMPIRE REGION
Authorize staff to: 1) approve the SB 836 1998 project detailed in the
attached scope; 2) accept lead agency responsibilities, as requested by
SANBAG; and 3) after review by legal counsel execute an agreement with
Southern California Associated Governments for implementation of the
project.
6A4. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Review, receive and file the report.
6B. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
661. U.S. Census 2000
Approve support of the Census 2000 resource position in the amount of
$5,000 to ensure a complete and accurate Census 2000 count.
662. Release of Engineer's Estimate During Bidding Process
Direct staff to continue releasing the Engineer's estimate a range without the
detail in order to: 1) Be consistent with the State bidding process since the
projects are designed and constructed to the State's standards and funded
with State and Federal dollars; 2) Encourage the maximum number of
interested bidders to participate in the bid; and, 3) Assure that all bidders are
provided the same information so that one bidder does not obtain information
that would provide it a strategic advantage over the other participating
bidders.
6133. State and Federal Legislative Update
Approve the staff recommended bill positions and receive and file the State
and Federal Legislative Updates.
6B4. Request for Proposal for the Pedley Station Security System Design
Direct staff to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) from.qualified consultants
that can prepare the plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the Pedley
Metrolink rail station security system and tie the system back to the
Riverside Downtown Station. A selection panel will be established to review
the proposals, short list the firms that submit proposals, and report back to
the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to
complete the work. The selection panel will be comprised of RTC and
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 4
Bechtel staff as well as other interested agencies such as Metrolink.
665. FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program
Authorize staff to release a Call for Project for FY 1999-00 SB 821 funding
and notify the cities, the County, and local school districts for the estimated
FY 1999-2000 SB 821 availability.
666. City of San Jacinto Request to Substitute Surface Transportation Program
(STP) Discretionary Project
Approve the City of San Jacinto's request to reprogram STP Discretionary
funds from the traffic signal at Menlo and Highway 79 to Sanderson Avenue
and Cottonwood Avenue.
6C. CONSENT CALENDAR - COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE RECOMMENDATIONS
6C1. Monthly Cost & Schedule Reports
Receive and file.
6C2. Quarterly Y2K Status Report
Receive and file.
6C3. Indirect Cost Rate
1) Approve the indirect cost rate developed by E&Y and, 2) Authorize
submittal of the report to the California State Department of Transportation.
6C4. Fixed Asset Capitalization Policy
Adopt, as policy, a fixed asset capitalization threshold of $1,000.
6C5. Auditor Management Letter
Receive and file.
6C6. Single Signature Authority Report
Receive and file.
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 5
6C7. Group 70 Protective Services and Investigations Contract
Approve, subject to legal counsel review, a 14-month contract for security
services with Group 70 Protective Services and Investigations, for a base
amount not to exceed $528,000 in non -reimbursable costs.
6C8. Increase in Contract for Financial Advisory Services
Authorize the Executive Director to execute an amendment to the contract
with Charles Bell Securities Corp., in joint venture with Boyea Capital
Markets in the amount of $70,000 (total contract value of $145,000)
through June 30, 1999 for completion of Phase 1 of the Strategic Plan.
6D. CONSENT CALENDAR - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
6D1. Extension of Office Lease
Extend RCTC's office lease for two years and to develop a Request for
Qualification to review the office needs and location.
7. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS
(CETAP) CONTRACT
Hideo Sugita, Planning and Programing Director, stated that it was hoped that contracts be
in place for Commission action today but was not possible. For this reason, the Chairman
has consented to scheduled a Special Meeting on April 26, 1999. He then briefed the
Commission on the status on the CETAP process. RCTC previously made available $1.5
million of 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds (PPM) to support the CETAP
project. Additionally, it is expected that SCAG will provide approximately $1.2 million.
Application for $700,000 of state discretionary planning funds is in the process and staff
is also seeking up to $4 million from the federal government to support this from the
Transportation and Community Systems Preservation program.
In response to Commissioner Alex Clifford's question as to the need for a special meeting
versus waiting until the next Commission meeting, Eric Haley explained that the schedule
is a couple of months behind. It is important to have the agreement processed to take to
Washington D.C. to show the shortfall and seek needed funding which is a minimum of $4-
$6 million.
Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe added that it also has to do with the funding cycle. Last
month in conversations with Congressmen Ron Packard and Ken Calvert and the
Department of Transportation, that became quite evident.
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 6
8. TIER II STATION ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager, explained that the Tier II Station report included
in the agenda packet is a combination of significant studies as to the optimal siting of
additional rail stations along our existing rail corridors. The four stations that RCTC has
built and currently owns and operates are referred to as Tier I, they were built with. a
combination of state rail bond funds, state grants and Measure "A". Tier II.has been on our
plan for the next generation as the system grows. She then introduced Carl Schiermeyer,
Commission consultant who prepared the Tier II Station Analysis.
Carl Schiermeyer stated that the Inland Empire/Orange County Rail Route is bumping up
against significant capacity issues on the trains themselves and the parking lots are getting
quite full. It is evident that something major has to be done with regards to parking as a
new route to Los Angeles and new stations within Orange County are being studied. The
La Sierra station is virtually at capacity. A recommendation in the report is to move ahead
to add parking at the site. With regards to riders response to the survey on ease of getting
to their stations as 56% said that it was relatively easy which compares to 80% on the
San Bernardino/Los Angeles line. The second major study done was a "non rider" study.
The key factors pointed out that they wanted a station directly in the direction traveled.
A combination of all the information lead us to recommend that we move forward with two
station sites: a) Downtown Corona virtually at the junction of the 15/91 Freeways; and,
b1 Van Buren which is a major arterial highway going into the interior portion of that portion
of Riverside.
Commissioner Andrea Puga asked if a study on the express route from Temecula to the
Corona station could be done, from the City of Temecula through Murrieta. Commissioner
Ron Roberts agreed. It was indicated that a previous study done by SCAG where it was
recommended that there should be a shuttle system from southwest Riverside County to
catching the different Metrolink trains. Out of 100 people surveyed, only 2-3 people
indicated that they would use it. There is a need for a more extensive study.
Susan Cornelison explained that it was thought that when approval for a new station is
done, a transit migration plan might be initiated. Work towards that could be started but
generally the funding of a commuter rail station is somewhat dependant on an analysis of
the ability to bring people into that station by public transit. There is mechanism for
vanpools between south county and the existing Metrolink stations, unfortunately they are
not being used.
Commissioner John Tavaglione indicated that the idea of transit from Temecula-Murrieta
into the Corona station is a very good one. He would question, or at least include in the
study, that the Promenade station might be easier access, just by recognizing the
congestion now on the 91 Freeway.
Carl Shiermeyer responded that is clearly the singular advantage of the Promenade site, it
is a wonderful site from that perspective. It will be a very easy on/off access on Magnolia
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 7
Avenue from 1-15, however, the Commission has no property in the area. There were 15-
20 criteria, however, he did not weigh the criteria, but they did look at whether RCTC
owned a property in the area, what the neighboring land uses were, and ease of access.
He noted that RCTC would have to engage in a major redevelopment of that site and would
have to acquire 25-30 homes to make a site useful enough for our purposes. If there
were no other options, the site would be fine. However, if it is weighed against the
downtown Corona site, the sum of the benefits of one outweigh the other.
In response to Commissioner Kevin Pape's question on what surrounds the La Sierra
station, Commissioner Clifford explained that site is for future site of development, probably
commercial. The Riverside Community College (RCC) owns the surrounding property.
What is envisioned, in the short term, is to negotiate some conditional use of that land. It
is in a holding pattern while RCC decides what the are going to do with it. We think that
with the way the timeline is RCTC could negotiate use of the property, lay down some
asphalt and in order to provide the desperately needed parking and then have those other
stations up and running before they are ready to break ground.
Commissioner Frank West stated that he noticed in the survey that there were significant
amount of riders interviewed expressed that there should be a station in Moreno Valley.
He asked if there were people polled, not currently riders, who are residents of Moreno
Valley and might want to use the Metrolink, if it was available. 80% of 140,000 workers
in Moreno Valley leave the city to their place of employment with a significant number to
Orange County.
Susan Cornelison explained that there are a great number of riders from the Moreno
Valley/Perris area. RCTC still has ownership of the San Jacinto Branch line and its model
planning board is an eventual passenger rail along that route. With the conclusion of the
San Jacinto Branch Line Refinement Study done in 1995/96, an analysis was done of the
then potential riders and ridership that would come with future growth in the area. But
RCTC is not in a position, either on the capital side or on the operating funding side to
proceed with that. The adoption of TEA 21 identified the San Jacinto Branch Line as an
eligible new start project. RCTC can apply for funds as a highway construction mitigation
for the first 19 miles and it would provide station locations and direct access to the pool
of potential riders. This particular station analysis only dealt only with right-of-way over
where trains are currently operated. Unfortunately, the track through Moreno Valley and
Perris is a 10-20 mph track; the estimate of refurbishing/building that to passenger rail
standards just up to Perris is very costly. She noted that a number of residents take RTA
buses into the downtown station to access the trains today, as well as those that drive or
carpool.
Commissioner John Hunt explained that at a previous RTA meeting, they discussed
locating Park-N-Ride sites. He iterated that a plan should be looked at combining rail,
transit and highways and consolidate it with a Park-N-Ride situation.
Ronald Running, Principal Planner - City of Corona, noted that the City of Corona strongly
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 8
endorses the recommendation of the analysis to locate a station in downtown Corona.
Over the last three years, the City has conducted studies and have developed two specific
plans for the area that surrounds the station. The station would integrate with their
proposal to develop a regional entertainment center and revitalize downtown to the south.
It would improve the area for the commuter population that have already paid taxes for the
Metrolink station and also would include the historic site owned by RCTC. They look
forward to joint development possibilities and shared parking possibilities and look forward
to private/public participation and joint development proposals that are already on the
board.
Commissioner Clifford explained that as one of RCTC representatives to the Southern
California Regional Railroad Authority that looking at the Inland Empire/Orange County line,
ridership has been steadily increasing. • Back in February, 1998, there was concern whether
ridership will ever exceed 1,000 riders. In recognizing that dilemma and responding to the
riders and surveys, service was added to the line which started to cause ridership increase
at a very high rate. Since day one in our entire system, the Tustin Station has been one
of the key stations/destination work stations and when that comes on line, there will be
some real parking problems. He thinks that the timing is right, the Tustin Station will
probably come on line sometime the next couple of years, The recommendation is a good
one and the report is excellent.
Commissioner Tavaglione stated that Corona has done an excellent job redeveloping Main
Street and is extremely vital. However, on and off ramps and the transition from the I-
15/91 should be addressed. In response to Commissioner Tavaglione's question regarding
if an analysis determining the number of vehicles that might be taken off on Main Street
during the rush hour traffic had been done, Carl Schiermeyer indicated that a study was
done but he does not have that number at this time.
Commissioner Will Kleindienst commented that as the rail system is built and expanded,
in addition to construction fees, joint operation of these facilities, and security and
maintenance costs become a larger long term concern. Long term costs are being built into
the process with the high quality stations. Riverside is rather unique amongst the Metrolink
partners in paying 100% of those stations, but long term operational burden should be
shared. He then asked the representatives from the Cities of Riverside and Corona for their
assistance and commitment to equally share not only fees, but operational costs for the
stations. Commissioners Clifford and Puga expressed their concurrence.
M/S/C (Clifford/Puga) to: 1► approve the Tier II Station Analysis and
Recommendations Report; 2) proceed with initial development of rail stations at Van
Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona, including preliminary
engineering, cost analysis, design, and identification of and negotiation for
necessary real property; 3) pursue funding partnerships with the cities of Riverside
and Corona, especially in the areas of improved vehicular access and waiver of fees
and assessments; 4) seek additional property adjacent to the La Sierra Station for
expanded parking; 5) secure the cooperation of Metrolink and Burlington Northern
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 9
Santa Fe Railroad; 6) initiate the appropriate funding applications and allocations
from State and Federal agencies.
9. FY 2000-03 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program
Cathy Bechtel, Project Manager, stated that this item requests Commission approval to
release a call for projects to program Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality funds. Federal
funds are for projects that would specifically reduce/improve transportation emissions.
These funds can be used for projects such as alternative fuel infrastructure, new transit
operations, signal interconnects, a variety of different programs. In the South Coast Air
Basin, approximately $45 million is available for programming. The selection criteria was
reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), they recommend continuation of
the selection criteria with just minor changes. Staff is proposing the addition of two
criteria: Safety and Congestion Mitigation. In addition, staff is requesting that $2 million
be set aside for an opportunity fund to be used to support clean fuel programs. A separate
program will be developed for it, advertise it, and they will be available on a first come,
first serve basis. The applications will be reviewed by the TAC and submitted to the
Commission for final approval. Funding requested today will only be for the South Coast
Air Basin. For funds in the Salton Sea Air Basin, allocation of funds should be coordinated
through CVAG. Call for projects will be sent to all of the cities with an announcement in
the newspaper. They are due in June and presented to the Commission at its July meeting
for consideration.
Eric Haley added that staff will submit the a proposal to take $26 million and apply it to the
construction and completion of Route 60 to Redlands Boulevard. This is the Commission's
last unfunded Measure "A" project.
In response to Commissioner Dick Kelly's question if the solicitation letter will also be sent
to Coachella Valley cities, Cathy Bechtel responded that they will be sent a letter indicating
that they should apply through CVAG. At this time, Commissioner Kleindienst requested
that the City Managers and Public Works Directors with a copy to the Commissioners be
added to the list.
Commissioner West asked if there is a threshold of funding designated for the 60 project.
Eric Haley explained that the intention is to go with the $26 or $28 million. It is anticipated
that those costs may be increasing. It is staff's intent to propose CMAQ funding for the
60 project to put it over the top. The $ 26 million in addition to some other realigned dollars
will fully fund the project. A partial project will not be proposed.
MIS/C (Hunt/Lowe) to: 1) Approve the proposed project selection criteria; 2)
Establish a Clean Fuels Opportunity Fund with $2 million in CMAQ reserved to
support this program; and, 3) Direct staff to proceed with the Call for Projects in
the SCAB area.
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 10
10. Revised Budget/Fiscal Year 1998-1999
Dean Martin indicated that as part of the budget process, staff has put together the annual
budget and at mid year, review the budget and propose adjustments based on changes.
Total revenues are predicted to remain unchanged with a slight drop. There is an increase
in Measure "A" revenues as receipts are up 81/2 % over last year. This was offset by
reductions in state and federal reimbursements because the projects that those revenues
were paying for are actually paying for are moving into the fiscal year 2000 so those funds
will be rebudgeted. The total budget expenditures are $100,027,639.
Commissioner Bob Buster stated that sales tax revenues are greatly exceeding this year's
projection and he then asked what is staff basing the projections of future Measure "A"
sales tax revenues. Dean Martin indicated that two months ago the Commission approved
the revenue projections prepared by the firm of Ernst & Young.
Commissioner Buster stated that if there are additional funds, the Commission should keep
in mind the existing road system and formulate the possibility of rehabing some of those.
M/S/C (Byrd/Silva) to approve the revisions to the budget for fiscal year ending June
30, 1999 with total budgeted expenditures of $100,027,639.
11. Fiscal Year 2000 Goals & Objectives
Dean Martin reviewed the Commission's previously adopted seven guiding principles and
the goals and objectives proposed under each principle, included in the agenda packet.
M/S/C (Pettis/Clifford) to approve the revisions to the original seven guiding
principles (i.e. policy goals) and adopt the eighth guiding principle relating to public
and agency outreach and communication; and approve the Commission objective
and department goals and objectives for FY2000 and authorize staff to use these
goals and objectives as the basis for resource allocation in the Draft FY2000
Budget.
12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
6A3. FY 1999-2000 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM
Eric Haley noted that the total projects for evaluation were changed from 15 to 16
and the total cost was also changed to reflect the cost of the added project.
M/S/C (Kelly/Hunt) to: 1) Adopt the FY 1999-2000 FTA Section 5310
Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review
Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation
Improvement Plan; and, 3) Certify that the projects are consistent with the
local area regional transportation plan by adopting Resolution No. 99-03,
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 11
Certifying Project Consistency With Regional Transportation Plan.
13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Eric Haley reported and invited the Commission to attend the Route 86
Groundbreaking Ceremony on April 23, 1999. This is the third and final phase of
Route 86.
B. The City of Hemet will be hosting RCTC's May 12th meeting. Following the
meeting, they will provide the Commission lunch and a tour of the Domenigoni Dam.
C. Eric Haley reported success in receiving cooperation from the California Department
of Forestry. He commended Paul Blackwelder for his excellent work and Stan
Lisiewicz' cooperation in working with the Division of Forestry. Without their
efforts, this could have been a touchy issue in either the replacement of their
facilities at the current site or moving it to March AFB.
D. Eric Haley stated that, last week, several of the Commissioners were in El Segundo
for a Press Conference which set the stage for the SCAG General Assembly which
lead to a unanimous affirmation of move towards a regional airport authority and
provide additional leverage and a better forum to argue points related to March,
Morton, George, Palmdale and all the alternatives. A resolution was obtained
putting SCAG in a unique position supporting intercity rail services to the Coachella
Valley.
E. On April 12th, the Assembly Transportation Committee went on a bi-partisan fashion
on a 12-0 vote and moved the loan bill out with a "do pass", on an urgency basis.
Moving this loan bill through this year will yield an application from us for over $30
million for the Route 74, which would complete the four lane road between Lake
Elsinore and Perris.
F. On April 13th, the Self Help County Association had its first lobbying day and
presented various options for going to a statewide solution to reauthorizing our sales
tax measures and it is picking up steam.
G. Commissioner Buster requested that an item be agendized next month to discuss
the effects of the increased gasoline price and the recipient of the increased price.
H. Commissioner Kleindienst noted that after being with the Commission for a number
of years, and watching it grow to this large body, he was very impressed with how
smooth and efficiently the expanded Commission gas been working these past four
months. He proposed the Commissioners to join him commending and supporting
the work that the Executive Director has done. It was not an easy task to take a
small body to a large body and do it smoothly and efficiently. Further, he was
impressed to see the members of Riverside County who attended the SCAG
RCTC Minutes
April 14, 1999
Page 12
Assembly, the Inland Empire was strongly represented.
I. Commissioner Roberts informed the Commissioners that on April 21, the California
High Speed Rail Association will have its meeting in San Diego. At this meeting,
they will designate where the Southern California routes are and where the stations.
will be there.. He hoped that members of the High Speed Rail Task Force will be
there to support Riverside County.
II. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20
a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled
to be held on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in Hemet at the Hemet Neighborhood Center,
305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room, Hemet.
Respectfully submitted,
!4 Cars
Naty Kopenh<
Clerk of the Board
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
NAME
�C�IZ
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
� \ (46...7k-CC2L3.04X--
6 L' 1---Ea
CIdr_ 03A1
=w I'/ is -
�u
-Jo HIJ
Jj .tz"' 6?-4
Ktc,vho
��/f/v/it w� s
Signing is not required
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999
9:00 A.M.
SIGN -IN SHEET
AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
(?h 3,4Z/
�a vkrni aF �Jgi C-
r
7/ 13eC/clt rx 02.1
C/ T`,' C N CAL / tl ESA
C �Jhyc) Jle
r
(, c(cif+ /
NTH.
�'A.t/ C,/L- l c s
(• et
e r7(151i4)6- go/part
909- QTS l l0. -te7
i),5`75= 7( /yam
(9c9) 7 Sr- /9 5' 3 / (9t,$) 795- -%S'4U
90-11-7,'74
G, Y- of /iorc vo W ZLsr
AhR
per► 4‘cornda
L< L
-7 3 / 73?�:f-r
l7 /-) 239 d-',?sJL
76.5-:e3o 3 /
717-7030 777--7,ol
�J �f 303
.- y
FW",2/7-3,a/
q09 735-- i i90 l
(7“:)8C3' t/i76 -\_)
Co I7 r a S - ��'����3 -�1�55 (?Egri 3f; 3 L P-3?
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
L r�
�...-' ti
` t L L A,,,, ? ck-7 5
Signing is not required
AGENCY
, 4-4
iv
r� .2 (
TELEPHONE /FAIL NUMBER
- I I
0-7 r-3zr- zs')- -sal -Cc Zi
c,i7 zf Pc 5 9yo-z / 5 7- 70 yj
s c/14 G- 9oy 7y 3 S z
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999
9:00 A.M.
PLEASE SIGN IN
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE
COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE
COMMISSION
NAME
�J { Liv)
(-At;
C, i•t
x �s
urn t/A (/(1 14 04-eir
yam,
,•f.e7744 Gy
Ns•
` p (C�
1
La+-1,./sQ +�czi nb'-
�edr..r etr--GatD
I dta alias 6
Signing is not required
AGENCY
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
.s-‹f
Rfr( 4- Gaup
C)-(-y
SE,m4°-ro4 A -#9N( 5
c, it 909 (5 7/ 9 s / 9
•
aftwp 70 Tto-rucitySS.
Ainve % 7RoTtecTN0 56.
i c-rQ.
901-181 -/75/ / 907-M - 42-77
Q90 r)1, 6-5)00 /
-2P2- I/ / -1/YE3
l 913-6. 04e
„el'CS-G74-d
6 opt) 783- go-18
/601�723-4/ 7.e?
0894/g1 / /)89-99Zo
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
1:45 p.m.
Monday, April 26, 1999
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairperson Jack van Haaster called the special meeting of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission to order at 1:45 p.m. at the University of California
Riverside, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207,
Riverside 92507.
21. COMMISSIONERS SELF -INTRODUCTIONS.
Members Present: Members Absent:
Eugene Bourbonnais
Bob Buster
Percy Byrd
Alex Clifford
Juan M. DeLara
John Hunt
Dick Kelly
William Kleindienst
Al Landers
Jan Leja
Stan Lisiewicz
Tom Mullen
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea M. Puga
Robin ReeserLowe
Ron Roberts
Chris Silva
Jim Smedley
John Tavaglione
Jack F. van Haaster
Jim Venable
Frank West
Roy Wilson
Donald F. Yokaitis
John M. Chlebnik
Robert Crain
Frank Hall
John J. Pena
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
Chairman van Haaster asked that the Commission observe a moment of silence for
John Chlebnick's niece Kelly Fleming and the other students who lost their lives as a
result of the shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Colorado.
There were no comments from the public at this time.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
There were no additions or revisions made to the printed agenda.
5. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS
(CETAP) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming, said that collectively a significant
planning project will be undertaken in the 105-year history of Riverside County. This
will include the parallel development of three significant plans: 1) A Western Riverside
County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and 2) The development of
transportation corridors and plans through the CETAP process; and, 3) The update of
the County of Riverside General Plan. The reason why this issue is being brought
forward for Commission consideration is because there is a need to effectively address
the future growth of Riverside County. There are approximately a million more new
residents projected to be in Riverside County by the year 2020 and a determination
is needed to figure out how to accommodate the growth. He then reviewed the
proposed budget summary for this effort which follows:
Work Element
MSHCP $1,847,003
CETAP $4,984,653
GP $6,901,650
TOTAL $13,733,306
CONTINGENCY $1,000,000
CONTRACT AMOUNT $14,733,306
Last October, RCTC allocated $1.5 million over a period of three years of their 2%
Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funds to support the CETAP effort, In addition,
they are projecting that SCAG will participate in this effort with $1 .278 million of
SCAG Regional Planning Funds, a total of approximately $2.8 million revenues that
can be securely estimated as available for the CETAP effort. Staff feels that the gap
in funding need is transitory because they are actively pursuing other revenue sources.
Because of this funding shortfall staff is proposing that a cooperative agreement take
place between the County of Riverside and RCTC. The provisions of this cooperative
agreement would limit financial exposure of the Commission, establish the Commission
as the lead agency for the transportation or CETAP corridor work, provide a
mechanism by which the County and Commission can share those costs where the
County circulation element and the proposed CETAP corridors would intersect or
intertwine. During the first 30 days of the contract, they would be engaged in
developing a very detailed schedule of tasks, milestones and costs. The first six
month will be very important to the process because this is a stakeholder driven
process which means there will be a significant level of effort in terms of outreach
seeking participation of the various stakeholders throughout the County. Within the
six-month period there will be a narrowing of the number of corridors that within the
six months will be proposed for further refinement and study. The current scope of
work with the consultant lists a requirement that one new corridor will be brought up
to tier one environment status. The tier one environment status gives the Commission
and the County the ability to protect the right -a -way for the corridor. Also included
in the scope of work are three existing corridors or variations of such that will be
brought up to project study report status. The project study report is the first step
that must be completed in order for the project to be programmed into the State
Transportation Improvement Program. There is a provision in the cooperative
agreement that Sverdrup has agreed to allow Bechtel, RCTC Project Development
Staff, to be the third party reviewer of any scope and associated costs that would
move forward for proposed projects. At the end of six months, the CETAP process will
again be reviewed for adequate funds available to complete the effort. If at that time
there are not adequate funds there will be several options available: 1) Completely only
those elements that funding is available for or 2) The County of Riverside may wish
to fund those areas that are not fully funded thus changing the lead agency status.
Staff believes that the provisions included in the cooperative agreement are
reasonable. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the agreement and
recommend that the County enter into a contract with Sverdrup to begin the
integrated planning process. There is also one administrative requirement that the
County approve the contract subject to successful completion of a pre -award audit by
Sverdrup.
Commissioner Don Yokaitis asked that since the CETAP effort is primarily focusing on
the Western portion of the County has anything been contemplated that would
address the needs of the Coachella Valley.
Commissioner Tom Mullen replied that the update of the County General Plan
contemplates a countywide plan. With regards to the corridor planning effort, there
have been some discussions with Corky Larson, Executive Director Coachella Valley
Association of Governments, regarding a North -South Corridor connecting from the
Mexican Border easterly along the desert bypass. This is a long range thought that
is not included in the CETAP effort and is still in the discussion stages. That bypass
will be critically important for transportation throughout the basin to mitigate the
impact of the trucks crossing the Mexican border and entering the Northern states.
CVAG has traditionally brought forth planning efforts for these types of projects and
it is premature to move forward with this.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, explained that the 2% planning money from which $1 .5
million was drawn from comes from a larger allocation over the six years that was
divided according to the formula that the Commission enacted last year. Funding has
been set aside for the Coachella Valley if they choose to mount a similar effort. There
has been no diversion of funds that would have otherwise been made available for the
Coachella Valley.
Commissioner Gregory Pettis expressed his hope that there would be effective
outreach done by the County of Riverside in the Coachella Valley for the general plan
update. He added that there are some very significant general plan issues that need
to be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Dick Kelly advocated the need to have a subcommittee that would
discuss issues related to the Coachella Valley and act as a pipeline for information on
transportation issues because not all of the members of the Commission sit on the
CVAG Executive Committee.
M/S/C (Wilson/Lowe) that the Commission: 1) Approve the Cooperative
Agreement between the Commission and the County of Riverside for the
CETAP project; and 2) Recommend that the County of Riverside enter into a
contract with Sverdrup, subject to completion of a pre -award audit, to begin
the Riverside County Integrated Planning process (including CETAP).
6. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Eric Haley reported that the groundbreaking ceremony in Mecca for the last portion of
Highway 86 was held on April 23rd and commented that it was it was a very
auspicious kickoff.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. The next
meeting of the Riverside.County Transportation Commission will be held on May 12`h
in Hemet at the Hemet Neighborhood Center, 305 E. Devonshire Avenue, Stage Room,
Hemet.
Respectfully submitted,
Naty Kopenhaver'
Clerk of the Board
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
NAME
�= l< VA-fri "kin
Geri' ecroeE7DNviol? S
' 1,,,,47
"3 -J
4044 Al
gt< c G
RSZcIr
?'"
Oran 5C�
Signing is not required
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
1:45 P.M.
SIGN -IN SHEET
AGENCY
/��
I � //19 k rr
Ca.►+yon Zca e
1f✓�i/�N 4.!1-2r S
7.2
C7r- r o%- / Lr is 044
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
6.9 zi71/
LP`= eti.- c
Z 44-7z9S
7l r -Z art,//
676 ecy l 9_?- e 9ser
47-r-/ e0->j4-' 4-&4:-//- - 411/ — 2-Z V
f=--
/`' Ill
�1 / r
C r
Ot 7`12.cc/
di f if or �7 �IQ
0A-i-1L¢ ci/o j
_7
Clci 14-ratz s
4/1
5 � -;/7
"16.-( - )z 5
///3 500 e l
(760)3,9 Y-350Z
763- R33
(
383 -�io5r
?SS =-/D/D
1(760)398- er// %
1--icy-32./.D&I
17 Z Z. -,3 ia2.4.
13f33 6a3g
I /77
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
a,/L c.21&---- ---€..12/L6` yo --q Z/ z / 6 5 7- 7 o 7/
) 42v ( i aft6.06 r i 67‘43it,,, ..45-7ie_
. _ k7a,X S 142.) 3'* s $ZC,o / Fl co) 32.'5 .820"1
Nti `I,; .4.,DUoi3E: Co oc-1--di= �t-\Ps Lug °I 5-5--/ &3-C / 5 s---3 -93�;3,
Signing is not required
or= (57 -/ G 3 9s�
/
/
/
/
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1999
1:45 P.M.
PLEASE SIGN IN
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE
COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE
COMMISSION
NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
27 - 72-((- /
Signing is not required
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 12, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Resolution No. 99-04, Requiring Local Agencies Seeking Caltrans
Under SB 45 Regional Transportation Planning Agencies are responsible for
programming improvement projects funded through the State Transportation
Improvement Program/Regional Improvement Program (STIP/RIP). We are also vested
with monitoring the amount and timing of all fund allocation requests. However, once
RCTC programs a local agency project in the STIP, the local agency is responsible for
submitting requests for funding allocations directly to Caltrans.
In order to assure that all funds are allocated in a timely manner and projects are
moving forward, close coordination between RCTC and the local agencies is essential.
Caltrans' Procedures for Administering Local Grant Projects notes that a RTPA's
governing board can adopt a resolution requiring the local agency to obtain the
RTPA's approval for STIP funding allocations prior to submittal to Caltrans. We are
recommending that this be required so that we can meet our responsibility for
monitoring the STIP projects.
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission recommend approval of Resolution No. 99-04 requiring local
agencies seeking STIP funding allocations to obtain prior Commission concurrence.
0 6 J �i
RESOLUTION NO. 99-04
RESOLUTION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING STIP FUNDING ALLOCATION
TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION CONCURRENCE
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") is
charged with operating and administering the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) to set priorities for and to aid local public agencies in constructing local
transportation projects;
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 45 (1997) ("SB 45") amended the programming
and funding mechanisms associated with the STIP;
WHEREAS, Caltrans recently adopted final Procedures for Administering
Local Grant Projects ("Procedures') associated with SB 45 which will soon be
incorporated into Caltrans' Local Assistance Program Guidelines and its Local
Assistance Procedures Manual;
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission
("Commission") is the responsible regional transportation planning agency charged
with aiding Caltrans' administration of local grant projects in Riverside County for
proposed local agency rail/transit and highway projects;
WHEREAS, the Commission has responsibility for initially approving
proposed local agency transportation projects seeking to be programmed into the STIP
and for approving STIP funding for those projects;
WHEREAS, under the Procedures, local agencies have the responsibility
to submit Requests for Funding Allocations ("RFA's") directly to Caltrans for projects
already adopted into the STIP; •
WHEREAS, Caltrans may ordinarily fund RFA's from local agencies in
Riverside County without the formal concurrence of the Commission;
WHEREAS, the Procedures require responsible regional transportation
planning agencies such as the Commission to monitor the amount and timing of all
RFA's and provide that an individual responsible regional transportation planning
agency may pass a resolution requiring its approval before a local agency may submit
an RFA to Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to pass such a resolution so as to
require local agencies in Riverside County to obtain approval from the Commission
000002
prior to submitting RFA's to Caltrans for local transportation projects already
programmed into the STIP;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission as follows:
Section 1. All public agencies in Riverside County with local
transportation projects adopted into the STIP who intend to submit an RFA to Caltrans
must first obtain the written concurrence of the Commission.
Section 2. Written evidence of the Commission's prior concurrence with
the RFA shall be submitted directly to Caltrans with the RFA. No RFA application
submitted to Caltrans by a local agency in Riverside County shall be complete without
such written concurrence.
Section 3. The Board of Directors of the Commission hereby delegates
responsibility for considering and issuing RFA concurrences to the Commission's
Executive Director, or to his or her designee.
Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 1999.
Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
0,)0003
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
May 12, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey
At its March 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to develop and issue
a Request for Proposal (Attachment A) for consultant services to perform an evaluation
survey of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Programs. The Programs known as
Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride provides
multiple incentive and education services to support both employers and commuters
in Western Riverside County. The Commission's success in serving commuters and
employers within Riverside County continues to be replicated in adjoining San
Bernardino County. The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has
contracted with the Commission since 1993 to provide a sister Commuter Assistance
Program for its residents. SANBAG has expressed a desire to have its Commuter
Assistance Programs evaluated and will pay its portion of the costs. The RFP was
mailed March 17,1999, to 12 firms who have expertise in conducting evaluation
surveys. The firms had 3 + weeks to prepare and submit proposals which were due
on April 9, 1999.
Two proposals were received; one from Strategic Consulting and Research ($29,934);
the other from Applied Management & Planning Group ($29,995). A rating panel
comprised of Commissioner Bob Buster, Commissioner William Kleindienst, Paul
Blackwelder, Tanya Love, Stephanie Wiggins (all RCTC staff) and Zai Abu Bakar,
SANBAG staff, was convened to interview and evaluate the RFP's. Based on Strategic
Consulting and Research's (SCR) experience with transportation related surveys,
demonstrated understanding of the objectives and time line of the evaluation survey'
and quote of a firm fixed price, the panel selected SCR as the most responsive firm to
the RFP.
The Commission's standard consultant contract format was included in the RFP. No
exceptions were noted to its provisions by SCR. Legal Counsel is in the process of
preparing the contract for execution based on Committee approval.
000004
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
RCTC: $17,961; SANBAG: $11,973 TOTAL: $29,934
Source of Funds
RCTC: Measure A; SANBAG: Measure M
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programed
FY98/99
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission authorize staff to: 1) approve award of contract to Strategic
Consulting & Research for an amount not to exceed $17,961 from the FY 98/99
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Budget to perform a study pursuant to the
proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of Advantage Rideshare Local,
Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride Programs; (Note: As part of this study,
SANBAG's Option Rideshare In County and Out of County Programs will also be
evaluated at SANBAG's expense); and 2) execute the contract, pursuant to Legal
Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission.
900005
ATTACIDIENT A
- 7s
r
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
SURVEY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
RCTC's Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway
Programs
Club Ride Program
SMIBAG's Option Rideshare In County and Out of
County Programs
1*`
March 17, 1999
000006
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Request for Proposal 1
Background 1
History of Previous Program Evaluation Survey 2
Contact Person 2
Schedule 2
Addenda Clarifications 3
Proposal Submission Requirements 3
Proposal Evaluation and Selection 3
Cost and Price Proposal 3
Proposal Content and Organization 4
Budget and Payment Schedule 5
Agreement for Consulting Services (Model Contract) 5
Methodology/Scope of Work 5
-0000'0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE A
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is soliciting proposals to
study and report on the effectiveness of the incentives provided to employers an.d
commuters who participated in the Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Commuter
Incentive Program, and the Club Ride Program.
An additional component of this evaluation will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the
San Bernardino Associated Governments' Commuter Assistance Program which is
managed by RCTC.
BACKGROUND:
The Riverside County Transportation is seeking assistance in the evaluation of
incentives offered to reduce vehicle trips at peak commuter travel periods through
three western Riverside County programs and two San Bernardino County programs.
In 1988, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a '/2 cent sales tax for
transportation, by a 79% majority. RCTC is charged with implementing the Measure's
Transportation Improvement Plan, part of which included assistance to commuters
under the specialized transportation category. Under its Commuter Assistance
Program, aimed at educating commuters about the importance of their individual roles
in affecting clean air and traffic congestion, are the Advantage Rideshare Local and
Freeway Commuter Incentives Programs. These programs provide up to $2.00 per day
for three months for each day a qualified participant carpools, vanpools, walks,
bicycles, uses public bus or commuter rail, or telecommutes.
The purpose of the programs, are to motivate western Riverside County commuters
who currently drive alone to and from work to use other modes of transportation. In
order to participate, both the commuter and his/her employer must be willing to enroll
in a program. The commuter must meet eligibility criteria as set by the individual
programs and his/her employer must be willing to actively market, monitor and track
the commuter's participation.
Incentives offered are not intended to replace an employer's existing investment in
their trip reduction program. They are designed to work in partnership with an
employer's trip reduction program to further motivate commuters to sample
ridesharing.
1
000008
The Club Ride Program is a rewards program for western Riverside County residents
who have been ridesharing to work at least one day per week for the past six months.
Members receive unlimited discounts on merchandise and services at over 160
merchants throughout western Riverside County.
The two Commuter Assistance Programs for San Bernardino County are modeled after
RCTC's programs. These two programs known as Option Rideshare in County and
Option Rideshare Out of County also provide up to $2.00 per day to encourage the
solo commuter to leave their car at home and begin ridesharing.
HISTORY OF PREVIOUS PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY:
In FY 94/95, an effectiveness study was completed on RCTC's Commuter Assistance
Program. The study looked at 1) the length of time an incentive participant continued
to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the incentive was
in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of days per week the
participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what factors caused the
participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any, participants and employers
suggest; 6) the reasons employers chose and/or chose not to participant in the
programs; 7) the impact the programs have had on an employer's trip reduction plan;
and 8) a rating of the performance of the consultant program staff managing the
Commuter Assistance Program.
For reference, a copy of the telephone survey for both the commuter survey and
employer survey are included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. It is intended that
these survey questions will be the starting point for FY98/99's evaluation survey.
CONTACT PERSON:
Prospective proposers shall direct any questions regarding this request for proposal to
Tanya Love, Program Manager, (909) 787-7141 .
SCHEDULE
March 17, 1999
March 30, 1999
April 9, 1999
April 16, 1999
May 12, 1999
May 19, 1999
June 28, 1999
July 14, 1999
RFP Issued
Addenda Clarifications (if any) ,
Proposals Due to the Commission (by 4 P.M.)
Interview of Finalists (Optional)
Commission selects consultant
Notice to proceed issued and work
commences
Presentation of evaluation results at RCTC
Committee Meeting
Presentation of evaluation results at RCTC
Commission Meeting
2
-000009
ADDENDA CLARIFICATIONS
Any RCTC changes to this RFP will be made by written addendum. No verbal
modification will be binding. Questions or comments regarding this RFP must be in
writing and must be received no later than 12:00 noon, Tuesday, March 30, 1999.
Correspondence is to be addressed to Tanya Love, 3560 University Avenue, Suite
100, Riverside, CA 92507. Responses to questions will be communicated in writing
to all recipients of this RFP, and will be postmarked no later than Thursday, April 1,
1999. Inquiries received after the March 30, deadline will not be accepted and will be'
returned to sender.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Proposers must submit ten (10) copies of the proposal, sealed, and clearly marked
"Proposal for Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation", Riverside County
Transportation Commission" on or before April 9, 1999, at 4:00 P.M. The envelope
must also be marked clearly with the proposer's name, address, telephone number,
and contact person's name.
The Commission will not accept proposals submitted after the designated time or date.
Postmarks will not be accepted. Late proposals will be returned unopened.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION
A selection review panel will evaluate the proposals and determine the necessity for
oral interviews. The Commission reserves the right to select a consultant based solely
on the written proposals and not convene oral interviews. However, please keep in
mind that there will be a very short time period between proposal evaluations and the
decision for interviews. Please keep Friday, April 16, 1999, open in case you are
called to interview.
The evaluation criteria that will be used in the selection process are as follows:
1) Qualifications of the firm (20 points)
2) Staffing and Project Organization (20 points)
3) Work Plan (25 points)
4) Cost and Price (15 points)
5) Presentation (20 points)
COST AND PRICE PROPOSAL
The consultant shall complete and submit as part of the proposal a budget that details
costs to successfully complete the project. RCTC and SANBAG's maximum budget
for all work to be performed by the consultant, as described in the
"Methodology/Scope of Work" section is $30,000. However, consultants are urged
to price their offers competitively and not to use the budget as a target price.
000010
3
PROPOSAL CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
1 . Transmittal Letter
The transmittal letter should include the name, title, address, phone and fax
numbers, and original signature of an individual with authority to negotiate on
behalf of and to contractually bind the proposer.
2. Table of Contents
3. Ability to Perform Work
In this section, the Proposer should establish the ability of the consultant to
satisfactorily perform the required work (i.e. demonstrated competence in the
services to be provided, staffing capability, work load and record of meeting
schedules on similar projects; strength and stability as a business concern and
supportive client references representative of similar project work). Letters of
recommendation from previous clients are strongly encouraged.
Provide a brief profile of the firm, including the types of services offered, the
year founded, form of organization, number, size and location of offices.
Identify subcontractors, if any, by company name, address, contact person,
telephone number and project function.
4. Project Management
Identify and establish the qualifications of the proposed project staff in terms
of education, experience and professional credentials; organizational chart as it
relates to this project; and the adequacy of labor resources as evidenced by the
proposed distribution of. labor hours.
Furnish brief resumes for key personnel. Resumes must feature experience
most directly relevant to the work proposed for key personnel. Include a
statement that indicates key personnel will be available for the duration of the
project, and that no person designated as "key" to the project shall be removed
or replaced without the prior written concurrence of RCTC.
5. Staffing
The proposal must describe the qualifications and experience of each
professional who will participate in the project. If a firm is submitting, the firm
must include a resume for each member of the project team. A Project Manager
must be designated, and an organizational chart showing the manager and all
project staff must be included.
4
000011
6. Consultant Qualifications and Reference
The proposal must describe the nature and outcome of projects previously
conducted by the consultant which are related to the work described within this
RFP. Descriptions should include a client contact name, address, phone
number, a description of the type of work performed, approximate date on
which work was completed, and professional staff who performed on the
project.
7. Cost Proposal
In addition to a technical proposal, the prospective contractor shall prepare a
detailed cost proposal for the work to be performed. The cost proposal shall
itemize all items that will be charged to the Commission including travel
expenses that will be involved in the project and included in the bid amount.
Costs shall be segregated to show staff hours, rates and classifications, and
administrative overhead.
BUDGET AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The consultant will be paid based on work actually performed. A copy ofall invoices
for payment should include record of work completed to date and all associated
expenses.
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES (MODEL):
Please see Attachment 3 for a copy of RCTC's Model Agreement for Consulting
Services. This document explains the terms and conditions required for the
person/firm awarded this contract.
METHODOLOGY/SCOPE OF WORK:
The firm/person selected must have the ability to undertake all the tasks related to
research, data collection and analysis, evaluate cost effectiveness, report preparation
and presentation. Upon written notice to proceed with the work, RCTC will provide
guidance throughout the phases of work. Each phase and task must be approved by
RCTC prior to continuation of project:
Phase 1 : Initiate project study and collect/review 'background
documentation.
Timelines: Week 1
Deliverable: A brief written progress report (10 copies) by the end
of Week 1 describing a thorough knowledge of all five programs.
5
000012
Phase 2: Survey Preparation
Task 2.1: Interview RCTC and SANBAG to determine desired
survey findings, potential questions and survey design for both
individual and employer surveys.
Task 2.2: Develop a format for recording information to be
collected, including survey questions.
Task 2.3: Develop a statistically valid sampling process from
individual participants and ETCs for the five Commuter Assistance
Programs. Total number of employers and commuters participating
in the programs will be provided to the successful bidder.
Deliverables: A written progress report (10 copies) by the end of
Week 2, including a sample of individual participant and employer
survey forms.
Timelines: Week 2
Phase 3: Survey Execution
Task 3.1: Undertake telephone interviews with approved list of
participants enrolled in the five Commuter Assistance Programs.
RCTC/SANBAG will secure advance permission from employers for
consultant to contact employers and commuter participants.
Consultant will be provided with a list of employers and
commuters by name, address and telephone numbers (office
numbers for employers and home numbers for commuters).
Information can be provided in either digital or hard copy format.
The survey should specifically determine the travel modes of
participants before enrolling with the programs. For example,
what modes they used and for how long.
The survey should specifically determine the travel modes of the
participants after incentives of the programs ran out.
The survey should determine what role the incentives had in
moving the participant into the program; if they started a new
mode of travel coming into the program; and if they remained in
the same mode of travel since their ridesharing pattern was
established through participation in the incentive program.
Questions used in FY 94/95 will be the starting point for FY
6
mom
98/99's evaluation. Additional questions for the commuters and
employers will be discussed during Weeks 1 and 2.
Timelines: 3.1 Week 3.
Deliverables: A written progress report (10 copies) by the end of
week 3.
Phase 4: Analyze and interpret survey results and prepare draft and final
report:
Task 4.1: Prepare draft report which interprets survey findings for
review by RCTC/SANBAG.
Task 4.2: Prepare final report of the study based on comments
provided.
Task 4.3: Evaluate cost effectiveness evaluation currently used by
RCTC and recommend modifications as may be required.
Task 4.4: Prepare executive summary and present results to
RCTC.
Timelines: 4.1: Weeks 4
4.2 through 4.4: Weeks 5
Deliverable: A final report (10 copies) by end of week 5.
7
000014
ATTACHMENT 1
000015
RCTC Incentives Effectiveness Study
COMMUTER SURVEY
(WHEN RESPONDENT IS ON THE LINE)
My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, the (Freeway/
Local Commuter Incentive Program). The Commission is conducting this study to
evaluate the effectiveness of this program. Your opinions are very important and your
answers will be kept confidential. The survey will take about 8 minutes.
1 OK to proceed (CONTINUE TO QA)
2 Call back - date: time: ph:
3 Could not reach respondent — call again— ph:
4 Could not reach respondent — do not call again
5 Could not recall program
6 Refused
QA. PUNCH IN START-UP PROGRAM, BASED ON DATABASE:
1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working
outside Riverside County) .
2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working within
Riverside County)
QB. PUNCH IN YEAR OF S1GN-UP, BASED ON YEAR OF PAYMENT IN
DATABASE:
1 1991
2 1992
3 1993
4 1994
QC. PUNCH IN MODE IN WHICH PARTICIPANT SIGNED -UP, BASED ON
DATABASE:
1 Carpool
2 Vanpool
3 Buspool
4 Metrolink
5 Public Bus
6 Walking
7 Bicycling
000016
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95
�,oci\
1
Applied Management & Planning Group
QD. PUNCH IN INCENTIVE TYPE, BASED ON DATABASE:
1 Unocal Autoscript coupons
2 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates
3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program
only)
4 Moreno Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program
for 1992-93 only)
5 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates
6 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools)
7 TrainBuck$
8 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company
9 Bus passes purchased from Riverside Transit Agency (Local Commuter
Incentive Program for 1991-92 only)
BEGIN SURVEY:
Q1. According to our records, you signed up for the 3-month (Freeway/Local
Commuter Incentive Program, based on QA), the rideshare start-up incentive
program for Riverside County residents who work (outside/within) Riverside
County. Is that correct?: (DO NOT READ)
1 Yes (SKIP TO Q2)
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q2)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q2)
Q1a. What program did you enroll in?
1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working
outside Riverside County)
2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program (for residents working within
Riverside County)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q2. And you signed up in (Year of sign-up, based on QB). Is that correct? (DO
NOT READ)
1 Yes (SKIP TO Q3)
2 No
,9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q3)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q3)
000017
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95
2
Applied Management & Planning Group
Q2a. In what year did you sign up?
1 1991
2 1992
3 1993
4 1994
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q3. And the mode you signed up for was (mode, based on QC). Is that correct?
(DO NOT READ)
1 Yes (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q3-A)
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT
AFTER Q3-A)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q3-A)
Q3-A. What mode did you sign up in?
1 Carpool
2 Vanpool
3 Buspool
4 Metrolink
5 Public Bus
6 Walking
7 Bicycling
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
IF MODE WAS "CARPOOL" on Q3-A, GO TO Q3a. IF MODE WAS "VANPOOL" on
Q3-A, GO TO Q3b. IF MODE WAS "BUSPOOL" on Q3 A, GO TO Q3c.
OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q4.
QB
IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE TO Q3-A, FOLLOWING THESE DIRECTIONS: IF
MODE WAS "CARPOOL" on QC, GO TO 03a. IF MODE WAS "VANPOOL" on QC,
GO TO Q3b. IF MODE WAS "BUSPOOL" on QC, GO TO Q3c. OTHERWISE SKIP
TO Q4.
000018
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95
3 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q3a. (CARPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a carpool or join an existing carpool? (SKIP
TO Q4)
1 Started a new carpool
2 Joined an existing carpool
3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q3b. (VANPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a vanpool or join an existing vanpool? (SKIP
TO Q4)
1 Started a new vanpool
2 Joined an existing vanpool
3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q3c. (BUSPOOLS ONLY) Did you start a buspool or join an existing buspool? (SKIP
TO Q4)
1 Started a new buspool
2 Joined an existing buspool
3 Did not participate (SKIP TO Q4)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q4. And the incentive you received was (incentive, based on QD). Is that correct?
(DO NOT READ)
1 Yes (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q4a)
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT
AFTER Q4a)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT AFTER Q4a)
000019
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95
4 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q4a. What incentive did you receive?
01 Unocal Autoscript coupons
02 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates
03 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program
only)
04 Moreno Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program
for 1992-93 only)
05 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates
06 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools)
07 TrainBuck$
08 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company
09 Bus passes purchased from Riverside Transit Agency (Local Commuter
Incentive Program for 1991-92 only)
98 Don't Know/Can't Recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO. NOT READ)
IF RESPONDENT CANNOT RECALL IN Q1, Q2, Q3, AND Q4, OR IF RESPONDENT
CANNOT RECALL IN 01a, 02a, 03-A, AND Q4a, THANK RESPONDENT AND
TERMINATE INTERVIEW. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE.
Q5. While you were participating in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program,
how many times per week, on the average, were you using (if there was a
response in Q3-A, use response; otherwise use mode of transportation,
verified in QC) for your home -to -work commute? (DO NOT READ)
1 Less than once per week
2 Once per week
3 Twice per week
4 Three times per week
5 Four times per week
6 Five or more times per week
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
0000 0
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/5'5
5 Applied Management & Planning Group
06. What mode of transportation were you using to get to work immediately before
you enrolled in RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ
OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
01 Driving alone/Riding a motorcycle
02 Taking the Public Bus (SKIP TO Q7b)
03 Bicycling (SKIP TO Q7b)
04 Walking (SKIP TO Q7b)
05 ' Carpooling (SKIP TO Q7b)
06 Vanpooling (SKIP TO Q7b)
07 Buspooling (SKIP TO Q7b)
08 Taking the Commuter Rail (Metrolink) (SKIP TO Q7b)
09 Other (specify) (SKIP TO Q7b)
98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q7a. How effective was receiving (if there was a response to Q4a, use response;
otherwise use program incentive, based on QD) in encouraging you to stop
driving alone and start ridesharing? Would you say the incentive was... (READ
LIST) (SKIP TO Q8)
1 Very Effective
2 Effective
3 Somewhat Effective
4 Not Effective at all
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
000021
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 6
Applied Management & Planning Group
Q7b. Were you aware that the 3-month Commuter Incentive Program was designed
and limited to individuals who were currently driving alone to and from work?
(DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Yes
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q8. I will read you a list of 7 types of incentives. Please listen to the entire list first,,
then tell me which incentive you would most prefer to receive. (READ LIST.
ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Unocal Autoscript coupons
2 Galferia at Tyler gift certificates
3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates
4 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates
5 VPSI Commuterbucks (for vanpools)
6 TrainBuck$ (for Metrolink/Commuter Rail)
7 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company
8 None of the above (DO NOT READ)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q8a. Is there another type of incentive you would prefer to receive? (DO NOT READ
OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 No
2 Yes — I prefer to receive cash
3 Other
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q9. Did you rideshare each month for the 3-month program period?
1 Yes
2 No (SKIP TO Q19)
3 Currently in the middle of the 3-month period (SKIP TO Q21)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
00002?
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95
7 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q10. Did you continue to rideshare immediately after you stopped receiving the
incentive from RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program?
1 Yes (SKIP TO Q12)
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q11. If no, why not? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE.)
(SKIP TO Q13)
1 I wasn't receiving start-up program incentives anymore
2 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded
3 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.)
4 I had other commitments to attend to before/after work
5 I had errands to run during my work day
6 I don't like to rideshare
7 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q12. How long did you continue to rideshare after you stopped receiving the 3-month
incentive?
CONVERT TO WEEKS
Q13. Are you currently using (if there was a response to Q3-A, use response;
otherwise, use mode of transportation, based on QC) to commute to work?
1 Yes (SKIP TO Q15)
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q 14. What mode of travel are you currently using? (READ LIST, IF NECESSARY)
01 Driving alone/Riding a motorcycle (SKIP TO Q19)
02 Carpooling
03 Vanpooling
04 Buspooling
05 Taking the Commuter Rail (Metrolink)
06 Taking the Public Bus
07 Bicycling
08 Walking
09. Other (specify)
0 0 0 023 98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 8
Applied Management & Planning Group
PROGRAM COMPLETERS WHO HAVE CONTINUED TO RIDESHARE
Q15. On average, how many days per week are you currently ridesharing to work?
1 Less than once per week
2 Once per week
3 Twice per week
4 Three times per week
5 Four times per week
6 Five or more times per week
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
(COMPARE ANSWER IN Q15 TO ANSWER IN Q5 — ASK EITHER Q16 OR Q17 OR
Q18. THEN SKIP TO Q21) •
Q 16. What is the primary reason you reduced the number of days you rideshare to
work after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR
PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21)
01 Too inconvenient
02 My work schedule/location changed
03 People I rideshare with cut the number of days they rideshare
04 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded
05 Too expensive
06 I don't like the incentives employer offers/I don't receive an incentive
anymore
07 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.)
08 I now have other commitments to attend to before/after work
09 I have errands to run during my work day
10 Other (specify)
98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
000024
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95
9 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q 17. What is the primary reason you increased the number of days you rideshare to
work after you stopped receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR
PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21)
01 I enjoy ridesharing
02 I became more environmentally aware/responsible
03 More convenient for me to rideshare more
04 I like the incentives my employer offers/My employer offered -more
incentives to ridesharing
05 I no longer have a car/parking available to me
06 My work schedule/location changed
07 Too expensive not to rideshare
08 People I rideshare with increased the number of days they rideshare
09 Traffic on the freeway(s) is worse
10 Other (specify)
98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q18. What is the primary reason you have continued to rideshare after you stopped
receiving the 3-month incentive? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE
RESPONSE ONLY) (SKIP TO Q21)
01 I enjoy ridesharing
02 I became more environmentally aware/responsible
03 More convenient for me to continue to rideshare
04 I like the incentives my employer offers/My employer offered more
incentives to ridesharing
05 I no longer have a car/parking available to me
06 My work schedule/location changed
07 Too expensive not to rideshare
08 Traffic on the freeway(s) is worse
09 People I rideshare with kept the same number of days they rideshare
10 Other (specify)
98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
GO TO Q21
000025
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 10 Applied Management & Planning Group
STOPPED RIDESHARING (EXCLUDES PARTICIPANTS SINCE NOV., 1994)
Q19. Was dissatisfaction with RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program the
primary factor that influenced you to stop ridesharing? (DO NOT READ OR
PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Yes.
2 No (SKIP TO Q20)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q 19a. If yes, why?
Q20. What other factor influenced you to stop ridesharing? (DO NOT READ OR
PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
01 Too inconvenient
02 I don't like ridesharing
03 My work schedule/work location changed
04 People I rideshare with stopped ridesharing
05 Lost my carpool partner(s)/vanpool disbanded
06 Too expensive
07 I don't receive an incentive anymore/I don't like the incentives my
employer is offering
08 Other options became available (got a car, got free parking, etc.)
09 I now have other commitments to attend to before/after work
10 I need to run errands during my work day
11 Nothing
12 Other (specify)
98 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
99 Refused (DO NOT READ)
00`002.6
Draft Commuter Survey - 2✓7/95 11 Applied Management & Planning Group
000027
ALL PARTICIPANTS
Q21. Without a start-up incentive program like RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive
Program, would you have started ridesharing on your own? (DO NOT READ OR
PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Yes
2 No
3 Maybe
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q22. Please tell me whether you receive(d) any of the following incentives from your
employer at the same time you were participating in RCTC's 3-month
Commuter Incentive Program. (ROTATE STEMS "a" THROUGH "g"; READ
STEM "h" LAST; READ LIST)
a Additional monetary incentive/subsidy
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
b Flexible work hours
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
c Guaranteed Ride Home Program
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
d Rideshare raffles/drawings
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
e Compensatory Day Off program
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive •
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT. READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95 12 Applied Management & Planning Group
f Designated parking for ridesharing
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
g Free/subsidized parking
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
h Other incentive (described by respondent)
1 Received from employer
2 Did not receive
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q23. Without RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, would the incentives
offered by your employer have been enough by themselves to influence you to
rideshare? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Yes
2 No
3 I didn't receive any incentives from my employer
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q24. Was/is three months a sufficient period of time for you to experience other
commute alternatives to driving alone and to continue ridesharing, even after you
stop(ped) receiving the incentives? Would you say the 3-month period was/is...
(READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 More than enough time
2 About the right amount of time
3 Not enough time
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
000028
Draft Commuter Survey - 2/7/95
13 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q25. How long was/is the period between the time you submitted your claim forms
and the time you received your incentive for RCTC's 3-month Commuter
Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE
ONLY.)
1 Less than two weeks
2 2 weeks
3 3-4 weeks
4 5-6 weeks
5 More than 6 weeks
6 Have not received payment yet
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q26. Please rate your satisfaction with the payment tumaround time period. Would
you say that you are... (READ LIST)
1 Very Satisfied
2 Satisfied
3 Dissatisfied
4 Very Dissatisfied
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q27. Would you still have been motivated to participate in RCTC's 3-month Commuter
Incentive Program if you received your incentive in a lump -sum after 90 days
instead of receiving multiple payments? (DO NOT READ. ENTER ONE
RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Yes
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q28. As you know, RCTC's Commuter Incentive Program only pays you for days on
which you rideshare during a 3-month period. In your opinion, what is the
minimal dollar value per day of ridesharing within a limited time period that is
necessary to encourage someone who is currently driving alone to start
ridesharing?
000029
9999 = Don't Know
Draft Commuter Survey — 2/7/95
14 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q29. During the program, did you encounter any problems that could not be resolved?
1 No (SKIP TO Q30)
2 Yes
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q30)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q30)
Q29a. Please explain:
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Q30. I will read you .a list of age categories. Please stop me when I read the one that
is closest to your age. (READ LIST)
1 20-25
2 26-30
3 31-35
4 36-40
5 41-45
6 46-50
7 over 50
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q31. Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? (READ LIST. ENTER ONE
RESPONSE. ONLY.)
1 Caucasian
2 African -American
3 Hispanic/Latino
4 Asian
5 Pacific Islander
6 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
000030
Draft Commuter Survey 2✓7/95 15 Applied Management & Planning Group
Q32. Which of the following categories best describes your job classification? (READ
LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Executive
2 Professional
3 Technical
4 ClericaVSecretarial
5 Maintenance/Service
6 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q33. I will read you a list of income categories. Please stop me when I .read the one
that best describes your total annual household income before taxes. (READ
LIST)
1 Under $10,000
2 $10,000 - $20,000
3 $20,001 - $30,000
4 $30,001 - $40,000
5 $40,001 - $50,000
6 $50,001 - $75,000
7 $75,001 - $100,000
8 More than $100,000
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
That concludes our survey. Thank you very much for your time. TERMINATE CALL.
PUNCH IN GENDER:
1 Male
2 Female
000031
Draft Commuter Survey - 2✓7/95
16 Applied Management & Planning Group
ATTACHMENT 2
0-000.32
RCTC Incentives Effectiveness Study
ETC SURVEY
(WHEN RESPONDENT IS ON THE LINE)
My name is and I am calling on behalf of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program, the (Freeway/
Local Commuter Incentive Program), and the Club Ride Program. The Commission
is conducting this study to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. You should have
received a letter from the RCTC informing you of this study and requesting your
assistance. The questions on this survey focus on the administration of RCTC's
Commuter Assistance Program. I need to speak with the person who administers this
program. Are you that person?
1 Yes -- OK to proceed (PROCEED TO QA1)
2 Yes — Call back - date:
3 No
4 Don't know/Can't recall (TERMINATE CALL)
5 Refused (TERMINATE CALL)
time:
IF RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION IS "3", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING:
"Can you please give me the name of that person and the phone number to
contact that person?"
Name
Phone
IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE A NAME, THANK RESPONDENT AND
TERMINATE CALL; OTHERWISE, CALL PERSON INDICATED ABOVE TO SURVEY.
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95 1 Applied Management & P/anning-Grioup
"u� 00003-3
Your opinions are very important and your answers will be kept confidential. The
survey will take about 8 minutes.
QA1. PUNCH IN NATURE OF ORGANIZATION, BASED ON DATABASE:
01 Accounting & Finance
02 Airlines
03 Aerospace Industry
04 Airports
05 Cities
06 Colleges/Universities
07 Construction
08 Consultants
09 Counties
10 Federal.Government
11 Grocery
12 Hospital/Medical
13 Law Firms
14 Manufacturing
15 Public Utilities
16 Restaurants
17 Retail
18 Sales & Service
19 School Districts
20 Special Event Centers
21 State Offices
22 Temporary Services
23 TMA/TMO
24 TV & Motion Picture
25 NP (Not Provided)
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
2 Applied Management & Planning Group
000034
IF RESPONSE TO QA1 IS "25", PLEASE ASK QA2; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO QB1.
QA2. What is the nature of your organization? (ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.
READ LIST, IF NECESSARY)
01 Accounting & Finance
02 Airlines
03 Aerospace Industry
04 Airports
06 Cities
06 Colleges/Universities
07 Construction
08 Consultants
09 Counties
10 Federal Government
11 Grocery
12 Hospital/Medical
13 Law Firms
14 Manufacturing
15 Public Utilities
16 Restaurants
17 Retail
18 Sales & Service
19 School Districts
20 Special Event Centers
21 State Offices
22 Temporary Services
23 TMA/TMO
24 TV & Motion Picture
98 Don't know/Can't recall
99 Refused
QB1. PUNCH IN SIZE OF ORGANIZATION, BASED ON DATABASE:
1 Small (0 - 499 employees)
2 Medium (500 - 1,999 employees)
3 Large (2,000 and more employees)
4 (NP) Not Provided
IF RESPONSE TO QB1 IS "4", PLEASE ASK QB2; OTHERWISE SKIP TO QC1.
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
3 Applied Management & Planning -Group
000035
QB2. How many employees are located at your site? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT.
ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Small (0 - 499 employees)
2 Medium (500 - 1,999 employees)
3 Large (2,000 and more employees)
9 Don't know/Can't recall
0 Refused
QC1. PUNCH IN COMPANY ENROLLMENT YEAR, BASED ON FIRST PAYMENT
DATE IN DATABASE:
1 1991
2 1992
3 1993
4 1994
5 NP (Not Provided)
IF RESPONSE TO QC1 IS "5", PLEASE ASK QC2; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO QD.
QC2. What year did your site enroll in the RCTC Commuter Assistance Program?
(DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 1991
2 1992
3 1993
4 1994
9 Don't know/Can't recall
0 Refused
QD. PUNCH IN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM(S), BASED ON DATABASE
SOURCE/FILE (i.e. If the firm is listed under the Freeway Commuter
Incentive Program file, the Local Freeway Commuter Incentive Program file,
Club Ride file, Both Club Ride & Freeway file, or Both Club Ride & Local
file):
1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program only
2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program only
3 Club Ride only
4 Both Freeway Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride
5 Both Local Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
000036
4 Applied Management & Planning -Group
QE. How long have you been the ETC (Employee Transportation Coordinator) with
this firm? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.
ROUND UP, IF NECESSARY)
1 Less than six months
2 Six months
3 One year
4 Two years
5 Three years
6 Four years
7 More than four years
8 I am not the ETC for this firm
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
QF. How long have you been administering the (program based on QD) at this firm?
(DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY. ROUND UP,
IF NECESSARY.)
1 Less than six months
2 Six months
3 One year
4 Two years
5 Three years
6 Four years
7 More than four years
8 I do not administer the program
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
IF RESPONSE TO QF IS "8", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING:
"Can you please give me the name of that person and the phone number to
contact that person?"
Name
Phone
IF RESPONDENT REFUSES TO GIVE A NAME, THANK RESPONDENT AND
TERMINATE CALL; OTHERWISE, CALL PERSON INDICATED ABOVE TO SURVEY.
OTHERWISE, BEGIN' SURVEY.
BEGIN SURVEY:
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
5 Applied Management & Planning Group
000037
Q 1. According to our records, your firm is/was enrolled in the (program based on
QD). Is that correct? (DO NOT READ)
1 Yes (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AFTER Q1)
2 No (GO TO Q1a)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS
AFTER Q1)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AFTER Q1)
IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q2 THROUGH Q16, THEN SKIP TO Q21..
IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", SKIP TO Q17. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q2 AND
CONTINUE.
Q1a. What program(s) is/was your firm enrolled in? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT.
ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 3-month Freeway Commuter Incentive Program only,
2 3-month Local Commuter Incentive Program only
3 Club Ride only
4 Both Freeway Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride
5 Both Local Commuter Incentive Program and Club Ride
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
IF RESPONSE TO Q1a IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q2 THROUGH Q16, THEN SKIP TO
Q21. IF RESPONSE TO Q1a IS "3", SKIP TO Q17. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q2 AND
CONTINUE.
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
0000►38
6 Applied Management & Planning Group
FIRMS ENROLLED IN 3-MONTH FREEWAY/LOCAL COMMUTER INCENTIVE
PROGRAM
The following questions relate to RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive Program
implemented at your firm.
Q2. Which type of incentive does your firm offer currently as part of RCTC's 3-
month Commuter Incentive Program? (DO NOT READ. PROMPT IF
NECESSARY. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Unocal Autoscript coupons
2 Galleria at Tyler gift certificates
3 Hemet Valley mall gift certificates (Local Commuter Incentive Program
only)
4 Lucky Grocery Store gift certificates
5 VPSI Commuterbucks (vanpools)
6 TrainBuck$ for Metrolink
7 Check made payable to employer or vanpool leasing company
8 The firm doesn't offer program anymore (SKIP TO Q4)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q3. How effective do you think this type of incentive offered through RCTC's 3-
month Commuter Incentive Program was in encouraging qualified commuters to
rideshare? Would you say... (READ SCALE. ENTER ONE RESPONSE
ONLY.)
1 Very Effective
2 Effective
3 Somewhat Effective
4 Not Effective at all
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q4. As you know, RCTC's Commuter Incentive Program only pays employees for
days on which they rideshare during a 3-month period. In your experience, what
is the minimal dollar value per day of ridesharing within a limited time period
that is necessary to motivate your employees to start ridesharing?
999 = Don't Know
Q5. In your opinion, what percentage of your employees who participate in the
(Freeway/Local Commuter Incentive Program) continue to.rideshare after the
3-month incentive program is over?
999 = Don't Know
Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95
7 Applied Management &Planning Group
00.0039
Q6. What do you feel is the primary reason employees do not continue to rideshare
after they stopped receiving their incentive from the 3-month program? (DO
NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Ridesharing is too inconvenient for people
2 Ridesharing is too expensive
3 Employees don't like to rideshare
4 Employees aren't receiving the incentive from the RCTC Commuter
Assistance Program anymore
5 Employees don't like the incentives offered by our firm
6 Moved to another residence.
7 Changed employment/VVork location changed
8 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
010. Is three months a sufficient period of time for your employees to experience
other commute alternatives to driving alone and to continue ridesharing, even
after they stop receiving the incentives? Would you say the 3-month period is...
(READ LIST. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 More than enough time (SKIP TO Q12)
2 About the right amount of time (SKIP TO Q12)
3 Not enough time
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q12)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q12)
Q11. What length of time would you recommend?
CONVERT TO MONTHS
999 = Don't Know
Q12. What has been the average payment.turnaround time from the time you send a
payment request to RCTC to the time you receive payment? (DO NOT READ
OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Less than two weeks
2 Two weeks
3 Three weeks
4 Four weeks
5 Five weeks
6 Six weeks
7 More than six weeks
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q 13. Have you experienced any problems with payment turnaround time? (DO NOT
READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95
8 Applied Management & Planning Group
000040
1 Yes
2 No (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE 014)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Q 13a. What kind of problems did you encounter with the payment turnaround time?
(DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Time delay in payment turnaround
2 Other (specify) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT
BEFORE Q14)
3 Did not encounter any problems (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE
Q14)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT
BEFORE 014)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) -(SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q14)
Q 13b. Did the delay in payment turnaround occur between the months of August, 1994
and November, 1994?
1 Yes
2 No
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
IF ANSWER TO 013b IS "1", PLEASE SAY THE FOLLOWING:
"For your information, RCTC would like you to know that between the months of
August and. November, 1994, the RCTC Commuter Assistance Programs
underwent a management audit, resulting in a delay in payment turnaround. The
audit is now complete, andthe RCTC Commuter Assistance Program has
returned.to its regular payment schedule."
Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95
9 Applied Management &-Planning-Group
000041'
IF RESPONSE TO QF WAS "1", "2", OR "3", SKIP TO Q16; OTHERWISE,
CONTINUE.
Q14. In your opinion, what is/was the main factor contributing to your firm's continued
participation in the 3-month (Freeway/Local Commuter Incentive Program)?
(DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 High percentage of employees living in Riverside
2 Upper management requirements
3 Positive employee response
4 Helps increase employee ridesharing/Helps increase firm's AVR
5 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
016. Using a grading scale of A, B, C, D, or F, please grade RCTC's 3-month
Commuter Incentive Program in terms of the following: (READ LIST)
a Professional, ABCDF N/A
courteous staff
b Returning phone calls A BCDF N/A
in a timely manner
c Ability to clearly A BCDF N/A
communicate the
parameters of the program
d Accuracy in the amount A B C D F N/A
of incentive payments
received
e Overall rating of RCTC's
Commuter Incentive
Program Staff
A BCDF N/A
IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", SKIP TO Q21. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE.
Draft ETC Survey — 3/9/95
10 Applied Management & Planning Group
000042
FIRMS ENROLLED IN CLUB RIDE
The following questions relate to the Club Ride Program implemented at your firm.
Q17. How effective is the Club Ride Program in maintaining long-term ridesharing at
your firm? Would you say... (READ SCALE. ENTER ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
1 Very Effective
2 Effective
3 Somewhat Effective
4 Not Effective at all
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT
BEFORE Q19)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO THE PROMPT BEFORE Q19)
018. In what way was the Club Ride Program (RESPONSE FROM Q17)?
IF RESPONSE TO QF WAS "1", "2", OR "3", SKIP TO Q20; OTHERWISE,
CONTINUE.
Q19. In your opinion, what is the main factor contributing to your firm's continued
participation in the Club Ride Program? (DO NOT READ OR PROMPT. ENTER
ONE RESPONSE ONLY.)
2 Positive employee response
3 Helps maintain firm's AVR
4 Other (specify)
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Draft ETC Survey - 3/9/95
11 Applied Management & Planning-Gmup
000043
Q20. Using a grading scale of A, B, C, D, and F, please grade the Club Ride Program
in terms of the following: (READ LIST)
a Professional, A B CD F N/A
courteous staff
b Returning phone calls A B CDF N/A
in a timely manner
c Ability to clearly A B C D F NIA
communicate the
parameters of the program
d Overall rating of the
Club Ride Program Staff
ALL FIRMS
A B C D F N/A
Q21. I will read you a list of resources available to you from the RCTC. Please tell me
to what extent you have found each of these tools useful. Please use the scale:
Very Useful, Useful, Somewhat Useful, or Not Useful at All. If you were not
aware that these were available, please let me know. (READ LIST. REPEAT
OPTIONS WHEN NECESSARY.)
a (ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1", "2", "4", OR "5") RCTC 3-
month Commuter Incentive Program Marketing Implementation Packet
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
(ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", "4", OR "5") Club Ride
Program Marketing Implementation Packet
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95
12 Applied Management &planning Group
000044
c Sample newsletter articles
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
d Prepared sample Rule 1501 Incentive page
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
e Zip -code listing to identify eligible employees
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
f (ASK ONLY IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3", "4", OR "5") Club Ride
Program posters
1 Very Useful
2 Useful
3 Somewhat Useful
4 Not Useful at All
5 Was not aware of resource
9 Don't know/Can't recall (DO NOT READ)
0 Refused (DO NOT READ)
023. What percentage of your firm's employees reside in Riverside?
999 = Don't Know
IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "1" OR "2", ASK Q24a. IF RESPONSE TO QD IS "3",
SKIP TO Q24b. OTHERWISE, ASK BOTH Q24a AND Q24b.
Draft ETC Survey .- 3/9/95
13 Applied Management &Planning Group
000'045
Q24a. Do you have any other comments about RCTC's 3-month Commuter Incentive
Program?
Q24b. Do you have any other comments about the Club Ride Program?
That concludes our survey. Thank you very much for your time.
Draft ETC Survey -- 3/9/95
14 Applied Management & Planning Group
000046
ATTACHMENT 3
-000047
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
[MODEL]
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of
, 199. by and between the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," and
hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is a professional consultant,
experienced in providing
services to public clients and familiar with the plans of ROTC;
and
WHEREAS, RCTC desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain
consulting services as set forth herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth
herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION I
SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT; TERM
1. General Scope of Services. CONSULTANT shall provide
professional consulting services and advice on various issues
affecting the decisions of RCTC regarding
and on other programs and matters affecting ROTC, hereinafter
referred to as "Services." The Services are described in Exhibit
A
2. The term of this Agreement shall be from
to , unless earlier terminated as provided
herein.
SECTION II
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONSULTANT
1. Control and Payment of Subordinates. RCTC retains
CONSULTANT on an independent contractor basis and CONSULTANT is
not an employee of RCTC. Any additional personnel performing the
Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT shall at
all times be under CONSULTANT's exclusive direction and control.
1
aft gA0IDA2o 162
- 000043
shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to
initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or
recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. CONSULTANT shall
also comply with all relevant provisions of RCTC's Minority
Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other
related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
SECTION VI
SUBCONTRACTING
1. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the
work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated
herein, without prior written approval of ROTC.
2. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making
them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the
Agreement on the date first hereinabove written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By.
Jack F. van Haaster, Chair
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL:
By.
Eric Haley, Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
By:
Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best, Best & Krieger
Counsel to the Riverside
County Transportation
Commission
By:
(Title)
By:
(Title)
awt6g40/ 2oi62Q 0 J 0 4 9
8
CONSULTANT shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due
such personnel in connection with their performance of Services
under this Agreement and as required by law. CONSULTANT shall be
responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such
additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social
security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance,
and workers'. compensation insurance.
2. Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work
prepared by CONSULTANT shall be subject to the approval of ROTC.
3. Substitution of Key Personnel. CONSULTANT has
represented to ROTC that certain key personnel will perform and
coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more
of such personnel become unavailable, CONSULTANT may substitute
other personnel.of at least equal competence upon written
approval of RCTC. In the event that RCTC and CONSULTANT cannot
agree as to the substitution of key personnel, RCTC shall be
entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to
provisions of Section V of this Agreement. The key personnel for
performance of this Agreement are as follows:
4. Coordination of Services. CONSULTANT agrees to work
closely with RCTC staff in the performance of Services and shall
be available to RCTC's staff, consultants and other staff at all
reasonable times.
5. Standard of Care; Licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform
the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent
manner and shall serve and maintain in force any and all
licenses, permits or other approvals necessary for it to carry
out the services.
6. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall obtain and shall require
its subconsultants to obtain insurance of the types and in the
amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC.
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance.
CONSULTANT shall maintain occurrence version commercial general
liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single
limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If such
insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply
separately to this Agreement or be no less than two times the
occurrence limit. Such insurance shall:
1> Name RCTC, its officials, officers, employees
and agents as insureds with respect to performance of Services.
Such insured status shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of its protection to the above -listed insureds.
nmatimA20162
VUJ0J0
2) Be primary with respect to any insurance or
self insurance programs covering RCTC, its officials, officers,
employees, agents, and consultants.
3) Contain standard separation of insureds
provisions.
B. Business Automobile Liability Insurance.
CONSULTANT shall maintain business automobile liability insurance
or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage
for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles.
C. Workers' Compensation Insurance. CONSULTANT shall
maintain workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits
and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than
$1,000,000 per accident at any times during the term of this
Agreement during which CONSULTANT may retain employees.
D. Certificates/Insurer Rating/Cancellation Notice.
1) CONSULTANT shall, prior to commencement of
the Services, furnish to RCTC properly executed certificates of
insurance, and certified copies of endorsements, and policies if
requested by RCTC, which shall clearly evidence all insurance
required in this Section. CONSULTANT shall not allow such
insurance to be canceled or allowed to expire except on 30 days'
prior to written notice to RCTC.
2) CONSULTANT shall maintain such insurance from
the time the Services commence until the Services are completed,
except as may be otherwise required by this Section.
3) CONSULTANT shall place insurance with
insurers licensed to do business in California.
4) CONSULTANT shall replace certificates,
policies and endorsements for any insurance expiring prior to
completion of the Services.
7. Schedule of Services. CONSULTANT shall perform
the Services in accordance with the Schedule of Services set
forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto. In order to facilitate
CONSULTANT's conformance with the Schedule, RCTC shall respond to
CONSULTANT's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of
RCTC, CONSULTANT shall provide a more detailed schedule of
anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services.
3
HS�lAQm\2D 162
000051
SECTION III
FEES AND PAYMENTS
1. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall receive compensation,
including reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this
Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto.
The total compensation shall not exceed ($
) without written approval of RCTC's Executive Director.
Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth
in this Agreement.
2. Payment of Compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit to
RCTC a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours
of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe
the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial
commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing
periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review
the statement and pay all approved charges thereon.
3. Reimbursement for Expenses. CONSULTANT shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by ROTC.
4. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this
Agreement, ROTC may request that CONSULTANT perform Extra Work.
As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined
by RCTC to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project,
but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be
necessary at the execution of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written
authorization from RCTC's Executive Director.
SECTION IV
ACCOUNTING RECORDS
CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with
respect to costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records
shall be clearly identifiable. CONSULTANT shall allow a
representative of RCTC during normal business hours to examine,
audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any
other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT
shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings,
and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3)
years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
4
&elY1&4011)\20162
-00005�
SECTION V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Termination of Agreement.
A. RCTC may, by written notice to CONSULTANT,
terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to CONSULTANT of such
termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least
seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination.
Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated only for those
services which have been adequately rendered to RCTC, and
CONSULTANT shall be entitled to no further compensation.
CONSULTANT may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole
or in part as provided in paragraph A of this section, RCTC may
procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine
appropriate, services similar to those terminated.
C. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in
paragraph A of this section, RCTC may require CONSULTANT to
provide all finished or unfinished documents, data, programming
source code, reports, etc., prepared by CONSULTANT in connection
with the performance of Services under this Agreement.
2. Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required
under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at
the following address, or at such other address as the respective
parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
CONSULTANT: [Address]
RCTC:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California -92501
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered
or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S.
Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at
its applicable address.
3. Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
5
9601117800)120162
003053
A. Property of ROTC. All materials and data.
including data .on magnetic media, prepared by CONSULTANT under
this Agreement shall become the property of RCTC upon the
completion of the term of this Agreement, except that CONSULTANT
shall have the right to retain copies of all such documents and
data for its records. RCTC shall not be limited in any way in
their use of such data at any time, provided that any such use
not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at
RCTC's sole risk and provided that CONSULTANT shall be
indemnified against any damages resulting from such use,
including the release of this material to third parties for a use
not intended by this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT, either during
or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any
materials prepared in connection with this Project, it shall
first obtain the written approval of ROTC.
B. Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda,
specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions,
computer program data, input record data, written information,
and other materials described in subsection A either created by
or provided to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of
this Agreement shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT. Such
materials shall not, without the prior written consent of ROTC,
by used by CONSULTANT for any purposes other than the performance
of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any
person or entity not connected with the performance of the
Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to CONSULTANT which
is otherwise known to CONSULTANT or is generally known, or has
become known, to the related industry shall be deemed
confidential. CONSULTANT shall not use RCTC's name or insignia,
photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the
Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper,
television or radio production or other similar medium without
the prior written consent of RCTC.
4. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action
against the other party arising out of or in connection with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be
entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of suits.
5. Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify
and hold RCTC, its officials, officers, employees and agents free
and harmless from any and all liability from loss, damage, or
injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any
manner arising out of or incident to any negligent acts,
omissions or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT arising out of or
in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT,
including without limitation the payment of attorneys' fees.
Further, CONSULTANT shall defend at its own expense, including
attorneys' fees, RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, and
-6-
98 tigg401b\20162
000054
agents in any legal action based upon such negligent acts,
omissions or willful misconduct.
6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire
Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter.
hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or
agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing
signed by both parties.
7. ' Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the
laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside
County.
8. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and
every provision of this Agreement.
9. RCTC's Right to Employ Other Consultants. ROTC
reserves right to employ other consultants in connection with
this Project.
10. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be
binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall
not be assigned by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent
of RCTC .
11. Prohibited Interests.
A. Solicitation. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants
that it has not employed nor retained any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee working solely for CONSULTANT, to
solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants
that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or
person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
CONSULTANT, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift
or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the
award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of
this warranty, ROTC shall have the right to rescind this
Agreement without liability.
B. Conflict of Interest. For the term of this
Agreement, no member, officer or employee of ROTC, during the
term of his or her service with ROTC, shall have any direct
interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated
material benefit arising therefrom.
12. Equal Opportunity Employment.
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity
employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination
-7-
fi60011WW W62
000055
ATTACHMENT b
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Measure A - Commuter
Assistance Program Evaluation Study
SCE
000056
sc�
April 8, 1999
Tanya Love
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
Dear Ms. Love:
Strategic Consulting & Research appreciates the opportunity to submit our proposal for
Measure A — Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Survey. The enclosed technical
and cost proposals are submitted by:
Redhill Group, Inc. dba
Strategic Consulting & Research
18008 Skypark Circle, Suite 145
Irvine, CA 92614
Mark McCourt, President
Phone: (949)752-5900
Fax: (949)752-2900
Mr. McCourt will be the contact person during the period of proposal evaluation. The
title, address and telephone number are as indicated as above. The enclosed technical and
cost proposals shall remain valid for a period of 120 days from the date of submittal.
We trust the enclosed submittal is responsive to your request for research services. We
look forward to the opportunity to respond to any questions, which you may have
regarding our proposal.
Sincerely,
/T f'`7;74-
Mark McCourt
President
00t)057
Strategic Consulting & Research / 1050 171D Street NW / Suite 600 / Washington DC 20036 / (202) 496-1288 / Fax (202) 835-9009
West Coast Office / 18008 Skypark Circle / Suite 145 / Irvine / CA 92614 / (714) 752-5900 / Fax (714) 752-2900
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Measure A — Commuter
Assistance Program Evaluation Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Ability to Perform Work 2
• Project Management 12
• Staffing
12
• Consultant Qualifications and References 21
• Cost Proposal
• Work Plan
21
22
000058
SCR .Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 4,96-1298
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is conducting a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of promotional programs designed to reduce vehicle trips in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties during peak commuter travel periods. Riverside County, through the
Advantage Rideshare Local and Freeway Commuter Incentives Programs, offers incentives of up
to $2.00 per day for three months to qualified participants who carpool, vanpool, walk, bicycle,
commute by public bus or rail, or telecommute. Riverside County also offers the Club Ride
Program, which provides discounts on merchandise and services at over 160 merchants in
western Riverside County, to residents who have been ridesharing to work at least one day per
week for the past six months. San Bernardino County offers two similar programs, Option
Rideshare In -County and Option Rideshare Out -County which also pay up to $2.00 per day to
promote ridesharing.
In order to effectively evaluate the impact of these programs, RCTC is seeking the services of a
consultant that has a thorough understanding of TDM (Transportation Demand Management),
ridesharing program evaluation, and promotion testing. The consultant must also have extensive
experience designing and fielding transportation research.
Strategic Consulting and Research (SCR) has developed a project team that is uniquely qualified
to successfully perform this project for RCTC. We offer a combination of technical research
skills, transportation research experience, and in-house capabilities that are unmatched by other
firms. The SCR team also includes Peter Valk of TMS who offers extensive TDM experience,
and Eric Schreffler of ESTC who provides a strong background in program evaluation.
Specific skills, resources, and expertise that the SCR team brings to this project include:
♦ Extensive transportation research experience including projects performed for several
metropolitan planning organizations, major universities, and transportation providers.
♦ Experience conducting evaluations of rideshare programs for both the Southern
California Association of Governments and the San Diego Association of Governments.
♦ A highly competent project team of transportation and research experts with strong local
knowledge.
♦ Experience conducting promotion evaluation research in the private sector for clients
such as Airtouch Cellular, Fantastic Sams and Avery -Dennison.
♦ A state-of-the-art calling center enabling all surveying to be performed in-house by
supervisors and surveyors experienced in transportation research for maximum quality
control. This level of experience consistently provides more accurate and meaningful
data than firms that farm out the data collection to field and tab houses with no
transportation expertise.
000059
SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (714) 752-5900 • Washington, D.C. • (202) 496-1288
f& L o c a l , n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e w i t h T D M p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g a n d e v a l u a t i o n .
f& E x p e r t i s e i n s a m p l i n g d e s i g n t o e n s u r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d a c t i o n a b l e d a t a .
f& A c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e w o r d i n g t o e n s u r e s u r v e y
r e s u l t s w i l l b e c o n s i s t e n t , a c t i o n a b l e , a n d u n b i a s e d , r e s u l t i n g i n i m p r o v e d d a t a v a l i d i t y .
f& P r o v e n e x p e r i e n c e s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t i n g m a n y l a r g e s a m p l e s i z e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s u r v e y s
a n d d e l i v e r i n g e x c e l l e n t q u a l i t y d a t a o n s c h e d u l e .
f& A p r o p r i e t a r y C o m p u t e r A s s i s t e d T e l e p h o n e I n t e r v i e w i n g ( C A T I ) s y s t e m t h a t p r o v i d e s
c o m p l e t e f l e x i b i l i t y i n s u r v e y d e s i g n a n d e x e c u t i o n i n c l u d i n g s e a m l e s s c o m p l e x s k i p p i n g
p a t t e r n s , "