HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 10, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00115
RCTC Meeting Agenda
November 10, 1999
Page 2
7B. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Page 14
Overview
Presented are the costs and schedule status of contracts executed by the
Commission ending September 30, 1999. It is recommended that the
Commission receive and file this item.
7C. STATE & FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 18
Overview
Presented are updates on activities of various state and legislative bills.
This item is to receive and file the information presented.
7D. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY CONTRACTS Page 32
Overview
It is requested that the Commission: 1) Approve Agreement No. 00-047
with SANBAG for reimbursement of shared legislative services, stipulating
the administrative function of SANBAG in carrying out the Shared State
Advocacy contract; and, 2) Approve Agreement No. 00-051 with
SANBAG for reimbursement of shared legislative services, stipulating the
administrative function of SANBAG in carrying out the Shared Federal
Advocacy contract.
7E. AGREEMENT BETWEEN RCTC/SANBAG FOR SHARED DIRECTOR OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS POSITION Page 45
O vervie w
Approval of the agreement will continue the agreement between RCTC
and SanBAG to share the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs position. It is recommended that the Commission approve
Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 99-01 1 between RCTC and SANBAG
for shared Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position,
to extend the contract for one year with a two-year option, and increase!_
the contract amount by $5,000-for a total contract amount of $61,000-
RCTC Meeting Agenda
November 10, 1999
Page 3
7F. AWARD OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND
GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES Page 49
Overview
This item is to: 1) Award a three-year consultant agreement to
Geographics, with two - one year extension options for communications
and graphic design services on an as needed, time and materials basis,
and 2) authorize the RCTC Chair to enter into a contract pursuant to legal
counsel review.
7G. RCTC CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS Page 65
Overview
The classification analysis is the first phase of a two-phase effort in
developing the classification plan of RCTC staff positions. This was
reviewed by the Executive Committee. The second phase, salary survey,
will be presented to the Commission in December.
7H. FY 1999/00 SECTION 5310 ALLOCATIONS Page 72
O vervie w
It is recommended to include the FY99/00 Section 5310 projects in the
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan.
71. FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY -
REQUEST FOR MEASURE A WESTERN COUNTY SPECIALIZED TRANSIT
CAPITAL MATCHING FUNDS Page 74
O vervie w
This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for the
Measure A Specialized Transit Program and a specific budget fbr Section
5310 matching funds has been identified in the RCTC program budget.
There are adequate funds available and staff recommends approval of this
request.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
November 10, 1999
Page 4
7J. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2028 FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A METROLINK STATION IN RIVERSIDE
NEAR VAN BUREN BOULEVARD AND ROUTE 91 Page 76
Overview
This item is to award Contract No. RO-2028 for the Phase I Preliminary
Design of the Metrolink rail station at Van Buren Boulevard near Route 91
in Riverside to Pountney & Associates, Inc. for a base amount of
$221,900 with a contingency of up to $23,100, for a total amount not to
exceed $245,000.
7K. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2027 FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A METROLINK STATION IN DOWNTOWN
CORONA NEAR MAIN STREET AND ROUTE 91 Page 91
Overview
This item is to award Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson,
& Mendenhall (DMJM) for the Phase I Preliminary Design of the Metrolink
rail station in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91, for a
base amount of $217,909 with a contingency of $27,091 for a total
amount not to exceed $245,000.
7L. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND CANYON LAKE TRADE OF SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS Page 103
Overvie w
Approval of the agreement between the County of Riverside and City of
Canyon Lake to trade Surface Transportation Program funds for County
local Measure A funds is recommended.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
November 10, 1999
Page 5
7M. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST TO REPROGRAM CONGESTION
MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS ON STATE ROUTE 79
Page 106
Overview
This item is to approve the reallocation of Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality funds from a signal interconnect project on SR 79 South to
supplement funding on an approved signal interconnect project on SR 79
North.
8. PROPOSED COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REGIONAL CENTER
15 Minutes Page 109
O vervie w
At the September meeting, the Executive Director informed the Commission of
the County's plan to build a regional center. Staff has been working with the
County and Westgroup Designs, Inc, office space planner, to determine office
and meeting room needs of the Commission. County staff will be present at the
meeting to provide the latest information on design and estimated cost. It is
recommended that the Commission authorize staff with the Executive Committee
to continue to work with the County on office plans.
9. REVIEW OF RCTC's POLICY COMMITTEES 10 Minutes Page 111
O vervie w
SB 1851 provided expansion of the Commission to include a member from each
of the city in Riverside County and the Board of Supervisors with the District
Director of Caltrans District 8 as a non -voting member. In addition to the
expanded Board, two policy committees were established: Budget and
Implementation and Plans and Programs. The Commission deemed the
Committees as provisional committees and as such, will review and discuss
possible changes. This item is presented for the Commission to review, discuss
and/or take action.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
November 10, 1999
Page 6
10. STRATEGIC PLAN DIRECTION - PROGRAMMING OF 2000-2008 STIP
DISCRETIONARY REVENUES 15 Minutes Page 114
Overview
Based on the current STIP and Measure "A" revenue estimates and project scope
and cost estimates, it is recommended that the Commission direct staff to
program $58.1 million in STIP Discretionary Revenues for the period 2000-2008
for highway projects specifically identified in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan
approved by the voters in 1988.
11. FOUR CORNERS TRANSPORTATION STUDY PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
10 Minutes Page 118
Overview
This item is for the Commission to review and discuss the proposed
recommendations resulting from the Four Corners Transportation Study efforts
and consider taking action regarding the recommendations including approving,
receiving and filing, or disapproving the recommendations to provide policy
guidance to staff and Commissioners representing the Commission on the Four
Corners Committees. J.D. Douglas of PBQ&D will make a presentation.
12. COMMISSIONER(S) AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Overview
This item on the agenda provides the opportunity for Commissioners and the
Executive Director to report on activities, meetings or conferences attended and
to bring up issues as a result of those meetings.
13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
14. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
December 8, 1999 at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University
Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507.
ilD
4,
IyIE
O•f-
U'OiG
A1=14N
` .•?...
i::•�• �.
--cf•-4•/8 _ • •
l..
u
igwv
u
INDIO SENIOR CENTER
45222 Towne Street, Indio
Take Interstate 10 East.
At Jackson St. exit make a right.
Right on Civic Center.
Right on Towne St.
Senior Center located on your right hand side behind Indio City Hall.
Parking available on Towne St. and behind City Hail.
EMX HO
V.mftN '
RTOMf 1�
lf•LI►V/4N
•TA•. au
1111•11141
a..
' L.t •:.1'c1.iJ.i�
Via:
mi ITrllt
::+ILO. w:>
I N
D I 0
0:1.41M..e0.1S •I m:
1
I
3
men
to
e
1..4111/1-:01•410111
LirTAt11 1011 tlltl://.T
PrrIri», d,
�� ,
mirraliFgr m i
t fn..: nit
mmir..
r.
E
etach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF
COMMENTS: ✓ PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S)
AND SUBJECT(S)•
NAME: G/214-1-1 l DATE:
ADDRESS:
REPRESENTING:
BUSINESS
ADDRESS:
RCTC 7/99
TEL. NO:
TEL. NO:
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF )
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S)
AND SUBJECT(S):
NAME: ()///7% /-S/7///MT J(/ DATE: / /-
C Qr- -r-f TEL. NO: _ g- 7- i G 1,3
REPRESENTING: 6,h
BUSINESS
ADDRESS: TEL. NO:
ADDRESS:
RCTC 7/99
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S) ^ a
AND SUBJECT(S): 1
NAME: t111� L. L1�(L a
DATE: I (- O
ADDRESS: TEL. NO:
REPRESENTING: l"
BUSINESS
ADDRESS:
RCTC 7/99
TEL. NO:
P
PUBLIC
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
SUBJECT OF
AGENDA ITEM NO(S) /0
AND SUBJECT(S):
NAME: .30 a DATE: ///p /,1
TEL. NO7fo 3i,gey6i
P
ADDRESS: iff
S�iCOeed liG'C
REPRESENTING: firEarWF -%fi ft9 1 Cinv_sr:
, CA, gal v/
BUSINESS
ADDRESS;g2-420l TEL. NO:74 ,117.27,E
RCTC 7199 `L4/V/O ?Z ae/
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S) 1j
AND SUBJECT(S):
NAME:
/ U P-r--<pre--04-4---f
6 e v r k eni DATE:
o
ADDRESS: S 2 3 / y G461. TEL. NO: 5< -T_o
REPRESENTING: SVP, u c C Ccraryulcv-
BUSINESS
ADDRESS:
RCTC 7/99
TEL. NO:�
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S)
AND SUBJECT(S): Cf
Ccx.) u.c.1l,vvkin• J
NAME: Mi.e..,KAet. g.n-.vck
ADDRESS: 425 ^1, I sr
REPRESENTING:
DATE: ),/ a /` 9
TEL. NO: 9a-922-,iys'
BUSINESS0?
ADDRESS: grog)) c, rSi lain � L TEL. NO: 9z Z! v �
RCTC 7/99
Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board
PUBLIC SUBJECT OF
COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS:
AGENDA ITEM NO(S)
AND SUBJECT(S): / D
NAME: J �'��`� �P_ ‘s a N DATE://0/?8
I 'G°
ADDRESS: 6-4 -7 it D eRi TEL. NO: e `j 2- 6
REPRESENTING:
BUSINESS
ADDRESS:
RCTC 7/99
TEL. NO:
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
MINUTES
October 13, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201
University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. He informed the
Commissioners that members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors were attending
funeral services for Deputy Eric Thach.
At this time, John Standiford, recently hired as RCTC's Public Information Officer, was
introduced to the Commission. Prior to RCTC, John Standiford held the same position at
the Orange County Transportation Authority.
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Gene Bourbonnais
Chris Carlson-Buydos
John M. Chlebnik
Juan M. DeLara *
Frank Hall
William G. Kleindienst*
Al Landers
Jan Leja
Stan Lisiewicz
Kevin W. Pape*
Robin Reeser Lowe
Ron Roberts
Doug Sherman
Chris B. Silva
Jack van Haaster
Frank West
Donald F. Yokaitis
* Arrived after start of meeting
2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS
A roundtable self introductions followed.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bob Buster
Percy L. Byrd
Robert Crain
Alex Clifford
John Hunt
Dick Kelly
Tom Mullen
John J. Pena
Gregory S. Pettis
Andrea M. Puga
John F. Tavaglione
James A. Venable
Roy Wilson
Arnold San Miguel, SCAG, announced that: 1) SCAG's 3`d Annual Economic Conference
will be held at the Huntington Library in San Marino on Wednesday, November 17, 1999
where the UCLA Business Forecast will present California and U.S. economic outlook; and,
2) a meeting on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, to discuss proposed projects and how to
secure state and federal funds for the projects.
1
RCTC Minutes
October 13, 1999
Page 2
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 8, 1999
Commissioner Doug Sherman noted that he was in attendance at the last meeting.
M/S/C (Sherman/Silva) approve the minutes of the June 2, 1999, meeting as
amended.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS.
No additions or revisions were submitted.
6. 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).
M/S/C (Kleindienst/Landers) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the
exception of Agenda Items 6C, Possible Exchange of Funds with SCAG for the Maglev
Highspeed Rail Study.
6A. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM SELECTION CRITERIA
Approve the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Selection Criteria, as
presented.
6B. FY 1999-2000 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AND RESOLUTION
NO. 99-012, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS"
Approve the FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside
County as presented on the attached table and adopt Resolution No. 99-012.
6D. ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG
AND WRCOG
Approve the Local Transportation Fund allocations of $168,609 to the Coachella
Valley Association of Governments and $350,000 to the Western Riverside Council
of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as
identified in the attached work programs.
6E. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR PALO VERDE VALLEY
TRANSIT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF CORONA
Approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as
shown on the attached table.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 3
6F. HIGHWAY 111 ADVANCEMENT - PALM SPRINGS' REQUEST
In conjunction with CVAG, approve the City of Palm Springs' request to advance
the construction of Improvements at Gene Autry Trail and Highway 111 and
reimbursement from the Measure A Highway Program. This action shall not change
the previous action of the Commission to repay the loan from CVAG (to complete
Tier II of the Cathedral City Highway III Project) as the first priority of any available
Measure "A" Highway 111 funds. Furthermore, any interest charges to make this
money available to the City of Palm Springs will be paid by the City and will not be
funded from the Measure "A" Highway 111 Account.
6G. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS
(CETAP) - WORKING PAPER #1 OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE CORRIDORS #2
DRAFT CORRIDOR EVALUATION CRITERIA
Receive and file.
6H. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY
TRANSIT AGENCY
Approve the fiscal year 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde
Valley Transit Agency as submitted.
61. FY1990-2000 CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW
TRUCK AGREEMENTS WITH HAMNER TOWING AND PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE
Approve Amendment #3 to the Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement with
Hamner Towing, Inc. and Pepe's Towing Service, Inc. to continue service until June
30, 2000.
6J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Receive and file.
6K. REQUEST TO HIRE CONTRACT EMPLOYEE TO MARKET SB 836 KEYS TO THE
FUTURE VOLUNTARY RIDESHARE PROGRAM
Hire a contract employee to market the SB 836 Keys to the Future Voluntary
Rideshare Program. This contract will be for an 18 month period ending on or
around June 30, 2001 and will be entirely paid for from SB 836 funds. No
Measure "A" dollars will be used. The 18 month contract amount, including the
cost of benefits, will not exceed $1 14,480. Authorize the Executive Director to
direct Legal Counsel to develop the employment contract.
1
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 4
6L. COMMISSION SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION
Authorize the Deputy Executive Director to be added to the account as a primary
signature.
6M. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Receive and file.
6N. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS
Receive and file.
7. CETAP VISION PROCESS
Mel Placilla of Sverdrup, consultant for the Riverside County Integrated Plan, gave an
overview of the development process. A series of 11 meetings throughout the County
were held whereby they discussed the plan as it relates to transportation, land use and
habitat conservation to approximately 330 people. A poll was also taken and the results
were as follows: 1) 2/3 indicated moving forward in the right track; 2) about 2/3 indicated
a need to plan for growth; 3) about 1 1 % was concerned about growth; and, 4) the
remainder indicated to let it happen. The top two important issues in the County were
crime and education, although issues relating to sprawl and traffic were also rated very
high. As part of the integrated plan process, three advisory committees were set up: 1)
for CETAP; 2) for habitat conservation plan; and, 3) for County General Plan. CETAP has
been focusing on corridors in the western part of the County and will ultimately be dealing
with circulation elements for the entire county; linkage between the arterial system and the
corridors. Comments received from the outreach meetings include opportunity for transit,
highway access, and truck traffic congestion. The transportation plan is coordinated with
habitat conservation and land use planning. There are a number of advisory committee
members that serve on more than one advisory committee to provide interface between
the advisory committees.
Mel Placilla continued and said that as a result of the meetings held with the public,
strategic partners and advisory committees, twelve issues have been identified: 1)
Population growth; 2) Community and neighborhood structure; 3) Housing; 4)
Transportation; 5) Conservation; 6) Air quality; 7) Jobs and the economy; 8) Agricultural
lands; 9) Educational facilities; 10) How the plan is integrated; 1 1) Financial realities of the
plan; and, 12) Intergovernmental cooperation. He indicated coordination between the
cities and the County as well as CVAG and WRCOG. The 10th public meeting was
scheduled for tonight, with the last one scheduled next week. The draft of the visions
statements will be reviewed with the advisory committees and upon completion, will be
coordinated through the TAC's with WRCOG and CVAG and then presented to the County
Board of Supervisors and to RCTC. In the meantime, they will be contacting the cities to
schedule a presentation on the Plan before their respective City Council.
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 5
8. REQUESTS FOR REALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
AND THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst, explained that a total of $843,970 CMAQ funds are
available for reallocation. The funds are available through a cost reduction on a County
PM 10 project and unspent capital and operating funds from the RTA Trolley Demonstration
Project. The County and RTA have submitted requests for the available funds. The
County is requesting funds be reallocated to the next fundable project on the ISTEA
Unfunded List which is the County PM 10 project on Holland Road and RTA has requested
the funds for construction the CNG facility in the City of Hemet. The TAC and the Budget
and Implementation Committee recommended that the funds be reallocated to the Holland
Road project. The Commissions' past practice as been to reallocate available CMAQ funds
to the next project on the Unfunded Project list.
Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe stated that the Commission, at a previous meeting,
discussed RTA's application of CNG buses to this area. She indicated that she is not
arguing the merits of the project but she believes that RTA members have heard that diesel
is "clean". The Commission needs to make a decision for RTA to go towards CNG buses
or allow them to continue to order diesel.
Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that two policies are coming into collision with the
other. He joined RTA in that trip and is familiar with the discussion on clean diesel. From
his perspective to re -power old diesel engines with the newer diesel technology, there is
a net gain. There is an ongoing debate at the Air Resources Board and they are proposing
a new bus rule. The outline of the bus rule is to essentially use the approach that the auto
industry has which uses a broad fleet averaging and then hit higher and higher targets in
terms of clean fuel versus a 100% all or nothing requirements for buses to go to CNG or
electric. A workshop on this issue is being held later this month. The policy question for
the Commission is to whether to modify its position to hit an overall target in clean
averages or to stay constant with CNG. The Transit Association has come out with a
recent study that suggests that the industry average is the best and most rational cost
effective approach. Dick Cromwell of SunLine Transit Agency , joined by the Sacramento
Transit Authority, argued that any kind of modification of the position would be a back
slide. An approach to this is to do the best it can at convening advocates of the different
positions and bring the Commission into that environment or to track the ARB discussions
and try to relate to those. There is a need for detailed conversation amongst staff and
with the ARB as to how rapidly they are moving.
Commissioner Jan Leja stated that she understood that a committee will be formed and
appointments will be made to develop an alternative fuel strategic plan. As part of that
strategic plan for infrastructure, funding will also be discussed funding for the facility. She
then asked if there are other sources of funds available and, therefore, allow the use of
the CMAQ funds for the Holland Road project.
Eric Haley responded and said that there are additional funds that RTA could compete
T
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 6
with very effectively such as the Moyer Program at the State level. However, this
program, at this point, has been targeted for Interstate and regional truck routes .
Commissioner Will Kleindienst stated that as RCTC's representative to the Mobile Source
Review Committee (MSRC) and as that Committee's Chairman, the focus has always been
towards alternate fuel vehicles. The Carl Moyer Funds focus is towards diesel but there
are some limited funds available for transit fleet. He is more concerned with remaining
consistent with how we deal with the issue. The Commission have in fact expressed its
desire for RTA to move towards alternative fuel. He voted based on my believe that there
are funds available to assist. He added that the Clean Fuel Infrastructure Fund is an
eligible source of funding and encouraged RTA to apply for funds. At the MSRC, there
are programs that periodically allow transit fleets to request for infrastructure funding. For
unfortunate reasons of timing, and possibly fundamental misunderstanding of the grant
process, western county left about $250,000 on the table for infrastructure. I would want
all of our partners to take maximum advantage of what is available. One explanation that
it did not happen is because they applied for that funding in a pyramid of grant
anticipations, it was expected that funds from CMAQ to come to them which would then
build the base for the MSRC request. When that did not come through, they failed to
apply for the available money and it was reallocated to Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Commissioner Lowe indicated that perhaps RTA needs assistance. She understood of the
meeting scheduled in Orlando, however, being present for this item should have placed
priority importance and was dismayed that the General Manager is not present. This puts
Commissioner from the west against those in the eastern county because they have the
technology and has had the foresight and, apparently, the grant expertise. There is a need
for the Commission to have a discussion with RTA. There are Commissioners that serve
on both boards, but these issues need to be brought forward and not just in a
subcommittee. It needs to be on agenda in the very near future. If the RTA is not
applying for available funding, the Commissioners need to know why not.
In response to Commissioner Leja if appointments have been made to develop an
alternative fuel strategic plan and of time lines to apply for the funds, Eric Haley stated
that he will put together an agenda item focusing on all of the available funds. It would
be good at a Commission policy level to include individuals on the Committee that also
serve on SunLine and RTA, possibly three members each to work with the joint staff.
It was determined by Commissioners that RCTC take the lead on developing the alternative
fuel strategic plan.
Commissioner Kleindienst said that Carl Moyer will supply workshops on how to access
the Carl Moyer funds to anyone who requests them. However, he warned that funds are
on a first come, first served basis and there is never sufficient funding for all of the
requests.
T
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 7
M/S/C (Leja/Kleindienst) approve the reallocation of Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) funds in the amount of $843,907 to a County of Riverside PM10
Mitigation Project on Holland Road.
9. ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF STATE ROUTE 74 MEASURE "A" PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15
AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS AND AMEND CONTRACT RO 9954 WITH SC
ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, indicated that the Route 74 ad hoc
committee consisting of Commissioners Tom Mullen, Bob Buster, Al Landers, Kevin Pape
and Gene Bourbonnais met and reviewed the options to accelerate the Route 74 project.
Using a map, he pointed out the project area on Route 74 between, 1-15 and Th Street in
the City of Perris. The project is on the STIP and is scheduled to be done in 2004. The
Ad Hoc Committee unanimously supported assisting Caltrans with the signal installation
at Meadowbrook and to recommend that the Caltrans SHOPP projects combined with the
Measure "A" improvement project with in the limits of 1-15 and 17th Street on Route 74.
However, in order to do so, the Commission will be required to advance approximately $35
million for about a three-year period based on: 1) the existing $4.1 million authorized by
RCTC to buy up the Caltrans SHOPP projects be compatible with the Measure "A"
improvement projects and will be applied toward the delivery of the project; and, 2)
Caltrans is able to roll their currently identified SHOPP project funding in the combined
project. He informed the Commission regarding the environmental issues that need to be
resolved. Staff is working with Fish & Wildlife and they are making this the top priority
and is hopeful that these issues will be resolved in order to maintain the schedule.
Advancing the project would not effect any other major projects in the Measure "A"
program.
In response to Chairman van Haaster question how fast the project would be advanced
by taking this action, Paul Blackwelder responded by about 21/2 years. In addition,
throwaway costs would be avoided by accelerating the project.
Eric Haley informed the Commission of Governor Wilson's signing of AB 1012 which will
establish a Highway Account loan fund. The Commission could use this as a vehicle to
accelerate the project. Information from RCTC's financial advisors indicated that, through
their assessment, its cash flow or the loan fund can cover this project. It will be a
question of how quickly funds are needed for the construction schedule and which is
most advantageous. A meeting was held with the California Highway Patrol to increase
their patrol and visibility. After the Commission meeting, staff will draft a letter to the
CHP asking for their proposal for peak period additional enforcement on the Highway from
this point until construction is completed.
Commissioner Kevin Pape confirmed that the construction would start March 2001 and
Paul Blackwelder indicated that was correct under the current schedule unless it gets held
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 8
up under the environmental process.
Commissioner Al Landers stated that this project has been going on since 1998, since that
time there has been 45 deaths, 1,026 injuries and 1,131 total reported accidents. That
does not include anyone that died after leaving the scene. He was glad that it is finally
moving forward.
At this time, Chairman van Haaster called upon those wishing to speak on this item.
1. Garry Grant, Meadowbrook, spoke and said that the communities in that area are
irate in relationship to the actions that are occurring on this highway but they
appreciate the efforts being made by RCTC. The ability to borrow our own money
from the State is a wonderful thing but he has a no perception as to what the
highway will look like. He talked about band -aid fix to the snake conditions that
occurred in 1933. For this section of State Highway, he visualized a beautiful
straight-away with a center division, sidewalls, etc.
Eric Haley indicated that there is no reduction in the amount of planning or attention to this
road just because it is being accelerated. As Commissioner Landers has pointed out, this
project has been under review for a long time.
Commissioner Gene Bourbonnais stated that he is a member of the committee and reported
that there was a unanimous vote to proceed with the project in this direction. Canyon
Lakes strongly supports this action.
Commissioner Lowe commented that this is one of the corridors that was being reviewed
in the CETAP process as well and she is not questioning that this should be done if this
is going to solve the problem.
Eric Haley explained that CETAP assumes the Measure "A" program at the baseline,
although it has taken awhile, these improvements are seen as the baseline and the
improvements with new corridors are over and above that. By completing Route 74, there
is still the major North/South corridor challenge to be resolved. In the event that this
portion of 74 becomes a section of a larger corridor, it would have to be developed to
these standards.
Paul Blackwelder added that this project, when completed, will be a lot like the Route 79
project. Horizontal and vertical curves are designed to carry the speeds in that section.
It will be designed that if in the future there is a section that needs to be widened when
development occurs on both sides, it would be possible to do this. It would be designed
in such a way that it would not be a throwaway project. It is a solution to safety problems
in the short term future, but it is being designed so that as part of a longer term solution
it can be used.
1
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 9
Commissioner Pape stated that Lake Elsinore supports this project. The traffic problems
that exist in the area have been there for years. Having five lanes will be a benefit to all
of the people in that area and allow traffic to flow much more freely.
Commissioner Ron Roberts noted that prior to his retirement from the Highway Patrol,
Route 74 was and continues to be a big problem. There is always difficulty to provide
staffing for the route as the area is right on the dividing line between Riverside and
Temecula CHP. He suggested that in reviewing the agreement with CHP to look at doing
an overtime project as other areas have done, up to and during construction. He iterated
that it will be difficult to depend on the CHP to come up with the manpower without
paying for it as they are spread very thin right now with the continuing increase in
population in the County.
Eric Haley acknowledged the cooperation received from Caltrans regarding this project.
M/S/C (Bourbonnais/Pape-Landers) that the Commission:
1. Maintain the current standing Committee to provide oversight of this
important Measure "A" project. They will meet on an as -needed basis to
review technical issues, make key management decisions impacting project
delivery, and provide direction to RCTC staff.
2. Direct RCTC staff to assist Caltrans with the acquisition of needed right-of-
way for the signal at Meadowbrook on State Route 74. The right-of-way
acquisition will be coordinated with the Measure "A" improvement project
to minimize the impacts on the effected property owners. Note: Caltrans
has indicated that they will construct the project as soon as the right-of-way
has been obtained.
3. Authorize the Executive Director to make offers to purchase real property for
the State Route 74 projects. The offers shall be based on appraisals
prepared pursuant to applicable State and federal law.
4. Direct RCTC staff, in conjunction with Caltrans, to seek additional
"targeted" CHP enforcement of the portion of State Route 74 between 1-15
and the City of Perris. This additional focused enforcement shall continue
until the Measure "A" project is completed. Staff will bring back a proposal
for focused and target enforcement and funding options to provide this
additional CHP enforcement for the Commission's approval.
5. Direct RCTC staff to seek sponsorship of urgency legislation in the 2000
Legislature to double the traffic fines along the section of State Route 74
between 1-15 and the City of Perris.
6. Make every effort to consolidate the currently proposed Caltrans SHOPP
projects with the Measure "A" improvement project for this segment of
State Route 74 and accelerate delivery in order to provide safety
improvements at the earliest possible time, eliminate throw -a -way
construction costs; and minimize the construction impacts on property
owners, the motoring public, and utilities. Work with Caltrans to make the
existing Caltrans SHOPP funding available for the Measure "A" widening
project.
T
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 10
7. Commit that funding for delivery of the Measure "A" project be advanced
to allow the Measure "A" project to be delivered, as soon as right-of-way
and environmental clearances have been obtained, using the least costly
means of financing the project. Note: Various funding options exist and the
choice of the selected funding mechanism will be reviewed prior to selection
to assure that the most efficient means of funding this project is exercised.
8. Authorize the Executive Director to sign any required agreement(s) with
Caltrans to implement the above Commission directives subject to RCTC
Legal Counsel review.
9. SC Engineering's contract be amended to have their sub consultants perform
work that was previously identified as work to be performed by Caltrans.
The additional scope of work will be for two items. The first will be to
provide right-of-way engineering for the portion of State Route 74 between
Wasson Canyon Road and 7' Street in the City of Perris. This scope of
work is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $250,000. The second
scope change will be to provide the necessary environmental support for the
Environmental Reevaluation of the current environmental document. The
value of this scope change is estimated to be $61,000. The total value of
this amendment will be between $260,000 and $310,000. The existing
extra work that remains from the Commission actions to award the original
contract and Amendment #1 to the agreement will remain. No additional
extra work will be authorized with this amendment. The standard
amendment language will be used for this agreement subject to RCTC Legal
Counsel review.
10 ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
6C. POSSIBLE EXCHANGE OF FUNDS WITH SCAG FOR THE MAGLEV HIGHSPEED
RAIL STUDY
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs, explained that there has been a
change with respect to funding. SCAG has assisted in accessing $350,000 in
State discretionary planning funds through the Office of Planning and Research and
CalTrans. At that time, SCAG and Caltrans staff believed that there was no
requirement for a match. However, he was informed that a 20% match is
required, that 20% can be accommodated by in -kind staff support. Since County
staff and with respect to the CETAP project is supporting the project, he proposed
using the County in -kind staff support as the match.
Commissioner Kleindienst iterated that approval of the exchange of funds does not
change the Commission's neutral position as relates to the high speed rail
technology.
M/S/C (Reeser Lowe/Hall) to approve an administrative action to exchange
up to $700,000 of SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds,
on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 11
following conditions:
1) Require SCAG and Caltrans to provide the Commission approval of
the agreement which facilitates the access to FHWA Planning funds
to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer or
availability of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring
funds, retroactive to July 1, 1999. For SCAG to approve the
agreement and the acknowledgment to use in -kind County staff time
match supporting the integrated planning process.
2) Authorize staff to amend the Activity Program for the SB 45 2%
Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to facilitate this action.
3) This action is administrative and does not change the Commission's
neutral position on high speed rail technology.
11 COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Commissioner Ron Roberts informed the Commission that he, Commissioner Will
Kleindienst and RCTC staff attended the Rail -Volution Conference in Dallas. Dallas
seemed to have been caught up with light rail system and are working hard to
develop a light rail system. Their system goes half way between Dallas and Fort
Worth. They expect to complete it next year. It was an existing rail from Texas
Pacific that they purchased. The conference itself was mostly on transportation
corridors, transportation centers, clustering and how it works around transportation
centers. The conference ended on less than a good note when the last speaker,
an attorney for MTA bus drivers, made some negative comments about Metrolink
and other agencies.
Commissioner Kleindienst added that their service frequency every 10 minutes. As
a result of the attorney's comments, a number of participants left the room.
1. Eric Haley informed the Commissioners of: A) the breakfast meeting with Jose
Medina, Caltrans Director, on November 17', at the Mission Inn; B) the Governor
veto pf AB 1 155 which was the implementation arm count on by the Commission.
Regardless of this, the Commission will be ready for the November 2000 ballot if
that is where the Legislature moves to. The Governor's action of vetoing the state-
wide requirement to develop plans will throw many counties into confusion and it
will mean only one-half of the counties statewide will be prepared if SCA 3 moves
forward; C) 1-215/60/91 interchange project is moving rapidly. On October 26'
a public session will be held at UCR, and the public can review the drawings and
design concepts; and, D) being a part of the CETAP group for a 36 hour turn
around trip to Washington on October 27t' to meet with with Deputy Secretary of
Interior, David Hayes, and Deputy Secretary of DOT, Mark Downing, along with
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers counter parts to meet with a delegation from the
County. This is an extremely high level multi -agency meeting to oversee and
provide a federal point on CETAP.
T
RCTC Meeting Agenda
October 13, 1999
Page 12
2. Chairman Haaster informed the Commission that he and the Executive Director met
with the financial consultants in New York and it was a very successful trip.
12. ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 a.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, November 10, 1999,
at 9:30 a.m. at the Senior Center, 45222 Towne Street, Indio, California.
Respectfully submitted,
a,k.,_9/1
Naty Kopever
Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1999
930 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 AGENCY
jAelt-U � /14. Itto -
,_I'd L-ei
Chitcs lilll�
CI' e z:Lc o S
/.)dRe ID
C l a 147011 � c E_
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
C4 Li MEs4 (qo 5)79; g9 93 / - ai*V
t zi-7 z`7.5"/
jo? `z'/3 3006 /
73s �/9v /
c„, peA,LL.,
0 .IA..) r. m 1, A-- ( n
084,2—< / m����� 767 7G.,,bay - d?S
5 iiot)iCZ Oce 41--celA S 3Pi3 6 �3�
WIPlirsk Oct-
@Aot.
\62r ,r S� /
\e-coY).;", '� �n
eAnif? carCSLva, /
RLVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
oit,Sksa...9a-
Signing is not required
4AME
r-;
C
Auv
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 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
45cAf\,-0
4)-40/cicx fii),'.,v ex
i
ko./e62_ -3,J2 m o t
/fit,
e.
J,
AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
0 C %U 3i6 /127 , �Si0 7 7-
C__A1A-c„., /
c I Q ?/9
i I
tf> e e42 01z
P,
So (4 i 4.53e
GAL is
/E 77fr 1
� o rc va \lam. I
1_, / c /
atA6-
Cm/-Irerct-, s 314'3-yes l
SI / 4004-
9ai 786/ 3Sz‘ 3 25
c)d f' 9 31 VD
0A P.,c,,t4_,
,),1-// /27 ////17
1 MAT-404ND rz , 14141 INOWs 16"-qv
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAiliISAORTATION COMMISSION
Signing is not required
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1999
SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2)
IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND
SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION
NAME
AGENCY
C A
� y/ s )Q00� spy/a
Signing is not required
TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER
1 ‘A3-02J/ (52-7 J
=viz
949 vs6s.9,2s, 9,3)/ s�
N9) 9.l - 933) 9?1- on C 1
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Susan Van Note, Interim Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Investment Report for Quarter Ending September 30, 1999
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law
and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ending
September 30, 1999 is also attached for your review.
Attachments
Investment Portfolio Report
Period Ending September 30, 1999
OPERATING FUNDS
RATING PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED
MOODYS/S&P/FITCH DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS)
Bank of Amercia $5,122,230.13 AA1/AA-
Cash with County Treasurer $40,915,498.63 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAv-1+
Financial Investors Trust (FIT) $5,144,954.65 AAA/AAA
Highmark Money Market (US Treasury Ob Fund) $358,696.30 AAA/AAA
Agency/Treasury Securities:
Fed Nat'l Mtge Assoc (Callable) $2,000,000.00 AAA/AAA 03/09/99 03/08/02 5.88 $2,000,000.00 $1,977,160.00 ($22,840.00)
Fed Nat'l Mtge Assoc $1,632,790.00 AAA/AAA O6/16/99 12/13/99 5.17 $1,632,790.00 $1,656,956.90 $24,166.90
Fed Home Ln Mtg $1,994,600.00 AAA/AAA O6/14/99 06/15/O1 5.89 $1,994,600.00 $1,991,875.00 ($2,725.00)
Fed Home Ln Mtg $1,961,200.00 AAA/AAA 06/14/99 07/15/03 6.29 $1,961,200.00 $1,963,125.00 $1,925.00
Fed Home Ln Mtg $1,894,190.56 AAA/AAA O6/15/99 06/15/00 5.49 $1,894,190.56 $1,921,222.00 $27,031 44
Fed Home Ln Banks $2,551,896.18 AAA/AAA 09/16/99 10/08/99 5.20 $2,551,896.18 $2,557,017.60 $5,121 42
Fed Natl Mtg Assn Medium Term (Callable) $2,297,843.75 AAA/AAA 02/23/99 02/25/02 5.65 $2,297,843.75 $2,264,356.90 ($33,486.85)
Sub -Total $65,873,900.20 $14,332,520.49 $14,331,713.40 ($807.09)
FUNDS HELD IN TRUST
Cash with County:
Local Transportation Fund $10,877,632.10 AAA-MR1/AAAf-S1/AAAv-1+
First American Treasury $3,395,512.44 AAA/AAA
Sub -Total $14,273,144.54
COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE
Milestone Funds $8,343,156.83 AAA/AAA
First American Treasury $18,184,126.95 AAA/AAA
U.S. Treasury Notes $2,848,556.25 AAA/AAA
MBIA Investment Agreement $13,002,612.00 AAA/AAA
Sub -Total $42,378,452.03
TOTAL $122,525,496.77
SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE
Banks $5,122,230.13
Cash with County $51,793,130.73
Mutual Funds:
Financial Investors Trust $5,144,954.65
Highmark $358,696.30
First American Treasury $3,395,512.44
Milestone $8,343,156.83
Sub -Total Mutual Funds $17,242,320.22
Federal Agency Notes $14,332,520.49
U.S. Treasury Notes $21,032,683.20
Investment Agreements $13,002,612.00
TOTAL $122, 525, 496.77
1 to 3 Yrs.
10%$8,186,634
Less than 1 Yr.
2e%
$4,184,686
Portfolio Maturity
Over 3 Yrs.
2°%
$1,961,200
0 to 90 Days
86%
$108,192,977
Statement of Compliance
All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ending September 30,
1999 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on November 12,
1998.
Signed by �� ��� �� �_ ��j�S=
Chief Financial Officer
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund
Compliance Analysis and Investment Report
September 30,1999
PAUL McDONNELL
TREASURER/TAX
COLLECTOR
KENNETH C. KIRIN
ASSISTANT
TREASURER
DONALD R. KENT
CHIEF DEPUTY
TREASURER
(909) 955 - 3967
Treasurer's Commentary
"Waiting for Alan"
The capital markets remain volatile in the face of continued inflationary concerns and a potential Fed
rate hike. The October 5th Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting weighed heavily on the
markets during September as market participants searched for clues into the Fed's psychology.
Following the meeting, the FOMC announced its decision to leave interest rates unchanged and
indicated a shift from a neutral bias to a tightening bias. The short-term sector of the market, where
most of our investments are made, remained relatively stable with commercial paper rates increasing
approximately 4 basis points.
In terms of the portfolio, the gross yield has increased 5 basis points to 5.37% over August, while the
weighted average maturity fell slightly to 1.01 years. Balances are stable but are expected to trend
downward through November until we see tax receipts coming in the month of December. Structurally,
the most notable change to the portfolio was in the commercial paper sector, which as a percentage of
total assets, was reduced by approximately 2.25%. Other fluctuations among instruments were very
minor.
Looking forward, potential news affecting the markets would be the last two FOMC meetings for the
year, November 16th and December 21 st .
Paul McDonnell
Treasurer -Tax Collector
This report is available online (vwvw.co.riverside.ca.us/depts/treasure).
V1onth-End Book Value
vlonth-End Market Value*
'aper Gain or (Loss)
'ercent of Paper Gain or Loss
Field Based Upon Book Value
Weighted Average Maturity (Years)
affective Duration
Market value does not include accrued interest.
SEPTEMBER
1,282,427,120
1,275,518,114
-$6,909,006
-0.54%
5.37%
1.01
0.77
PORTFOLIO STATISTICS
AUGUST
1,264,234,373
$1,256,127,044
-$8,107,329
-0.65%
5.32%
1.04
0.81
JULY
1,288,119,686
$1.280,438,174
-$7,681,512
-0.60%
5.23%
1.04
0.81
JUNE
1,316,211,618
$1,310,344,484
-$5,867,134
-0.45%
5.14%
1.03
0.76
MAY APRIL
1,361,967,567 1,660,700,761
$1,357,284,938 1,658,194,276
-$4,682,629-$2,506,485
-0.34% -0.15%
5.03% 4.98%
0.93 0.76
0.66 0.49
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS RATED
AAA/MRI BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES
AAAf/S1 BY STANDARD AND POOR'S
AAA/VI+ BY FITCH IBCA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Pooled Investment Fund — Portfolio Characteristics
Maturity Market Value
30 Days or Less 482.934.009.35
30 - 90 Days 109,908,262.22
90 Days - 1 Year 104,486,458.39
1 - 2 Years 213,048,200.00
2 - 3 Years 365,141,184.50
Over 3 Years
Total: $1,275,518,114.46
Quality Market Value
U.S. Treasury 114,070,350.00
Federal Agency 566,446,755.83
AAA 123.800.000.00 •
A-1 and/or P-1 442,598,601.55
AA
A
N R 28,602,407.08
Total: $1,275,518,114.46
Sector Market Value
U.S. Treasury 114,070,350.00
Federal Agency 566,446,755.83
Cash Equiv. & MMF's 123,800,000.00
Commercial Paper 333,131,949.96
Medium Term Notes
Bankers Acceptances 109.466.651.59
Certificates of Deposit 18.000.000.00
Local Agency Obligations 10,602,407.08
Total:
$1,275,518,114.46
' Includes Repos -- Collateraltzed Time Deposits & BANs
Sector
Bankers
Acceptances -
Commercial Paper8.58°/
26.12%
Cash Equiv. &
MMF's
9.71 %
Certificates of Local Agency
Deposit — Obligations
1.41 % 0.83%
U.S. Treasury
8.94%
Federal Agency
44.41 %
RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO SIMULATION
Interest Rate Stress Analysis
Interest rate stress analysis is used to show the effect on
market value, given a dramatic change in interest rates. The
table to the right shows the change in market value for both an
instantaneous change in rates (takes place in one day) and a
change in rates that takes place over six months. Interest rates
are assumed to move up or down 300 basis points (bp) in 50
by increments. Next to the change in market value is the
gain/loss column for each scenario. The gain or loss is
calculated by subtracting acquisition cost from market value.
There are other factors, but the major difference in the two
scenarios is interest earned. If the change takes place over six
months there is an additional six months interest income, plus
interest on cash flows assumed to be reinvested at 5.67%. In
addition, the portfolio would be six months shorter.
Yield
Acquisition Change
Cost (bp)
$1,282,427 -300
$1,282,427 -250
$1,282,427 -200
$1,282,427 -150
$1,282,427 -100
$1,282,427 -50
I $1,282,427 0
$1,282,427 50
$1,282,427 100
$1,282,427 150
$1,282,427 200
$1,282,427 250
$1,282,427 300
Interest Rate Changes Take Place:
Instantaneous Over Six Months
Market Value Gain/Loss
Market Value
Gain/Loss
$1,291,912
$9,485
$1,311,525
$29,098
$1,290,113
$7,686
$1,313,031
$30,604
$1,288,427
$6,000
$1,314,305
$31,878
$1,286,604
$4,177
$1,315,431
$33,004
$1,284,388
$1,961
$1,316,204
$33,777
$1,280,497
-$1,930
$1,315,817
$33,390
$1,275,518
46,909
$1,314,433
$32,006
$1,270,054
-$12,373
$1,312,157
$29,730
$1,264,392
-$18,035
$1,309,264
$26,837
$1,258,710
-$23,717
$1,306,516
$24,089
$1,253,064
-$29,363
$1,303,915
$21,488
$1,247,471
-$34,956
$1,301,239
$18,812
$1,241,910
-$40,517
$1,298,508
$16,081
(FOOD) omitted
This analysis demonstrates that sharp moves of interest rates either up or down by 3%will not have a significant effect on this portfolio.
COMPLIANCE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE & COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Government Code County Investment Policy
Actual
J. Govt. Investment Category Maximum Authorized % Ouality Maximum Authorized % 'Duality Riverside
S Maturity lArun S&P/Moodv's Maturity 1 imit S&P/Moody's/Fitch Portfolio %
601(a)
LOCAL AGY BONDS
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
15% / $150mm
A/A2JA
0.83%
601(b)
U. S. TREASURY
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
100%
N/A
8.94%
601(d)
CALIFORNIA LOCAL
AGENCY DEBT
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
Combined w/L.ocal
Agency Bds
0.00%
601(e)
FEDERAL AGENCIES
5 YEARS
_
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
100%
N/A
44.41 %
601(f)
BILLS OF EXCHANGE
270 DAYS
40%'
180 DAYS
30%
AI/PI/FI
8.58%
601(g)
COMM. PAPER
180DAYS
15%or30%1
Al/PI
90/31 DAYS
30%
Al/PL/F1
26.12%
kWh)
CERTIFICATE & TIME
DEPOSITS
5 YEARS
30°/
1 YEAR
0%max
A+/AI/A+
0.00%
4010)
REPOS
1 YEAR
NO LIMIT
14 DAYS
20% max
N/A
9.63%
60I(i)
REVERSE REPOS
92DAYS
20%
60DAYS
10%max
N/A
0.00%
601(j)
MED. TERM NOTES
5 YEARS
30%
A
2 YEARS
10°/ max
AA/Aa2/AA
r 0.00%
601(k)
MUTUAL FUNDS
90 DAYS'
20%
AAA/Aar!.
IMMEDIATE
15% / S150mm
AAA by 2 of 3 Rating
Agencies .
0.08
601(m)
SECURED DEPOSITS (BANK
DEPOSITS)
5 YEARS
NO LIMIT
1 YEAR
2%max
1.41%
601(n)
MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH SECURITY
•
5 YEARS
20%
AA -SECURITY
A -ISSUER
N/A
N/A
0.00%
429(1,2,3)
LOCAL AGENCY
INVESTMENT FUNDS
N/A
NO LIMIT
3 YEARS
0% max
0.00%
Jo more than 30% of this category may be invested with any one commercial bank
100.00%
0% if dollar weighted average maturity does not exceed 31 days. Commercial paper average days to maturity is 13.57
4utual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days.
h must have an Investment Advisor with not less than 5 years expenence and with assets under management of $500,000.000.
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND TREASURER'S POLICY
The County Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy is more stringent than the California
Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually and presented to the County's Investment
Oversight Committee and the County Board of Supervisors. As of this month end the
County's Pooled Investment Fund was in compliance with this more restrictive policy.
Although we have been diligent in the preparation of this report, we have relied upon numerous
pricing and analytical sources including Bloomberg Market Database and Capital Management
Sciences, Inc.
FUND SERVICES ADVISORS, INC.
(310) 229-9170
Los Angeles - San Francisco - New York
Registered In vestment Advisors
FSA
County of Riverside
PROJECTION OF FUTURE CASH FLOW
The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. The Treasurer states that based upon
projected cash receipts and maturing investments there are sufficient funds to meet future cash flow disbursement requirements over the next 12 months.
MONTH MONTHLY MONTHLY REQUIRED ACTUAL INV. AVAIL. TO
RECEIPTS DISBMNTS DIFFERENCE MAT. INVEST BALANCE MATURITIES INVEST >l YR.
10/01 45.2
10/99 324.5 361.7 (37.2) 8.0 482.9
11/99 337.5 336.2 1.3 9.3 94.9
12/99 693.0 388.3 304.7 314.0 16.0
1/2000 287.9 586.3 (298.4) 15.6 27.6
2/2000 370.2 376.0 (5.8) 9.8 3.0
3/2000 315.3 335.5 (20.2) 10.4 0.0 29.7
4/2000 666.7 381.1 285.6 285.6 -
5/2000 312.5 561.2 (248.7) - 36.9 5.0
6/2000 348.9 408.1 (59.2) 22.3 (0.0) 8.3
7/2000 318.7 356.4 (37.7) 37.7 (0.0) -
8/2000 325.7 356.5 (30.8) 30.8 (0.0) -
9/2000 308.6 355.9 (47.3) 47.3 10.0
Totals: 4,609.5 4,803.2 (193.7) 148.5 677.4 1,133.5
11.58%
52.84%
88.42 %
Gross Yield Trends
The yield history represents gross yields; administrative costs have not been deducted. Actual earnings on your fund
balance will be credited by the Auditor -Controller based upon County Treasurer calculations. Portfolio yield always lags
current trends in short-term interest rates. Yields fluctuate with changing markets and past performance is not an indication
of future results.
* IBC
PORTFOLIO ALL TAXABLE
MONTH YIELD AVERAGE
Oct-98 5.38 5.29
Nov-98 5.29 5.16
Dec-98 5.32 5.10
Jan-99 5.06 5.03
Feb-99 5.00 4.93
Mar-99 5.06 4.92
Apr-99 4.98 4.89
May-99 5.03 4.86
Jun-99 5.14 4.89
Jul-99 5.23 5.03
Aug-99 5.32 5.12
Sep-99 5.37 5.26
6.00
5.50
5.00
Gross Yield Trends
4.50
041-99 Nov99 Dg99 Jon99 FW99 Mn-99 Apt-99 Mar-99 Jun.99 Jul-99 Auo-99 Sg99
-4--PORTFOLIO YIELD t ' IBC ALL TAXABLE AVERAGE
* The IBC Money Fund Reportnq All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by IBC Financial Data, Inc. (IBC), a subsidiary of the London -
based Informa Group p.l.c.. IBC is a leading provider of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a
particular area of focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable money market funds across
several categories, i.e. Treasury, Govemment, and Prime, and reports the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis. For more
information on the IBC Index see www.ibcdata.com/index.htmi
RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS REPORT
Cl SIP
September 30 1999
Par1S1 .
Government Agency
31331HUS
31331HUV
31331 HUY
313384RL
31364FNF
3133M7LX
3133M7UW
31364GP7
31364F5X
3133M6JH
31364GJT
3134A2ZV
31331RR8
3134A2Y9
3134A24W
31331RY9
31364F05
3133M6Z0
31331RXU
31364F6U
31364GYN
3134A2SP
3133M5R3
31364GAV
31364GBV
3133M5WY
3133M5YA
3133M5Y0
31364GDG
3133M64D
3133M6CN
31364GGC
31331RK9
3133M6J5
31364GHJ
31364GHV
31364GJJ
3133M8VS
3133M60E
3133M6T8
31364GKW
31364GMT
31364GPJ
31364GNW
31364GOG
3133M77B
3133M7HC
3133M705
3133M7SR
31364GYD
3133M7WL
3133M7WR
3133M82V
31364GA3
31364GB8
31364GJ9
3133MBOX
3134A3TF
31364GT9
3134A3UM
31331R7E
1133M8YW
11331 HXE
1133M9ET
1133M9HC
1133M90E
1133M9YL
Issuer
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
15.000 000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
15.000. 000. 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10.000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10,000.000. DO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
10,000.000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10 000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
5,000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
5.000 000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10,000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000,000.DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000. 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10,000,000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
9,000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10 000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000. 000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10 000 000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
12.000,000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10,000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000 DO FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000 000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10,000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000 000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
15.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10 000.000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
15.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000.000. 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10,000.000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5 000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000.000. 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000,000 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
6. 750.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10.000,000 00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
10,000.000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
10.000.000. 00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
1.0.000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5,000.000. 00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
5.000.000.00 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
5,000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP
15.000.000 00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
5.000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5.000,000.00 FEDERAL FARM CR BANKS
10.000,000 DO FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5,000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5,000,000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
5,000.000.00 FEDERAL HOME LN BKS
tub -Total 572.750, 000.00
;ash Equivalent 8 Money Market Funds
92.800,000 00 REPO - MORGAN STANLEY
30000.000. 00 REPO - MORGAN STANLEY
1,000,000 00 AIM ST TREASURY PORTFOLIO
,ub-Total
123,800,000 OD
Coupon Maturit.
Acquisition Current Currant Market'
Cost Price 1,slue aro Aar Inl Gain/Loss lid Nat' Efr. Dur.' A.e. Life'
5 060 10/01/99 10.000,000 00 100 000 10 000.000 00 - 5 060 0 DO
5 100 11 /01 /99 15.000, 000 00 100 000 15.000 000 00 5 100 0 09
5.220 12/01 /99 15.000.000 00 100 000 15.000.000 00 5 220 0 17
0 000 01 /O6/00 9.648. 333 33 98 483 9 848,333 33 - 5 280 0 26
5 440 01 /14/00 10.000.000 DO 99 648 9.964.800 00 (5.200 00) 5 558 0.28
5.035 03/02/00 5.000.000 DO 99.978 4.998,900 00 (1.100 00) 5 091 0 41
5 115 03/17/00 5,000,000 DO 99 733 4.986.650 00 (13.350 DO) 5 694 0 45
5 120 05/12/00 5,000.250 00 99.605 4.980.250 00 (20 000 00) 5 770 0 59
5 600 09/01/00 10.000.000.00 99.885 9.968.500.00 (31.500 00) 5 950 D 63
5 27D 1124/00 5.000.000 00 99 311 4.965.550 00 (34450 00) 5 891 0 90
5 150 12/01/00 10.000,000 DO 99 150 9.915.000 00 (85.000 00) 5 905 0 98
5 070 12/15/00 4.995,312.50 99 003 4.950.150 00 (45.162 50) 5 930 1 05
5 120 12/22/00 10,000.000.00 99.052 9.905.200 00 (94.800.00) 5.924 1 03
5 180 01/26/01 10,000.000.00 99 415 9.941.500 00 (58.500.DO) 5 639 1 03
5.250 02/23/01 5.000,000.00 98 992 4.949.600.00 (50 400.00) 6.008 1 16
5 400 03/02/01 5.000.000.00 99 157 4.957,850 00 (42,150 00) 6 024 1 10
5.980 06/14/01 10,000.000.00 99.524 9.952400 00 (47,600 00) 6.272 1 02
5.360 0629/01 5.000.000 00 981542 4,942,100.00 (57,900.00) 6 062 1 38
5.900 07/27/01 5,000.000.00 99. 368 4,968 400 DO (31.600 00y 6.266 1 16
5.570 09/14/01 10.000.000 00 98.762 9.876,200.00 (123.8130 00) 6.250 1 52
5.650 09/17/01 10.001,562.50 98765 9,876.500.00 (125.06250) 6.327 163
5.515 09/24/01 10.000,000.00 98.862 9,866.20000 (133.800.00) 6. 242 158
5.520 09/25/01 10.000.000.00 98.682 9,868,200.00 (131.800. DO) 6.235 1 58
5 430 09/28/01 10.000.000.00 98.554 9.855,400 00 (144.800 00) 6.212 1 64
5.250 10/05/01 9,000.000.00 98,230 6.840.700 DO (159.300 00) 6 198 1 71
5.235 10/22/01 10.000.000.00 98159 9.815.900.00 (184.100.00) 6198 172
5 000 10/23/01 10.000.000 DO 97.938 9,793,800.00 (206,200.00) 6 076 1 89
5.280 10/26/01 5,000.00000 98.392 4.919,600.00 (80400.00) 6115 167
5.250 10/26/01 10,000.030 00 98. 342 9.834,200. 00 (165.800.00) 6 112 1 70 •
5 580 1029/01 12.000.000 00 98.915 11.669.800. DO (130.200. DO) 6 /41 1 48
5.200 11/05/01 10.000.000.00 98.222 9.822.200.00 (177,800.00) 6113 173
5.260 11/15/01 10.000.000. 00 98.298 9,829.800-00 (170.20000) 6123 1 74
5440 11/16/01 10.000.000.00 98,282 9,828.200.00 (171.80000) 6.311 175
5 500 11/23/01 10,000.000. 00 98 708 9.870.800 DO (129.200 00) 6 147 1 60
5 410 11/23/01 5,000.000.00 98.378 4.918.900 00 (81.100 00) 6.224 1 74
5.270 11/30/01 10.000.00000 98.331 9.833.100.00 (166.430000) 6100 181
5440 11/30/01 15.004.687. 50 913 392 14.758,80000 (245,887.50) 6.240 t 75
5 710 12/07/01 10.000.000.00 98 781 9,878.100.00 (121.900.00) 6.311 1 74
5 580 12/10/01 10.000.000.00 98 804 9.880.400 00 (119.600 00) 6.166 1 57
5 380 12/14/01 10,000.000 00 98 464 9.846 400 00 (153.600 00) 6 /30 1 72
5.250 12/14/01 15.000.000.00 98.236 14,735400 00 (264.600 00) 6 112 1.82
5.500 01/02/02 5.000.000.00 98467 4,923.350.00 (76,65000) 6.213 170
5600 01/14/02 10.000.000.00 98437 9.843.700.00 (156.300.00) 6.216 176
5.500 01/15/02 10.000.000.00 98.622 9.862.20000 (137.800.00) 6/49 170
5 400 0122/02 10.000,000 00 98 402 9.840,200 00 (159. 800.00) 6 148 1.80
5.500 01/28/02 5.000.000.00 98.588 4.929 400 00 (70.600.00) 6156 174
5.240 02/11/02 5.000.000. 00 98.043 4.902.150 00 (97.850.00) 6 138 2 02
5.555 03/04/02 5.000.000 00 98 471 4,923,550 00 (76.450 00) 6.241 1.83
5.350 03/08/02 5.000.000.00 96082 4.904,100.DO (95.900.00) 6.208 2.12
5.950 03/13/02 10.000,000.00 99 005 9,900.500.00 (99.500.00) 6.393 1.57
5 655 03/15/02 6,750.000 00 98 547 6.651.922.50 (98.077.50) 6.301 1.91
5 720 03/18/02 10.000.000.00 913 639 9.863,900.00 (136,100 00) 6.323 1 78
5.875 03/22/02 10.000.000.00 98.889 9.888.900.00 (111.100. DO) 6. 366 1.66
5.670 03/27/02 10.000.000.00 98,604 9,860400.00 (139.600.00) 6.264 1.81
5.660 04/05/02 . 10.000,000,00 911502 9.850:200.00 (149.600. 00) 6.313 1.88
5630 0424/02 10.000,000.00 98.359 9.835,900.00 064,100.001 9,331 1.97
5765 05/24/02 10.000.000.00 98417 9.841.700.00 (158,300,00) 8420 1.137
5.960 06/03/02 5.000.000. 00 , 98.693 4.934.650.00 (65.350.00) 6 496 1.77
6 180 06/12/02 5,000,000.00 98 760 4.938.000.00 (62.000.00) 6.884 1.96
6 180 06/14/02 5,000.000.00 98 936 4.946.600.00 (53,200.00) 6.611 1.92
6.375 0621/02 15.000,000,00 100.249 15.037.350.00 37,350.00 6.289 1.49
6,035 0621/02 5,000.00000 99.008 4,950400.00 (49,600.00) 6.433 1.98
6490 07/03/02 4,995.000-00 99.681 4.984.050.00 (10,950.00) 6.613 1.73
6450 07/26/02 10,000,000.00 99.320 9.932.000.00 (68,000.00) 6.714 1.45
6.250 08/02/02 5.000,000.00 100.442 5,022,100.00 22.100.00 6,074 1.55
7.050 08/26/02 5,000,000.00 100.330 5.016.500.00 16,500.00 8.919 0.29
6.555 0927/02 5.000.000.00 100.381 5.019,050.00 19.050.00 6.413 7 72
5.270 10/01 /99
5.330 10/07/99
5.250 12/31 /99
0 OC
0 09
0 17
0 27
0 29
0 42
0 46
0 62
0 92
t 15
t 17
1 21
1 23
1 33
1 40
1 42
171
1 75
1 82
1 96
1 97
1 99
1 99
2 DO
2 02
2 06
2 07
2 07
2 07
2 08
2 10
2 13
2 13
2 15
2 15
2 17
2 17
2 19
2 20
221
2.21
2.26
2.29
2 30
2 32
2.33
2 37
2.43
244
245
2 46
2.47
2 48
2 49
2.52
2.57
2.65
248
2 70
271
2.73
2.73
2.78
2.82
2.84
2.91
Zffi
572.595,145.83 586,446.755.83 (6,148,390.00) 6.093 141 1.90
92.800.000.00 100.000 92.600.000.00 5,270 0.00 0.00
30.000,000.00 100.000 30,000.000.00 5.330 0.02 0.02
1.000.000. 00 100.000 1,000,030.00 5,250 0.24 p,2.1
123100,000. 00 123,800.000.00 5.264 0.01 0.01
Continued on reverse side...
RIVERSIDE PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS REPORT
September 30 1999
Acquisition Current Current Market '
Ct'SIP Par(51 Issuer Coupon Ma ri Cost Price Valet e/o Artr 1st. Gsia/Lesv l Id Mat' ER. Der.1 Ave. Life'
Collateralized Time Deposits
5.000.000. 00 PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK 5 1000 11/02/99 5.000.000 00 100.000 5.000.000 00 - 5 100 0 09 0 09
3,000.000. 00 PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK 5 3000 02/01/00 3.000.000 00 100 000 3.000. 000 00 5 300 0 33 0 34
10.000 000 00 CITY NATIONAL BANK 4.8000 03/08/00 10.000.000 00 100 000 10,000 000 00 4 600 g 0 44
Sub -Total 18.000.000.00 18.000.000. 00 18.000.000. 00 4 967 0 32 0 33
Bankers Acceptance
7.000 000 DO FIRST CHICAGO 0.000 10/04/99 6.833,750 DO 97.625 6.833.750 00 - 4 865 0 01 0 01
19,300.000.00 CHASE MANHATTAN 0 000 10/18/99 19.233.500.00 99 855 19.233.500.00 5.265 0 05 D 05
14 185.606.50 DEUTSCHE BK 0.000 10/27/99 13,859.436.06 97.701 13.859 436.06 4 640 0 07 0 07
7,000.000. 00 BANKAMERICA 0.000 10/28/99 6.916.373.33 98.805 6.918.373.33 5.182 0.07 0 08
12.500.000.00 BANKAMERICA 0.000 11/01/99 12,342,638.89 96 741 12.342.638.89 5.215 D 08 0 09
14 000.000 DO FIRST CHICAGO 0.000 11/02/99 13,885,013.33 99 179 13.865.013.33 - 5.324 0.09 0 09
6.000.000. 00 FIRST CHICAGO 0.000 11/05/99 5,953,360.00 99.223 5,953,360.00 - 5 324 0.09 0 10
13.000.D00.00 CITICORP 0.000 11/09/99 12.886.250.00 99125 12.686.250.00 5.296 011 011
8.000.000 00 CHASE MANHATTAN 0.000 01/13/00 7,829.802,20 97.873 7.329.802.20 - 5 630 0.28 0 29
10.000.000.00 BANKAMERICA 0.000 03/20/00 9,726.527. 78 97.265 9,726,527 78 - 5.654 0 46 gji
Sub -Total 110.985 606 50 109,466.851.59 109,466.851.59 - 5.250 012 013
Commercial Paper
16572A 24.202.000 00 FLEET FUNDING CORP 0.000 10/01/99 24,119,894. 72 99.661 24.119.894.72 - 5.328 0.00 0.00
36959JX4 30.000.000 00 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL 0.000 10/04/99 29.890.208.33 99.634 29.890.206.33 5.289 0.01 0.01
50185DX4 30.000.000 00 LG AND E ENERGY SYS 0.000 10/04/99 29,907,250.00 99.691 29.907.250.00 5.316 0.01 0 01
37576MX5 30.000.000.00 GILLETTE CO 0.000 10/05/99 29,890.000.00 99.833 29.890.000.00 5299 0.01 0.01
34539UX6 30.000.000 00 FORD MOTOR CRED 0.000 10/06/99 29.898,991.67 99.663 29.898.991.67 5.288 0.01 0.02
05561 UXC 30.000.000 00 BMW US CAP CORP 0.000 10/12/99 29-885.600.00 99.619 29.885.600.00 5.300 0 03 0 03
07815KX1 30.000.000 00 BELLSOUTH TELECOM INC . 0.000 10/14/99 29.894 400.00 99.648 29.894100.00 5.298 0.04 0 04
59018KXF 30.000.000.00 MERRILL LYNCH 6 CO INC ' 0.000 10/15/99 29,694.200.00 99.647 29,694.200.00 5.308 0.04 0.04
07785FXK 10.223.000 00 BELL ATLANCTIC FUNDING 0 000 10/19/99 10,182.363.57 99.602 10.182.363.57 5.321 0.05 0.05
30603BXM 30.000.000.00 FALCON ASSET CORP 0.000 10/21/99 29,866,250.00 99.554 29.886,250.00 5.374 0.05 0.06
41805UXti 30.000.000.00 HASBRO INC 0.000 10/29/99 29,861,791.67 99.539 29.861.791.67 5 374 0.08 0.08
59087BY3 • 30.000.000 00 MET LIFE FUNDING 0 000 11/03199 29.641.000.00 99.470 29.841,000.00 - 5.328 4S7 P.M
Sub -Total 334 425.000 00 Average Weighted Days for Commercial Paper • 13.6 333,131.6149.96 333,131,949.96 5.3/8 0.03 0.04
Local Agency Obligations'
4.000.000.00 CORAL BAN 5.385 06/08/00 4,000.000.00 100.000 4,000,000.00 5.3es 0.66 0.69
1.734.398 00 CORAL BAN 5.350 06/08/00 1,734.398.00 100.000 1.734.396.00 5.350 0.66 0 69
2.605.897 08 CORAL BAN 5.355 06/08/00 2.605.897.08 100.000 2.605.897.08 - 5.355 0.66 0.69
409.525.00 EDA BAN 5.530 03/20/02 409,525.00 100.000 409.525.00 5.530 2.28 2 47
406.131.00 EDA BAN 5.640 03/20/02 408.131.00 100.000 406.131.00 5 640 2.27 2.47
544,955.00 EDA BAN 5.720 03/20/02 544,955.00 100.000 544.955.00 - 5720 2.27 247
901.501.00 EDA BAN 5.820 03/20/02 901,501.00 100.000 901.501.00 5.820 222 Z
iuti-Total 10 602.407 08 10.602,407.08 10.602.407.08 5.441 1.00 1.07
U.S. Treasury
)128274R 20,000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 4.500 09/30/00 19.994.531.25 99.062 19.812,400.00 ' (182,131.25) 5.476 0.96 1.00
)128274W 20.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 4.625 11/30/00 19,960,156.25 99.000 19.800.000.00 (160,156.25) 5.515 1.10 1.17
)128274X 20.000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 4.625 12/31/00 19,942,187.50 98.906 19.781,200.00 (160,1)87.50) 5.536 1.18 1.25
312827W4 5,000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 5.500 12/31/00 5,000,000.00 99.969 4.996,450.00 (1.550.00) 5.518 1.18 1.25
)128275C 20.000. 000. 00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 5.000 02/28/01 19.996.200.00 99 188 19.837.600.00 (156.600. 00) 5,559 1.32 1.42
1128275E 15.000.000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 5.000 04/30/01 14,967,968.75 99.094 14,864,100.00 (103.668.75) 5.602 1.47 1.58
i128275J 5.000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 5.750 06/30/01 4.998.046.88 100.004 5,004.700.00 6,653.12 5.687 1.62 1.75
>128275L 10.000.000 00 UNITED STATES TREAS NTS 5.500 07/31/01 9,971,875.00 99.719 9.971,900.00 25.00 5.659 i1 IM
>ub-Total 115.000.000-00 114,830,965.63 114.070,350.00 (760.615.63) 5.551 1.26 1.34
3rand-Totals 1.285,563,013.58
1.282.427,120.09 1.275,518,114.46 (6,909.005.63) 5.670 0.77 1.00
The market value and raid of short-term motley market securities are based on purchase pace.
Effective Duration is a sophisticated calculation that measures pnce sensitivity, while taking into consideration the possibility of securities being celled before natunty.
Average Life is the number of years until pnnapal is returned tl natunty, weighted by market value.
Bono anticipabon notes have vanabie rate coupons, spread to LIBOR.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND
NOTICE OF BENCHMARK CHANGE
Paul McDonnell
Treasurer/Tax Collector
Kenneth C. Kirin
Assistant Treasurer
Donald IL Kent
Chief Deputy Treasurer
(909) 955-3967
The Monthly Compliance Report for the Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund has included a graph
comparing the yield on the Pool to the yield on the 90-Day Treasury Bill. In an effort to more
effectively evaluate the performance of the Pool, the Treasurer's Office has opted to change the
benchmark reported in the Monthly Compliance Report from the 90-Day T-Bill to the IBC Money
Fund ReportTM/All Taxable Average. The assets held by the money market funds that comprise this
index are more representative of the assets held in the Treasurer's Pool and therefore provide a
more appropriate and useful gauge of the Pool's performance.
The Treasurer's Office is confident that the IBC Money Fund ReportTM/All Taxable Average will
provide a more representative indication of the Pool's performance, however, we realize that neither
this benchmark nor any other that we could propose can completely accommodate the myriad of
unique factors that impact Portfolio performance. Accordingly, the use of a benchmark necessitates
that special consideration be given to the objective of the benchmark and the limitations implicit in
it's use. As such, it is our intention that the IBC Money Fund ReportTM/All Taxable Average be
used not as a direct comparison, but -rather as a mechanism to gauge performance. Particular
attention should be given to the reasons for relatively large divergences in the spread between the
benchmark and the actual portfolio performance. In most cases, taking the time to understand the
causes of a substantial spread change will either (a) provide comfort that the Portfolio's positioning
is appropriate or (b) present insights into potential areas of opportunity.
The charts on theback of this page illustrate the 24 month gross yield trends of the Treasurer's
Pooled Investment Fund relative to the IBC Money Fund ReportTM/All Taxable Average, and the
90-Day Treasury Bill respectively. As is evident, the gross yield spread between the Treasurer's
Pool and the IBCTM Average is substantially narrower than that of the 90-Day Treasury Bill and
demonstrates the higher degree of correlation between the performance of the IBC Money Fund
ReportTM/All Taxable Average and the Treasurer's Pool. The Treasurer's office is confident that
the insights afforded by this new benchmark will aid in the management of the Pool and provide a
more representative gauge of the Pool's performance.
About the index
The IBC Money Fund ReportTM/All Taxable Average is compiled and reported by IBC Financial
Data, Inc. (IBC), a subsidiary of the London -based Informa Group p.l.c.. IBC is a leading provider
of independent analyses and information to the financial services industry, with a particular area of
focus in money market mutual funds. The All -Taxable Index tracks the yield of over 500 taxable
money market funds across several categories, i.e. Treasury, Government, and Prime, and reports
the average yield of those funds on a monthly basis.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
POOLED INVESTMENT FUND
BENCHMARK YIELD TRENDS
September 30, 1999
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
-0.05%
-0.10%
-0.15%
-0.20%
pet9o`� J4.1 "ffi 4� v- v""�"j�vapip.ta<p too SJo jv:owQpe�oecsOiew< JVv
Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund &
IBC Money Fund Report (TM) / All Taxable Average
Yield Spread
Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund &
90-Day Treasury Bill
Yield Spread
1.60% —
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
Average Spread = .53 %
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
oc•t",0
veSJ4eb"r p,v<.3`"J01.0;
9.70S-
pfv9i''S�.a
Q it oecSOeV�<of.xt:iJJ & J4o
$0
Monthly Master Account Statement
September 30, 1999
ACCOUNT 330072823-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ATTN: DEAN MARTIN
3560 UNIVERSITY PLACE
RIVERSIDE CA 92501
v
FINANCIAL
INVESTORS
TRUST
Fund Performance as of 9/30/99
TREASURY (AM)
SEC 7 DAY YIELD
4.83%
7 DAY EFFECTIVE YIELD
4.95%
iUBACCOUNT
OPENING ENDING
MONTHLY REINVESTED MONTHLY
BALANCE TOTAL CREDITS TOTAL DEBITS DIVIDENDS BALANCE
TREASURY (AM)
)0 5,244,816.98 0.00 120,411.64 20,549.31 $5,144,954.65
5,244,816.98 0.00 120,411.64 20,549.31 S5,144,954.65
Total FIT Funds Investment 5,244,816.98
0.00 120,411.64 20,549.31 5,144,954.65
ALPS MUTUAL FUNDS SERVICES
Sponsor and Distributor
GE Investments
The Investment Management Arm of GE
Investment Advisor
61'101`SZZS
9S"61 f £ZZS
fs'0ffeOZZS
OrLSf 81ZS
L8'sL8'SIZS
fS'r6f fIZS
OZ'f161IZS
L8'If►'SOZS
PS'OS6`SOZS
IZ'691•VOZS
8!'L86101$
PS'90S1161 S
I Z'SZO'961 S
SS'f►SY6IS
S5190`1615
ZVI/10411S
811'660'981$
SS'819VS1S
ZZ'LfrISIS
68'SSVIILIS
9S'PLI'9LIS
fZ'f69`fLIS
68'11rILIS
9S'Ofell9IS
£7-61•Z`991S
06'L9L`f9IS
L6'911r19IS
f'Z'SOS'SSIS
06'fZf`9S1S
LS'ZPS'fS IS
00'0S
00'01
00'0S
00'0S
00'0S
00'OS
00'0S
00'0$
00'OS
00'OS
00'0$
00'OS
00'0$
00'0S
00'0S
00'0$ .
W'0S
00'0S
00"0S
00'OS
W'0S
00-OS
00'0S
00'0S
00'O5
001$
00'0S
00'0S
W'OS
00'OS
1 42sd
LC01031411 :13qum/§1 runoaay
'8(9(-591 (1 /6) : ovolld Jn znaQ alnpnvo tamlroa amid `nouinuts s{qt ywpmZaJ suoprarb duo ansq nod ptno9S
00'0S
00'01
00'OS
0o'0s
00'OS
00'OS
00'0$
00'OS
00'0S
00'0S
00'0S
00.05
00'OS
00'0$
00'0S
00'0$
00'0$
00'0S
00'0s
OWN
00'OS
00'0S
00'0S
00'OS
W'0S
00.05
00'OS
00'05
0011$
W'0S
frIgen
ff 1IWIS
ff'IS►`ZS
ft-IlittS
ff'10'U
ErI11P7S
errSP`ZS
cc' ISP'ZS
ff'IS►`ZS
ff 18P`ZS
££ ISP'ZS
frlSP'ZS
ff'ISr`ZS
f£ IS►'ZS
WM/ZS
ff lflirts
cc- riots
£f IS►'ZS
ff Dols
frflirts
ff' 1107S
ff' 1 SP'ZS
ff'18r'ZS
fr ISP`ZS
ff'18►'ZS
ff'IBr`ZS
ff'18t'ZS
ff' I S1'ZS
frISPYS
%0OLS'9
%00L8'9
` 0OLS9
%0OLS'9
%0OLS'9
%110LS9
%0OLS'9
%00L8'9
%00/.S9
%0OLS'9
• 00LS'9
%00L8'9
%00L8'9
%00L11'9
%00L8'9
%00L8'9
%00L8'9
%0OLS'9
%00L1r9
%00LS9
%0OLS'9
%o0L8'9
%0OLS9
%0OLS'9
%00L8'9
%00L8'9
%oecr9
%00LS'9
%0OLS'9
%00L8"9
00'0$
00'os
00'OS
00'0s
oe•os
00'0S
W'0S
00'0S
00'0$
W'01
00'0S
00'0S
00'0S
00'0$
00'0$
00.0S
00101
00'01
00'0S
W'oS
00'01
00'OS
00'OS
00'0$
00'05
00'0S
00'0$
00'0$
00'0S
00'0$
rsaiarul
pang»y Islo.L
00'0S
h8'LOL`61$`ES
£o'60s`sVOIIS
00"OS
00'ZI9`ZOO'£IS
000r `f aaf
$66I'1 ash[
LC0103W1
parsawuralr
rsaialul
:parsanmay rsamur
rimed ISararul
Wure3 lsaaa{ul
sIgmmP9l!M
:smsodarr
:ualldaaal aaurS
:arse Apure%
:area ruaraapras
:aaquinm ruooaay
-'./aaisnad, of pan.raay alsli
Mad rsa�aral
rsaaarul Arsa {saaarul
00'Z 19`Z00`E I S
00'0S
00"OS
00"OS
00719`Z00'E I S
slsMeapgllM
owes 00-z191W`fRs
06'4s 00'Z19'ZW'SIS
0,0$ 00719100'Clf
0011s 00"Z l 9`Z00`f I S
000S 001191'0'ns
or% colt Vzootts
00'0S 001I9'ZOOVIS
00•0S 0071970011S
00'0S owns`zoo`fls
W'as 0071910011E
00'0S 00'ZI9'Z0o`fIS
00'0S 007I9'Z00'fIS
00'0S 007191011'CM
W'OS 110719`ZOO'£IS
00'0S W'ZIYZOO`fIS
00'0$ 00119`ZOO`fIS
001S 00719700`t[S
00113 err II VzoirrtS
orreS 011'Z19100111S
00'0S 00'ZI9100'fIS
0011$ 00'Z19100'11S
00'0S 00'ZI9'Z0011s
'0011S 0011Wzo0`fIS
00_os o0'Z19`Zoo`iis
W'os o0'zr9'Zo0`fIS
00'os 001I9'Zo0`iis
00'0$ 00-Z19100'fIS
00'05 00119100` IS
W'dt 007I9t0011S
00'0S 011719100`f IS
6661 `Oi daS
6661 `6Z daS
6661411ZdaS
6661 'LZ daS
666I `9Z das
6661 `SZ daS
6661 'PZ daS
6661 'fZ das
6661 `ZZ daS
6661 '1Z daS
6661 'OZ das
6661 '61 daS
6661 11 daS
6661 'L l daS
6661 `91 daS
6661`SIdaS
6661 'PI daS
6661 VI daS
6661'Z1daS
6661 'II daS
6661 `01 daS
6661 '6 daS
6661 `8 daS
6661 'L daS
6661 `9 daS
6661 `S daS
6661 't daS
6661 `f daS
6661 `Z daS
6661'1 daS
srlsodaa aauele8 area
ledpulud
:aauelE*I ledpuud 8utpu3
.palsanupH rul lemi
:slemeJp 11!M 1e101
:spisodau [eroZ
:aauelell lecipuud 9uruadp
00 OS
61 108`SZZS
56.6EP'PLS
1;Z.19E`ISIS
:pied Isalaral
:aaaelerr leruaad Supol3
len.raay p01.13d 21.1a1117
:aauele8 [maw 9u!uado
6661 `0£ daS 419n0.r111 6661 `1 daS
ruaoaay aAina d pang y saran £661
y£66l sagas `spun anuawall Tel sales
uorssrwwo j uogeriodcurii ,(runup aprsiawlg
S►SrfLZ (P16) : a11011d
iPOS01 AN `/Iaoluav raa.11S $uni f 11
"(MOD 1N31A130VNVW 1N3W1S3ANI VIEW
:pope('rua.un l
:awsnl punA
:aurer4 anssl
:au'el l MIES(
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts
reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the
Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value
approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and
the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending September 30,
1999.
Attachments
%king
% 116
%L'LL
%Z" 19
%S'4S
%0'0
%0'0
%E'6
%£'6
16611114
L68'40L'S$
896`ZL$"9$
6l4'48S$
OS8'L8L' 1$
669'04S'4$
Z£Z`9801$
ZEZ`S89'8$
0$
0$
8024009$
80L`409$
tt8`B$
089' 3
499`L$
Melt
08£' t$
9S
0$
SCS`80Z$'
S£S'80Z$
%rig
%b'L8
%PIP
%4'06
%0'00 t
%4'46
%WOOL
%0'00l
%WOOL
%0'00l
%0'001
%0'001
£ 10 I. 06ed
£L l'8L8'9$
'1'SS'88al$
l6Z`86L$'
000'00£'Z$
£40'O6S'S$
6068SS611$'
606'£E6'S l$
000'LL9$
000'LES$
006`809`9$
006'80S'9$
1�0>�BZL`8S :
40S'9ZL'9$
091►"90L'6$
°WE88$
000'00£'Z$
000'£Z6'S$
606'£1i6111$
606'££6'S L$
000'Et9$
000'LES$
006'.809`9S
006'80S'9$
9S 1 it/t018#1S`.
(8L06 `8006021) 'uoalnu3/6.16u3 tieulwllaid
91331'021d 91Z-1
1!8 31f10l11i/ �318115:
(5466`9466'££66021) 60deospuel IIeMPuS
(S£96021) dwe21 NooH Armed uamg uen
(6966'Z£86 '8486 ' 1986'L486'LEE6 ' 1016021)
uogorupuoo pue u6lsep pempunoS
61031'021d 1.6 3111021
L L L 3100211V101811S.
LS96' 1986-6486'£4L6'9£96
(8£96'LES6`0£96'SZ96'£ZS617EZ6'LZZ6 '6 LZ6021)
S1031'021d LlL 31f1021
el 3. m:41 liar 110115.
seuel tun) )46i21 'Apn;s wewu6lle021 (1,966021)
M021f ualnu3/6uuaeul6u3
S1031021d 6L 31f1021
t1.31110211V10180S
(9960966 L££6021) M021/u011nu3/6uuaaul6u3
S103f021d 4L 31f1021
31V0 Ol S1N141111NN00 31V0 Ol 6661, 'OE JegweideS N011V0011V 31V0 Ol NOI1V0011V
1SNIVOV 31V0-01 Salf1110N3dX3 030N3 NINON 'H1f1V 1SNIVJV S1N3W11YWV00 03ZIaOHif1V
Sa1f1110N3dX3 % HOd 3af1110N3dX3 alusiWV00 % lVaf110Va1N00 NOISSIWN00
NOIld1a0S30
10310ad
310021 AS 1210d321130009
S1031"021d 1I1/21/AVMHOIH ..1/.. 3210S1/3141 91321
%vr$
%S' 16
%0'S6
%re
%6'6
%0'01' I'
%0'0
%tr'8G
%b'81
% Ze
%TM
000'11,0'14S
b£b' 199'LS
6E9'999' 1$
90Z'9ZZ$
SOZ'9ZZ$
0$
0$
L99 OLZ3
L9S'OLZ$
01r6LIS
01L'6LZ$
£;o Z a6ed
11.040
01ViZt.
660'Z9$
8Sb'S 1$
8LLIZI.$
8LL'1Z1$
0$
tZ£`60$
17 69$
01$'9$
OL8'S$
%S'69
%0'001
%R Q04 I'
%0'001
%1T001.
%0'001
%81'6
%8'b6
%(r08
%6'98
008:.'Z10'014'.
000'69£'9$
009'9179' 1$
I. k8`86Z`z$
116'E6Z'Z$
000'0014
000'001$
000`0L10 L e
000'0L17' 1$
000't0$4
000'b0£$
04'9010$i ,I'
$01,1100114:I
Z0S'OS£'6$
009'9179'1$
Re CBE Z$
116'E6Z'Z$
000'001$
000'00 3
000`009`L$
000'OSS' 1$
000'0St$
000'0S£$
s'ra..0.4 >:
1IV24;tlaU1011400 *moans
CLS66'ES66'Sb96'fi1796'9£96.0Z66'000008)
%SOO ';uieW/SISOO dO/b9V en/uoRelS
(9966'4s96171796'E£96'Z£96' LEL6'0Z176 Oa)
6upeag6u3/seprgs
1IV21'minim WOO
alitti )INVd 1V1U18ns
(E 186) (b 10Z-100Z) (6996 ON)
01V210021d '1N30NU3G1N-N-NNVd
'SOAS V NVId WV2 OONd 1V1Q118ns
(9E660N) Apnp Jopwo0 4anoSM3woN
9301AN3S V NVId WV2 OONd
13 143381Vionns
:
(000z oa)
'A2139 1WOW 111SN00'8103f021d
30NVH02131N1 inolens
(9666'9Z66021) 6wdeospuel 01 ewnA
WV210021d 71021dW1 SONVH02131N1
31V0 Ol S1NW11NW00 31V0 Ol 6661. 'OE iegweldeS N011V0011V 31V0 Ol N011VOOTIV
1SNIVOV 31V0-01 S321f1110N3dX3 030N3 H1N0114 1.1111V 1SNIVOY S1N31.4111V VOO 03Z1N0H1f1V
S3Mf1110N3dX3 % 210d 321f1110N3dX3 03111V0100 % 1V211110VN1N00 NOISSIVWVOO
NOI1dINOS30
1O3f021d
3111021 AS 1N0d38 imam
S103f0Nd AVMHOIH ..V.. 321119V3W 01021
c c Wed
66/0E/6 : se sneeS
9E06'19 • :
%L'99
% '98
% L'99
% VS9
949.sL
%9'SL
L9
%til9
0$
o$
os
0$
0$
os
0$
0$
oortst4ti$
L99'6 L9' L$
09 L'Ee£17$
L99'9Z L't$
L9 CL49' L$
04941$64$$
6L9' L96'£$
900. CO $
900'C0C' L$
9$910VLi$
L90'6E L.Z$
LZ01760'91
009'4ZE' LS
6147'9E6'3
tratte$$
CZ9'l LZ'S$
000'0091$
000'009'1$
.sle6pnq meA pow lou pue panuoomeroid Igo; Joi aye semen Hy
sweiBoxl wewenaKiwi eBuetioiew! isupBe ueol (,) :310N
sto'oot•a$
,0$
0$
L90'6£ lt$
LZ0‘1760.9$
00917Z£'1$
6117'9E6' L$
SZOIZLe9$
CZ9'Z
000`0091$
000'009' l$
siv.t.431
sptudwi pew pue warn pool on etunA
03210N AO M.I3
quawanoickul pea g spoils pool
vinomni AO A.LI3
swewencuclw! pew $ SpallS pool
0.1.NIOVIs NVS AO A113
SWOW9A0JcILUI pew $ slee4s pool
S121213d AO A113
Vf102100 AO A.L13 TV1.0.10f1$
ainprup efieupp Lwom
(I) se6ueipielui upoun $ 'yips
VN02103 AO A.LI3
NVO1 MN" NOANV9 1ViOienS
siuewaAcuduil p21 uoAueo peomeN
3)1V1NOANVO AO A113
'11V0100 03A0tIddV IN3INIIVIN00 30NV1VEI saoNvnav 666t 'OE Joque4cloS IN3VN1IV*100 NOIld11:13S3C1
ISNIVOY 31V0-0.1. omaNvisino NV01 .V. 38f1SV3IN C3ON3 HINOIN a3A08ddY 103108c1
3ONV1V9 NV01 % ONICINVIS.1110 1V10.1. Hod 32:111.1.1CINI3c1X3
133r021d AS 1210a21_mane
S1331'021d SOV021 V S133211S 1V301/AVMHDIN 321nsv3w 31321
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Legislative Update
Upon adjourning on September 10th until January 3', the Legislature forwarded several
bills to the Governor for his consideration. The designated deadline for the Governor to
either sign into law, veto, or allow bills to become law without his signature.
On October 10th, the Governor signed AB 1012 (Torlakson) into law. This new law, by
enhancing the operating environment between Caltrans and local agencies such as the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) and providing for loans from the State Highway Account, will
facilitate more expeditious delivery of transportation projects.
On October 10th, the Governor vetoed AB 1155 (Torlakson and Burton). AB 1 155 would
have required the development, by agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG, of an
expenditure plan for the funds to be raised via a statewide transportation sales tax
measure (SCA 3). The Governor cited the current un-passed status of SCA 3 (Burton)
and his reluctance to endorse any specific proposal prior to the release of the final report
of the Commission on Building for the 21 st Century as the reasons for his vetoing AB
1155.
Other bills of importance to RCTC and SANBAG that were recently signed into law
include:
AB 71 (Cunneen) Permits Inherently Low Emission Vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV.
AB 283 (Longville) Allows local Board of Supervisors to hold hearings and pass
Resolutions of Necessity for condemnation proceedings for transportation projects.
AB 872 (Alquist) Allows for reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP
programmed projects.
AB 923 (Hertzberg) Increases the fines for rail right-of-way violations.
AB 1571 (Villaraigosa and Brulte) Creates a statewide air quality grant program
administered by the Air Resources Board in conjunction with local Air Quality
Management Districts (i.e. South Coast and Mojave Desert).
AB 928 (Burton) Allows California to avail itself of bonding opportunities via anticipated
receipt of TEA 21 grants.
SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund
permanent.
On October 10", the Governor vetoed AB 1 155 (Torlakson and Burton). AB 1 155 would
have required the development, by agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG, of an
expenditure plan for the funds to be raised via a statewide transportation sales tax
measure (SCA 3). The Governor cited the current unpassed status of SCA 3 (Burton)
and his reluctance to endorse any specific proposal prior to the release of the final report
of the Commission on Building for the 21 st Century as the reasons for his vetoing AB
1 155 (see attached copy of Governor's Veto Message).
Federal Legislative Update
On September 29', the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations Conferees met
to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the Transportation
Appropriation Legislation. A conference report was then submitted to each floor for
consideration. The House adopted the report on October 1st and the Senate did the same
on October 4th. On October 9', the President subsequently signed the bill into law.
Included in the bill was a $500,000 appropriation for Community Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and $1 .25 million for the Perris Bus
Maintenance Facility.
Summary
With the deadline for either signing, vetoing or allowing bills to become law without
signature passed, a few bills of importance were recently signed into law and one key bill
was vetoed by Governor Davis. Congress passed and the President signed into law the
Federal Transportation Appropriations Legislation.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 38 (Washington)
Amended to address education
issues.
Passed the
Assembly Floor 57-
20 on 5/13/99.
Passed Senate Floor
25-11 on 9/2/99.
Referred to
Assembly.
Concurrence in
Senate amendments
pending, may be
considered after
9/4/99. On 9/28/99
vetoed by governor.
SUPPORT
NO POSITION ON
CURRENT SUBJECT
MATTER
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
AB 44 (McClintock)
Would require Caltrans and local
authorities to redesignate all
existing HOV lanes as mixed
flow.
Referred to
Assembly
Transportation
Committee. No
hearing date yet.
OPPOSE
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
AB 71 (Cunneen)
Would permit inherently low-
emission vehicles (ILEV) to
travel in High Occupancy
Vehicle lanes regardless of the
number of occupants in the
ILEV.
Passed Assembly
Floor 79-0 on
5/27/99. Passed
Senate Floor 31-7
on 8/24/99. Signed
into law by
Governor, 9/7/99.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 74 (Strom -Martin)
Amended to just Require State
Intercity Freight Rail Study.
Passed Assembly
Floor 52-27 on
6/4/99. Passed
Senate Floor 50-26
on 8/26/99. On
9/15/99 signed into
law by Governor.
CHANGE FROM
OPPOSE TO WATCH
OPPOSE
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
WATCH
SANBAG 6/2/99
RCTC 6/2/99
AB 102 (Wildman
and Hertzberg)
Would fund the 1989 Priority
Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top
of the State Highway Account.
Passed the
Assembly Floor 43-
31 on 6/3/99. Failed
passage in Senate
Transportation
Committee on
8/17/99.
CHANGE FROM
SEEK AMENDMENT
TO OPPOSE
SANBAG 3/3/99-SEEK
AMENDMENT
RCTC 3/10/99-SEEK
AMENDMENT
SANBAG 6/2/99-
OPPOSE
RCTC 6/9/99-OPPOSE
AB 276 (Longville)
Would redirect a portion of sales
and gas taxes currently going to
the General Fund to the Public
Transportation Account
Passed the
Assembly Floor on
Revenue, Tax and
Transportation 14-2
on 5/10/99. Held in
Assembly
Appropriations
Committee,
suspense file.
NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
I Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 283 (Longville)
Would allow a resolution of
necessity to be approved by a
County Board of Supervisors,
rather than the California
Transportation Commission.
Passed the
Assembly Floor 76-
0 on 4/20/99. On
9/10/99. Passed
Senate Floor 40-0
on 9/7/99. On
9/28/99 signed into
law by Governor.
SPONSOR -
ADOPTED AS PART
OF THE STATE
LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM
SANBAG 1/6/99
RCTC 1/13/99
AB 308 (Longville)
Would require a review and
analysis o f the Public
Transportation Account
expenditures and a review of the
account's needs
Passed the
Assembly Floor 48-
31 on 6/2/99. On
6/12/99 passed
Senate
Transportation
Committee 11-1.
Passed the Senate
Appropriations
Committee 13-0 on
9/2/99. Passed to
Assembly
Transportation 25-
10. Concurrence in
Senate amendments
pending. On
9/17/99 enrolled and
to the Governor.
NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/ 14/99
AB 521( McClintock)
Would redirect that portion of
sales and gas taxes currently going
to the General Fund to the State
Highway Account.
Set for hearing on
4/19/99 in the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee.
Hearing canceled at
the request of
author.
NO
RECOMMENDATION
SANBAG 4/7/99
RCTC 4/14/99
I Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 872 (Alquist)
Would allow reimbursement of
Passed the
SUPPORT
SANBAG 4/7/99
local funds used to advance STIP
programmed projects.
Assembly Floor 78-
0 on 6/1/99. On
RCTC 4/14/99
9/7/99 passed
Senate Floor 40-0.
On 9/28/99 signed
into law by the
Governor.
AB 923 (Hertzberg)
Would increase the fines for Rail
Passed the
SUPPORT
SANBAG 6/2/99
Right of Way violations.
Assembly Floor 63-
RCTC 6/2/99
13 on 5/26/99. On
9/7/99 passed
Senate Floor 30-5.
On 9/9/99 Senate
Amendments
concurred in. To
enrollment 64-12.
On 10/10/99, signed
into law by the
Governor.
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 1012 (Torlakson)
A comprehensive transportation
Passed Assembly
SUPPORT
SANBAG 4/7/99
reform package intended to
enhance Caltrans' operating
environment; includes the
RCTC/SANBAG generated "loan"
concept.
Floor 73-7 on
6/2/99. Passed
Senate Floor 40-0
on 9/8/99. On
10/10/99 signed into
law by Governor.
RCTC 4/14/99
I Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 1425(Runner)
Provides Statutory Direction To
Passed the
SUPPORT
SANBAG 5/5/99
Caltrans to Insure More TEA21
Assembly Floor 50-
RCTC 5/12/99
Funds Flow Directly to Regions.
23 on 5/27/99. On
7/6 passed the
Senate
Transportation
Committee 7-2.
Referred to the
Senate
Appropriations
Committee. In
Committee, placed
on Appropriations
suspense file.
AB 1475 (Soto)
Would Designate a Portion of
Passed the
OPPOSE
SANBAG 6/2/99
Federal Transportation Safety
Assembly Floor 50-
RCTC 5/12/99
Funding to School Safety
25 on 6/2/99. On
Programs.
9/8/99 passed
Senate Floor 23-13.
On 9/9/99 Senate
Amendments
concurred in 52-26.
On 10/10/99, signed
into law by
Governor.
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
AB 1571
(Villaraigosa)
Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial
Air Standards Attainment
Program.
Passed the
Assembly Floor 78-
0 on 5/26/99.
Passed the Senate
Floor 40-0 on
9/7/99. On 9/10/99
Senate Amendments
concurred in. To
enrollment 77-2.
On 10/10/99, signed
into law by
Governor.
SEEK AMENDMENTS
SANBAG 5/5/99
RCTC 5/12/99
AB 1612 (Florez)
Would Allocate $300 Million of
State Highway Account Dollars to
Rehabilitate Streets and Roads.
Passed the
Assembly Floor 60-
20 on 6/2/99.
Referred to the
Senate
Transportation
Committee. On
8/18/99 hearing
canceled at the
request of the
author.
OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED
OPPOSE
SANBAG 6/2/99
RCTC 5/12/99
I i egisianorvautnor
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
SB 14 (Rainey)
Would require extensive study
prior to construction of future
HOV lanes.
Passed the Senate
Transportation
Committee 33-1 on
6/22/99. Passed the
Assembly
Transportation
Committee 18-0 on
8/16/99. On 9/10/99
from committee do
pass as amended 13-
6. On 9/10/99
passed Assembly
Floor 55-22, to
Senate. In Senate.
To unfinished
business.
OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 17 (Figueroa)
Would permit employers to receive
a tax credit for purchasing transit
passes for their employers.
Passed the Senate
Revenue and
Taxation Committee
on 5-0 on 4/28/99.
Referred to the
Senate
Appropriations
Committee, on
5/27/99 hearing
postponed by
Committee.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 63 (Solis)
Would reduce the minimum
occupancy for the El Monte
Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus.
Passed Senate Floor
40-0 on 5/10/99. On
7/8 passed
Assembly Floor 74-
2. Signed into law
by Governor on
7/23/99.
OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
" T a X a l u p & u a e a t i
o N " a o m u z u z o 0
X q p a u o d l s o d
5 u t a r a t i 6 6 / L Z / S
u p - o o m u r u z o 0
s u o g e p d o a d d y
a m u a S
u o p a o u I d ' 6 6 / Z Z / �
u o Z - 9 a o m u n u o p
s a o r n a s u n u m H
W u I i n a H M u a S
p a s s e d ' 6 6 / 9 1 / �
u o 0 - 6 a a } l i u z u z o D
s T o a f o i d u o p E p o d s u m n
6 6 / t I / t D I D 1 1
u o 9 u p o d s u a u
1 . 1 o m o 1 a J u j i o m p o d d n s
6 6 / L t D V E I N V S
. I . N H T A I Q N H I N I d N H H S
a w u o s
o f u o i i i m 0 3 a T e u d o n i d e m o m
( X u n n y A 1 ) S 9 g S
s n m s
u o g c l o p d p . m o g j o a i r a
u o m s o d
M E E
u o p d p o s o u
a o t i l t i v i u o ! w I s 0 3 1 I
I Legrsratron/Autnor
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
SB 98 (Alarcon)
Extends SCAQMD Authority to
collect $1 vehicle license fee for
air quality programs.
Passed the Senate
Floor 28-7 on
4/15/99. Passed
Assembly Floor 56-
21 on 6/1/99.
Signed into law by
the governor on
6/8/99.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
SB 117 (Murray)
Makes the State Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation fund
permanent.
Passed the Senate
Floor 24-12 on
6/1/99. On 9/9/99,
Senate concurs in
Assembly
amendments 26-12.
On 10/10/99, signed
into law by
Governor.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 3/3/99
RCTC 3/10/99
I 1_,G6ibiauuiUriuMvr
liescripnon
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
SB 481(Baca)
Establishes a Study of the
Passed Senate Floor
SUPPORT WITH
SANBAG 5/5/99
Economic Benefits of an Inland
30-4 on 5/24/99.
AMENDMENTS
RCTC 5/12/99
Port.
Passed Assembly
Consumer
Protection,
Governmental
Efficiency &
Economic
Development
Committee 7-0 on
6/29/99. Passed
Assembly Floor 51-
27 on 8/31 /99. On
9/1/99 Senate
concurs in
Assembly
Amendments 29-4.
On 9/27/99, signed
into law by
Governor.
SB 928 (Burton)
Authorizes Federal Grant Revenue
Passed Senate Floor
NO POSITION
SANBAG
Anticipation Notes-(Garvee
32-3 on 6/2/99. On
Bonds)
9/5/99 passed
SUPPORT
RCTC
Assembly Floor 74-
0. On 9/9/99,
Senate concurs in
Assembly
amendments 35-2.
On 10/10/99, signed
into law by
Governor.
Legislation/Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board Adoption
SB 1043 (Murray)
Requires the California High
Speed Rail Authority to Submit
it's Financial Plan to the
Legislature for Approval.
Passed Senate Floor
on 28-9 on 5/27/99.
On 7/8 passed
Assembly Floor 78-
0. On 7/28/99
vetoed by Governor.
On 9/1/99 placed on
inactive file on
request of Senator
Murray.
SUPPORT
SANBAG 5/5/99
RCTC 5/12/99
SB 1277 (Hayden)
Would Prohibit Construction of
Roads in Lands Under the
Jurisdiction of the Department of
Parks and Recreation, the
Department of Fish and Game and
the state conservancies.
Passed Senate
Natural Resources
and Wildlife
Committee 5-3 on
5/13/99. Passed the
Senate
Appropriations
Committee 7-4 on
6/10/99. Referred to
the Senate Floor.
OPPOSE
NO POSITION
RCTC 5/12/99
SANBAG 6/2/99
SCA 3 (Burton)
Would allow state ballot measure
for local transportation sales taxes.
Passed Senate floor
27-9 on 7/12/99. On
9/7/99 failed
passage on
Assembly Floor 46-
29. On 9/7/99, read
third time.
Amendments by
Assembly Member
Leach talked on
motion of Assembly
Member Shelley
(44-30).
SUPPORT
RCTC 5/12/99
SANBAG 6/2/99
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative
Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Advocacy Contracts
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission: 1) Approve the interagency agreement between Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) relating to Shared State Legislative Advocacy Services,
stipulating the administrative function of SANBAG in carrying out the Shared State
Legislative Advocacy contract, and 2) Approve the interagency agreement between
Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated
Governments relating to Shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services, stipulating the
administrative function of SANBAG in carrying out the Shared Federal Legislative
Advocacy contract. The draft agreements and scope of services for these contracts
are attached.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On July 14th, at the direction of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and
the San Bernardino Associated Governments governing boards, staff released two
Requests for Proposals: one for RCTC/SANBAG Shared State Advocacy Services and
one for RCTC/SANBAG Shared Federal Advocacy Services. A total of eight responses
were received: three for State Advocacy Services and five for Federal Advocacy
Services.
As outlined in the staff report to each board, following receipt of proposals, a staff
review committee was formulated and composed of legislative affairs staff from
transportation entities in the region. The staff review committee evaluated each
proposal and recommended the following firms as those most qualified to provided
the services needed by RCTC and SANBAG and, therefore, deserving of interviews
by the Joint Review Committee:
State Advocacy Firms
Smith and Kempton
JEA and Associates with Capitol Representation Group, Inc.
Federal Advocacy Firms
Copeland, Lowery and Jacquez
David Turch and Associates and Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc.
Jefferson Government Relations
Further, as outlined in the July 14th agenda items, the Chairs of the RCTC and
SANBAG Boards appointed members to represent their Board(s) in a Joint Review
Committee which would conduct the interviews and recommend to each board the
firms for State Advocacy Services and Federal Advocacy Services. The membership
of the Joint Review Committee was as follows:
RCTC Members
Honorable Jack van Haaster, RCTC Chairman, Murrieta City Council Member
Honorable Roy Wilson, Chair, RCTC Plans and Programs Committee, Riverside
County Supervisor
Honorable Ron Roberts, Vice -Chair, RCTC Budget and Implementation
Committee, Temecula City Council Member
SANBAG Members
Honorable Robert Christman, SANBAG President, City of Loma Linda Council
Member
Honorable Dennis Hansberger, SANBAG Vice -President, San Bernardino County
Supervisor
Honorable Bob Nolan, SANBAG Board Member, Mayor, City of Upland
Interviews were conducted on September 23`d. A follow-up phone conversation
involving SANBAG President Robert Christman, RCTC Chairman Jack van Haaster,
RCTC Executive Director Eric Haley, RCTC/SANBAG staff David Shepherd, David
Turch and Cliff Madison occurred on September 27t. Based on the phone
conversation, the Committee recommended jointly entering into two contracts: one
with Smith and Kempton for RCTC/SANBAG State Advocacy Services in the amount
of $96,000 (plus expenses not to exceed $1,500) per year and one with David Turch
and Associates and Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc. in the amount of
$108,000 (plus expenses not to exceed $4,000) per year.
The existing contract with Smith and Kempton for both agencies, expired on
September 30, 1999. Thus, staff is recommending approval of a one-year contract,
beginning October 1, 1999 for Smith and Kempton, with a two-year option (subject
to approval of each governing body) to coincide with the legislative cycle.
The existing SANBAG contract, with David Turch and Associates, expires on October
31, 1999. Staff is recommending entering into a joint contract with David Turch and
Associates and Cliff Madison Government Relations, Inc. for one year with a two-year
option (subject to approval of each governing body) to coincide with the legislative
cycle.
Similar to the existing contract between RCTC and SANBAG for the shared position
of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, the contracts for each firm
will be with SANBAG and SANBAG will invoice RCTC for its share (50% of the
costs). To facilitate this arrangement, staff is recommending approval of an
interagency contract with SANBAG which outlines their role as the contract
administrator and the reimbursement provisions.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND THE SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS RELATING
TO SHARED STATE LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 1999 by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a transportation commission
organized and existing under the laws of the state of California ("RCTC") and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments, a joint powers agency organized and existing under the
laws of the state of California ("SANBAG").
2. RECITALS.
2.1 RCTC wishes to contract with SANBAG to share the services of a state
legislative advocate.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Services. SANBAG will hire Smith and Kempton, a corporation, located at
980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560, Sacramento, CA 95814, (the "Contractor") to supply the skills and
services necessary to fully and adequately fulfill the job description described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Services").
3.2 Status of Contractor. The Contractor shall be engaged as an independent
contractor by SANBAG under this Agreement, and shall perform the Services for and on behalf
of RCTC on a one-half time basis and for SANBAG on a one-half time basis. SANBAG shall
pay all invoices submitted by the Contractor in connection with its performance of the Services
under this Agreement and as required by law.
3.3 Contract with RCTC. RCTC hereby contracts with SANBAG for the provision of
the Contractor's Services to and on behalf of RCTC. All Services shall be performed to the full
and complete satisfaction of RCTC. All Services shall be performed by Mr. D.J. Smith or Mr.
Will Kempton, or others as may be mutually agreed upon by SANBAG and RCTC. SANBAG
shall not approve of the Contractor's subcontracting of any work done in connection with the
performance of the Services without prior approval by RCTC.
3.4 Reporting. Contractor shall report to both SANBAG's Executive Director and
RCTC's Executive Director when performing Services.
3.5 Payment for RCTC Time. RCTC shall pay to SANBAG, as consideration for the
Contractor's provision of Services, $4000 per month. SANBAG and RCTC shall each pay one-
half of the expenses of the Contractor up to $750.00 per year. On or before the 20th of each
o:1a00047.doc
0050310
month, SANBAG shall provide RCTC with an itemized invoice indicating all costs and expenses
associated with the Contractor's services for RCTC. RCTC shall review the invoice and pay
SANBAG within 30 days of receiving the invoice.
3.6 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from October 1, 1999 to
September 30, 2000. Thereafter, the Parties may mutually agree to extend the term of this
Agreement for an additional two year period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2002.
3.7 Termination. Either Parry may terminate this Agreement at any time and for no
cause upon sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party.
3.8 Accounting Records. SANBAG shall maintain, for a period of three (3) years
following termination of this Agreement, complete and accurate records with respect to all costs
and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable.
SANBAG 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.
3.9 Authority to Execute. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed
this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement so as to
bind each respective Party to perform the conditions contemplated herein.
3.10 Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.
3.11 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for
the enforcement or defense of this Agreement, or because of any alleged dispute, breach, default,
or misrepresentation in connection with any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in that action or
proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
3.12 Indemnification.
3.12.1 RCTC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless SANBAG, its
officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability
arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement caused by the negligent
or willful acts or omissions of RCTC or its officers, agents, consultants or employees. RCTC
will reimburse SANBAG, its officers, agents, consultants and employees for any expenditures,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by them in defending against claims ultimately
determined to be due to negligent or willful acts or omissions of RCTC.
3.12.2 SANBAG agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its
officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability
arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement caused by the negligent
or willful acts or omissions of SANBAG or its officers, agents, consultants or employees.
o:\a00047.doc
0050310
SANBAG will reimburse RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees for any
expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by them, in defending against claims
ultimately determined to be due to negligent or willful acts or omissions of SANBAG.
3.12.3 SANBAG shall require Contractor to include RCTC, its officers, agents,
consultants, and employees as additional insureds and indemnify the same under any contract or
subcontract executed by SANBAG, arising out of, or related to, the performance of Services
pursuant to this Agreement.
3.12.4 SANBAG agrees to name RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and
employees as a third party beneficiary of any contract or subcontract executed by SANBAG,
arising out of, or related to, the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement.
3.12.5 SANBAG agrees to cooperate in good fath with RCTC, its officers,
agents, consultants, and employees in the resolution any dispute arising between RCTC and the
Contractor for matters arising out of, or related to, the performance of the Services pursuant to
this Agreement.
3.13 Status of Contractor. It is understood and agreed that Contractor shall be an
independent contractor of SANBAG.
3.14 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California.
3.15 Binding on Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the
benefit of, the successors and assigns of the respective Parties.
3.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument.
o:\a00047.doc
0050310
3.17 Captions. The captions of the various articles and sections of this Agreement are
for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the
scope, content, or intent of this Agreement or of any part or parts of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease has been executed by the parties as of the date first
written above.
SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Robert Christman Jack F. van Haaster, Chair
SANBAG President
Reviewed and Recommended for Approval:
By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Attest: Reviewed for Fiscal Impact:
By: By:
Secretary Chief Financial Officer
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Legal Form:
By: By:
Ronald D. Reitz Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel General Counsel
o:1a00047.doc
0050310
Scope of Services
Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments
State Advocacy Services
Overall Goal
Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) State Legislative Program.
Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside County and
San Bernardino County State Legislative delegation and members of the gubernatorial
administration.
Required Tasks/Activities
Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following:
Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related Assembly or Senate
Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC/SANBAG and legislative positions adopted in
response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and
oral communication.
Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of
legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG.
Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's
representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff.
Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions
contemplated at any government level.
Assist with the development, attendance and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon
for delegation member staff to be held in both Sacramento and/or Riverside and San Bernardino
County.
Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes
the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG, including but not limited to:
testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence
on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding
the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general
activities or action of State government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests.
Provide oral reports to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which offer insight into the
activities of the Legislature as they relate to the RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program. The
dates of these visits will be determined at a later date, based upon the Legislative Session
Calendar.
o:1a00047.doc
0050310
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND THE SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS RELATING
TO SHARED FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 1999 by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a transportation commission
organized and existing under the laws of the state of California ("RCTC") and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments, a joint powers agency organized and existing under the
laws of the state of California ("SANBAG").
2. RECITALS.
2.1 RCTC wishes to contract with SANBAG to share the services of a federal
legislative advocate.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Services. SANBAG will hire David Turch and Associates, a corporation, located
at 517 2nd Street, Northeast, Washington, D.0 20002, who shall utilize certain services of Cliff
Madison Government Relations, Inc., a corporation, located at 521 4th Street, S.E., Washington.
D.C. 20003, (collectively, "Contractor") to supply the skills and services necessary to fully and
adequately fulfill the job description described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference ("Services").
3.2 Status of Contractor. The Contractor shall be engaged as an independent
contractor by SANBAG under this Agreement, and shall perform the Services for and on behalf
of RCTC on a one-half time basis and for SANBAG on a one-half time basis. SANBAG shall
pay all invoices submitted by the Contractor in connection with its performance of the Services
under this Agreement and as required by law.
3.3 Contract with RCTC. RCTC hereby contracts with SANBAG for the provision of
the Contractor's Services to and on behalf of RCTC. All Services shall be performed to the full
and complete satisfaction of RCTC. All Services shall be performed by Contractor's personnel
to be mutually agreed upon by SANBAG and RCTC. SANBAG shall not approve of the
Contractor's subcontracting of any work done in connection with the performance of the
Services without prior approval by RCTC.
3.4 Reporting. Contractor shall report to both SANBAG's Executive Director and
RCTC's Executive Director when performing Services.
3.5 Payment for RCTC Time. RCTC shall pay to SANBAG, as consideration for the
Contractor's provision of the Services, $4,500.00 per month. SANBAG and RCTC shall each
pay one-half of the expenses of the Contractor up to $2,000.00 per year. On or before the 20th of
o:\a00051.doc
0050310
each month, SANBAG shall provide RCTC with an itemized invoice indicating all costs and
expenses associated with the Contractor's services for RCTC. RCTC shall review the invoice
and pay SANBAG within 30 days of receiving the invoice .
3.6 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from November 1, 1999 to October
31, 2000. Thereafter, the Parties may mutually agree to extend the term of this Agreement for
an additional two year period from November 1, 2000 to October 31, 2002.
3.7 Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for no
cause upon sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party.
3.8 Accounting Records. SANBAG shall maintain, for a period of three (3) years
following termination of this Agreement, complete and accurate records with respect to all costs
and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable.
SANBAG 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.
3.9 Authority to Execute. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed
this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement so as to
bind each respective Party to perform the conditions contemplated herein.
3.10 Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.
3.11 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for
the enforcement or defense of this Agreement, or because of any alleged dispute, breach, default,
or misrepresentation in connection with any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing parry
shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in that action or
proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
3.12 Indemnification.
3.12.1 RCTC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless SANBAG, its
officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability
arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement caused by the negligent
or willful acts or omissions of RCTC or its officers, agents, consultants or employees. RCTC
will reimburse SANBAG, its officers, agents, consultants and employees for any expenditures,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by them in defending against claims ultimately
determined to be due to negligent or willful acts or omissions of RCTC.
3.12.2 SANBAG agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its
officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability
arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement caused by the negligent
or willful acts or omissions of SANBAG or its officers, agents, consultants or employees.
o:1a00051.doc
0050310
SANBAG will reimburse RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees for any
expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by them, in defending against claims
ultimately determined to be due to negligent or willful acts or omissions of SANBAG.
3.12.3 SANBAG shall require Contractor to include RCTC, its officers, agents,
consultants, and employees as additional insureds and indemnify the same under any contract or
subcontract executed by SANBAG, arising out of, or related to, the performance of Services
pursuant to this Agreement.
3.12.4 SANBAG agrees to name RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and
employees as a third party beneficiary of any contract or subcontract executed by SANBAG,
arising out of, or related to, the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement.
3.12.5 SANBAG agrees to cooperate in good fath with RCTC, its officers,
agents, consultants, and employees in the resolution any dispute arising between RCTC and the
Contractor for matters arising out of, or related to, the performance of the Services pursuant to
this Agreement.
3.13 Status of Contractor. It is understood and agreed that Contractor shall be an
independent contractor of SANBAG
3.14 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and
governed by the laws of the State of California.
3.15 Binding on Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the
benefit of, the successors and assigns of the respective Parties.
3.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument.
oAa00051.doc
0050310
3.17 Captions. The captions of the various articles and sections of this Agreement are
for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the
scope, content, or intent of this Agreement or of any part or parts of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease has been executed by the parties as of the date first
written above.
SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Robert Christman Jack F. van Haaster
SANBAG President Chair
Reviewed and Recommended for Approval:
By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Attest: Reviewed for Fiscal Impact:
By: By:
Secretary Chief Financial Officer
Approved as to Legal Form: Approved as to Legal Form:
By: By:
Ronald D. Reitz Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel General Counsel
o:\a00051.doc
0050310
Scope of Services
Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments
Federal Advocacy Services
Overall Goal
Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) Federal Legislative
Program. Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside
and San Bernardino County Federal and Legislative delegation.
Required Tasks/Activities
Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following:
Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related House or Senate
Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC/SANBAG and legislative positions adopted in
response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and
oral communication.
Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of
legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG.
Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's
representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff.
Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions
contemplated at any government level.
Assist with the development, attendance, and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon
for delegation member staff to be held in Riverside County and/or San Bernardino County.
Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes
the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG, including but not limited to:
testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence
on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding
the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general
activities or action of Federal government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests.
o:1a00051.doc
0050310
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Agreement between RCTC/SANBAG for Shared Director of
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Position
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract Number 99-01 1 , between RCTC and
SANBAG, for shared Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position,
to extend the contract for one year with a two-year option, and increase the Contract
amount by $5,000 for a total contract amount of $61,000 as detailed in the Financial
Impact Section.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On July 7, 1999, the Commission received and approved a recommendation to
continue the existing relationship between the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
for the shared position of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. Staff
reported a contract would later be brought to the Commission for approval. This item
serves to facilitate such action.
The existing contract with RCTC expires on December 18, 1999. The current
relationship does not account for any administrative costs that are incurred by either
agency. However, after more than a year of operation, staff has determined that
SANBAG is assuming a larger administrative load to fulfill the needs of the position.
Therefore, staff is recommending amending the existing contract to include
reimbursement from RCTC for up to $5,000 in administrative costs. To coincide with
the legislative cycle, staff is recommending extending the existing contract for one
year with a two-year option (subject to approval by each governing body).
Financial Impact:
As currently is the case, RCTC will be invoiced for half the costs associated with this
position (salary and benefits) and expenses allocable to RCTC. Additionally, RCTC
will reimburse SANBAG for administrative costs not to exceed $5,000. The total
financial impact to RCTC is approximately $61,000 annually plus expenses.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
THE SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
RELATING TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
ARTICLE 1. PARTIES AND DATE
This First Amendment to the Agreement between the Riverside County Transportation
Commission ("RCTC") and the San Bernardino Associated Governments ("SANBAG) Relating to
Intergovernmental and Legislative Services ("First Amendment") dated as of ,1999,
is entered into by and between RCTC and SANBAG (collectively, "parties").
ARTICLE 2. RECITALS
2.1 RCTC and SANBAG entered into an agreement relating to intergovernmental and
legislative services on July 13, 1998 ("Agreement"), which Agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions under which RCTC and SANBAG share the services of an employee in the area of
intergovernmental and legislative services.
2.2 RCTC and SANBAG desire to extend the term of the Agreement for one year, and
provide for a further extension of two years, subject to mutual agreement between RCTC and
SANBAG.
2.3 RCTC has agreed to reimburse SANBAG for certain costs incurred for administrative
and secretarial support services provided to RCTC in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000) per year, for each year that the Agreement is in effect.
2.4 Capitalized undefined terms used here shall have the meaning given them in the
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth herein, the receipt
and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
R VPUB\KSC\534905
1
ARTICLE 3. TERMS
3.1 The term of the Agreement set forth in Section 3.6 of the Agreement shall be
extended to December 19, 2000. Thereafter, the parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the
term of this Agreement for an additional two (2) year period, from December 19, 2000, to December
18, 2002.
3.2 Section 3.5A of the Agreement is hereby added to read as follows:
"3.5A Secretarial Support - Reimbursement for Expenses. SANBAG
shall be primarily responsible for providing and paying for
administrative and secretarial support services incurred in connection
with the Services to be performed under the Agreement. RCTC shall
reimburse SANBAG for the cost of administrative and secretarial
support services provided specifically for RCTC Services for an
amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) per year, for
each year that the Agreement is in effect. SANBAG shall provide
RCTC monthly invoices for the cost of such administrative and
secretarial support services provided for RCTC Services."
RVPUB\KSC\534905
2
3.3 All terms of the Agreement not affected by the provisions of this First Amendment
shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the extended term of this Agreement, and any
further extension thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed by the parties as of the
date first written above.
SAN BERNARDINO RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Kathy A. Davis Councilman Jack F. van Haaster
President Chairman
Attest:
By:
Reviewed and Recommended for Approval:
By:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Approved as to Legal Form:
By:
Secretary Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel
Approved as to Legal Form:
By:
Ronald D. Reitz
Counsel
RVPUB\KSC\534905
3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and
Communications
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award of Consultant Agreement for Communications and Graphic
Design Services
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) award a three year consultant agreement to Geographics
with two - one year extension options for communications and graphic design
services on an as needed, time and materials basis pursuant to the proposal hourly
rates, and 2) authorize the RCTC Chair to enter into a contact pursuant to legal
counsel review.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Prior to the expansion of the Commission in January 1999, a process had been
initiated by the Commission to review a number of its consultant contracts which had
been renewed annually over a number of years. These contracts were considered
"recurring" and were reviewed as part of the annual budget process. Based upon the
review and stating a commitment to ensuring open and competitive public policy
practices, staff was directed to develop and issue a request for proposal (RFP) for the
Commissions communications and graphic design services. Under the recurring
contracts process, an annual contract with the Riverside based firm of Geographics
had been in effect for seven years.
Attached as Exhibit A is the RFP prepared by staff which was mailed to 117
consultants throughout the four county region. A mandatory pre -bid meeting was
held for interested bidders which was attended by 25 individual firms, including 11
from Riverside,13 from Orange, and 1 from Los Angeles Counties.
At the pre -bid meeting, the RFP and its requirements were reviewed, a packet of
RCTC print materials was distributed to each bidder, and verbal responses were
provided to submitted written questions (see Exhibit B) and any follow-on questions
from the bidders during the meeting. As one of the RFP rating criteria focused on a
bidder's creative work and ability to communicate information in an eye catching and
informative manner, the packet of RCTC print materials was reviewed to illustrate the
breadth of RCTC's product needs and existing creative standards. The packet
overview was intended to assist all bidders in their selection of sample work products
to demonstrate their firm's skills and abilities. Following the mandatory pre -bid
meeting, bidders had an opportunity to again submit written questions. Staff
prepared responses and distributed a memo to all pre -bid meeting participants (see
Exhibit C).
Three bids were received in response to the RFP including: 1) Frank Wilson and
Associates (Laguna Hills), 2) Geographics (Riverside), and 3) The Vaughan Group
(Riverside). A technical staff panel was convened to rate the proposals including
representatives from:
❑ Coachella Valley Association of Governments
❑ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
❑ Orange County Transportation Authority
❑ San Bernardino Associated Governments
❑ South Coast Air Quality Management District
❑ Southern California Association of Governments
The technical panel reviewed and rated each proposal based on the established 100
point evaluation criteria as defined in the RFP including:
1. Responsiveness of the proposal to the RFP 10 points
2. Firm's relevant experience 20 points
3. Creativity, diversity and quality of sample work products 20 points
4. Experience and strength of firm's assigned personnel 20 points
5. Range of firm's in-house services 10 points
6. Consultant labor rates and other charges 20 points
Each rater submitted individual score sheets on the three proposals and provided
written and verbal comments regarding their assessment and overall ranking of the
proposals. The scores were tallied and averaged resulting in the following ranking:
1) Geographics - 94, 2) Frank Wilson and Associates - 77, and 3) The Vaughan
Group - 52.
All six evaluators ranked the three proposals in the same order although their point
spreads were different between the proposals. Among the comments of evaluators
were several important points including the fact that as a firm, Geographics had the
widest range of in-house services, lowest hourly rates per service type, lowest
overhead rate and highest quality of print materials that demonstrated the firms
creativity and diversity in product development. While the RFP allowed for oral
interviews to be conducted, it was concluded, based on the technical ratings, that
oral interviews were not required.
Given the overall ranking of the proposals, and the high quality and responsive
performance to date of Geographics, who is a certified Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) company, staff recommends that a time and materials, three year
consultant contract be awarded as defined in the RFP to include the option of two -
one year extensions. Funding for communications and graphic design services
totaling $360,000 has been included in the adopted FY 99/00 budget within various
departments based on staff's projection of needs. It is staff's responsibility to define
the products to be produced, request a written estimate from the consultant,
authorize the consultant to commence work, approve all work products, and review
and approve all invoices within budget parameters.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$ 360, 000
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Various
Y
1999-2000
Year
Attachments
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
ATTACHMENT "A"
3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501
phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787-7920 • www.rctc.org
DATE: August 23, 1999
TO: Consultant Firms
FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission
SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for the Provision of Communications and Graphic
Design Consultant Services
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is soliciting proposals from
qualified communications and graphic design firms to provide consultant services in
support of the Agency's Public Information Program and other departmental outreach
efforts. This Request for Proposals (RFP) uses the words "Consultant" and "Bidder"
interchangeably.
INDEX — The following Sections are contained in this Request for Proposal.
Section 1 - Background
Section 2 - Purpose of RFP
Section 3 — Schedule of Events
Section 4 — RFP Contact Person
Section 5 — Scope of Work
Section 6 — Proposal Submittal Requirements
Section 7 — Consultant Selection Process
Section 8 — Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Section 9 — RCTC Model Consultant Contract
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND
As a policy -making body, the Commission oversees a wide range of transportation
activities within Riverside County. The thirty member board provides a forum for local
city and county representatives to participate in and influence the decision -making
process regarding transportation planning, programming and funding issues. In
addition to fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under AB1246 (Ingalls), the Commission
implements Measure A, Riverside County's half cent sales tax for transportation
improvements, and serves in several other capacities including Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), Freeway Service Patrol, and Congestion Management
Agency (CMA). The Commission employs 25 full time staff members and has an
operating budget of $112 million for fiscal year 1999-2000.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 2
The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of
interested parties about the roles and responsibilities of RCTC. Emphasis is placed on
informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation programs and
projects impacting them, and maintaining open communication with other allied
entities.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF RFP
The purpose of this RFP is to solicit a communications and design Consultant to assist
RCTC in the design, development, and implementation of the Commission's broad
information and outreach efforts that span a number of work areas including, but not
limited to,: administration, finance, specialized transportation, commuter assistance,
capital projects (highway and rail), callboxes, freeway service patrol, and intelligent
transportation systems. Various forms of media and communication tools are currently
used in its outreach efforts with the overall objectives being to: 1) provide accurate,
informative and easily accessible information, 2) facilitate public participation in and
understanding of RCTC's programs, projects, and processes, and 3) increase inter-
agency coordination and cooperation.
To meet these objectives, RCTC is seeking a creative and technically knowledgeable
full -service consulting firm who can be responsive to the Commission's decision -making
processes in a positive and productive manner including high profile topics with short
turn around time frames. The successful Consultant will be expected to produce
materials that are clear and concise, high quality, appealing to the audience, and cost
effective.
The Consultant will work closely with RCTC staff on all assigned tasks. Work will be
performed on an as -needed basis as authorized by designated RCTC representatives
and will be reimbursed on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis. The Consultant will be
required to work cooperatively and productively with other consultants or agencies as a
team player and represent the interests and position of the Commission.
For FY 1999-2000, the Commission has budgeted $360,000 for time and material costs
for its communications and outreach efforts. It is anticipated that RCTC will enter into a
three-year contract with the selected consultant and include an option to extend the
contract for two one-year periods.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 3
SECTION 3 - SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
A. Release RFP
B. Mandatory pre -bid Meeting at 10:00 a.m.
C. Consultant verbal or written comments must be
received no later than 5:00 p.m.
D. Proposals due at RCTC offices no later
than 5:00 p.m.
E. Evaluation period
F. Short list interviews starting at 1:00 p.m.
G. Selection Committee consultant
recommendation to RCTC Budget and
Implementation Committee
H. Committee consultant recommendation to
RCTC Board for approval to execute contract
I. Selected consultant work begins
August 23, 1999
September 9, 1999
September 16, 1999
September 22, 1999
September 23 — 28, 1999
October 1, 1999
October 25, 1999
November 10, 1999
December 1, 1999
The above dates are subject to change at the discretion of the Commission.
SECTION 4 — RFP CONTACT PERSON
Questions regarding the content, intent or procedural
addressed to:
Ms. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Phone: (909) 787-7141
matters of this RFP should be
and Communications
FAX: (909) 787-7920
For clarity purposes, it is suggested that questions be submitted in writing. All
questions received by Ms. Williams no later than Wednesday, September 8, 1999 will be
orally reviewed and answered at the mandatory pre -bid meeting (see Section 6). Any
questions received by Ms. Williams after the pre -bid meeting will be responded to in
writing and distributed to all pre -bid meeting attendees. Any Bidder verbal or written
questions received by RCTC after 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 1999 will NOT
be acknowledged or answered.
Please note that potential Bidder's should NOT make any type of contact with RCTC
Board Members or their staff regarding any aspect of this RFP. It is intended that the
selection of a Consultant shall be made on merit alone based on the processes and
criteria set forth in the RFP. Violation of this condition shall be cause for immediate
disqualification of a Bidder's proposal.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 4
SECTION 5 - SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant will be required to work closely with RCTC staff in developing and
implementing the Commission's Public Information Program and other departmental
outreach efforts including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Recommending appropriate public information strategies and marketing
themes including methods of outreach for specific target audiences;
B. Developing concepts, designing, writing and producing final art work, copy
and/or complete work product for annual and financial reports, brochures,
hot sheets, newsletters, flyers, bill stuffers, press releases, marketing
campaigns, promotional items (e.g., T-shirts, label pins, plaques, pencils),
audio visual and multi -media materials, web sites, broadcast and print
advertisements, display boards, office graphics, billboards, display booths,
etc.;
C. Providing photographic services including aerial photography, and developing
and maintaining a proprietary library of film images for various types of
applications;
D. Coordinating and securing the placement of advertisements;
E. Identifying appropriate distribution channels for print materials and
implementing material distribution;
F. Coordinating and overseeing final production of a wide range of products
directly or through other vendors as secured by the Consultant or
Commission;
G. Researching and preparing cost estimates for a wide variety of services and
products;
H. Performing various staff support tasks as may be required to set-up, man and
take -down Commission sponsored booths, exhibits, awards ceremonies,
groundbreaking events and/or transportation fairs;
I. Providing Consultant's own office space, production equipment, supplies and
transportation necessary to complete all assigned tasks.
The Commission will be responsible for the following:
A. Assigning specific Consultant work tasks including deadlines, and setting
priorities;
B. Providing direction to Consultant throughout all work task phases;
C. Preparing background and technical information for Consultant use;
D. Reviewing and approving the Consultant's work products;
E. Approving and processing Consultant invoices; and
F. Responding to Consultant questions.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 5
SECTION 6 - PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
To qualify to submit a proposal, interested consulting firms MUST attend a mandatory
pre -bid meeting to be held on Thursday, September 9, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. in
the office of RCTC (see address in paragraph below). Firms interested in attending the
pre -bid meeting are requested to register their attendance in advance of the
meeting by calling Ms. Joni Shay, Executive Assistant, at (909) 787-7141 on
or before Tuesday, September 7, 1999. The pre -registration will allow RCTC to
prepare the appropriate number of RCTC sample work product packages for distribution
to pre -registered Consultant firms. For firms not pre -registered, RCTC sample packages
may either be provided at the pre -bid meeting or mailed thereafter to the Consultant
firm at the discretion of the Commission.
Bidder's are required to submit six (6) original proposals (no copies) for use
in the Commission's evaluation process Proposals must be submitted no
later than 5:00 p.m, on Wednesday, September 2Z, 1999. All proposals will
be date and time stamped upon receipt, Any proposal received after 5:00
p.m, exactly will NOT be evaluated and returned to bidder unopened.
Bidder's should seal their six original proposals in a package and clearly mark the
face of the package with the words, "Communications and Graphic Design
RFP'; and mail or hand deliver the package to the attention of:
Ms. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Submitted proposals must follow the format outlined below and all requested
information must be supplied. Failure to submit proposals in the required numbered
and format may result in elimination from the proposal evaluation process.
Proposals shall be formatted in two parts. Part I, Proposal Binder, shall contain all
written materials determined necessary by the Consultant to respond to the submittal
requirements (except work product samples). It shall not exceed twenty (20) - 8 1/2 X
it sheets of paper. All proposals should have consecutively number pages, be bound
for easy readability and printed double -sided on recycled paper.
Part II, Sample Binder, shall contain all work product samples. All samples shall be
contained in a binder of the Consultant's choice. Loose and/or unmarked samples will
NOT be considered during the evaluation process.
All proposals must contain the following items in the exact order and categories as
detailed herein:
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 6
A. COVER LETTER;
Within the cover letter, identify the RFP name under which the proposal is being
submitted and the Bidder's name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and e-mail
address, if available. The letter must specify contact person(s) for technical and
contractual matters, and be signed by the person(s) authorized to contractually
bind the proposing entity.
For a joint proposal, the lead Bidder must include a statement confirming
authorization to act on behalf of the other Bidder(s). The lead Bidder must
include the name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and e-mail address, if
available, of all joint proposing firms and a letter of acknowledgement from each
of the firms stating their intention to be bound by the RFP requirements and any
resulting Consultant contract.
If the Bidder wishes to have RCTC return their submitted work product samples
as required by this RFP, the Bidder must include a written request to do so in
their cover letter. While the Commission will retain one of the submitted Sample
Binders for its records, it will endeavor to return the remaining Binders as
requested.
B. TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Clearly identify all material contained in the proposal by section and page
number.
C. CONSULTANT PROFILE;
Provide a general overview of the Bidder's firm and its approach to service and
product development and delivery. A summary history of the Consultant firm
should be provided as well as specifics such as number of employees, and
number and type of current clients to provide RCTC with an understanding of the
firm's overall capacity to perform the Scope of Work. Identify the addresses of
all company offices, if more than one, and state which site will be the primary
office where the Bidder will perform work pursuant to this RFP. If a joint
proposal is being submitted, please discuss any prior working relationships
between the joint proposers.
D. CONSULTANT EXPERIENCE:
Describe in detail why and how the Consultant firm is qualified to perform the
work outlined in the RFP. At a minimum, two areas of experience must be
addressed. First, identify and discuss any experience within the last six (6) years
that the Consultant has had in working with private and/or public entities, and,
more specifically, transportation entities to demonstrate the firm's expertise in
understanding and communicating RCTC's positions, accomplishments, and
issues to different audiences using a variety of communications tools.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 7
It is strongly suggested that the discussion be supplemented with a list of
existing clients detailing the types of services and work products produced for
each client. The list should include the Bidder's client contact name and
telephone number. Additionally, the Bidder should identify any work product
awards or recognitions received by the Bidder within the last six (6) years to
highlight its capabilities to produce high quality products.
A list of relevant work products produced within the last six (6) years should also
be included in the Proposal Binder which demonstrates the Bidder's design and
technical capabilities to perform the Scope of Work. Each item on the work
product list should detail: 1) type of work product; 2) client name, responsible
staff contact, address, and telephone/fax numbers; and 3) unique challenges
addressed in the design, development and/or production of the work product.
Second, the above list should be supplemented by including samples of the work
products described in a separate Samples Binder to provide specific examples of
the Consultant's range of product development and production experience. All
work product samples submitted must be consecutively numbered, and cross-
referenced to the list of relevant work product experience in the Proposal Binder.
Bidders are encourage to submit samples which are most similar to the types of
work products described in this RFP under Section 5 — Scope of Work (e.g.,
annual reports, press releases, print ads, brochures, marketing campaigns,
promotional items, etc.).
To further assist Bidders in their selection of samples to submit, samples of
existing RCTC work products will be distributed at the mandatory pre -bid
meeting as referenced in the beginning of this Section. Please note that RCTC
will NOT return any submitted work product samples unless specifically
requested to do so within the body of the Bidder's cover letter.
E, CONSULTANT ORGANIZATION/PERSONNEL:
Provide an organization chart of the Bidder's firm and any other firm(s submitting
as part of a joint proposal under this RFP. Describe how the firm(s) propose(s)
to work closely and cooperatively with RCTC staff and other consulting firms as
assigned to deliver requested work products within defined timelines that can
sometimes be extremely short.
Resumes for all key professional and management personnel that will be
assigned to the RCTC account should be included in this section. Please identify
by name and title the Bidder's Account Manager who will be the designated
RCTC contact as well as other key staff. Include a description of their roles and
areas of expertise and identify which office site they are located in, if not in the
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 8
primary office as noted under sub -section "C" above. Please note that each key
staff will be subject to RCTC approval and must be maintained for the contract
period. Any replacement for identified key staff must similarly be approved by
RCTC.
G. FEE SCHEDULE AND IN-HOUSE/VENDOR SERVICES LIST:
The work to be performed under this RFP and any resulting contract will be on a
Time and Materials basis as assigned by RCTC. The Bidder is requested to
provide a detailed list of hourly rates by type of service/product expected to be
performed in-house pursuant to the Scope of Work. Bidder's shall also identify
any additional charges for overhead rates, fringe benefits, administrative costs,
and profit.
A list of the Bidder's proposed vendors should also be included detailing the type
of service/product to be purchased from each vendor and the unit cost for said
service/product. The Bidder must identify any "material handling fee" that will
be charged in addition to vendor costs. A discussion of how the Bidder plans to
or has procured the identified vendors is required.
If the Bidder anticipates any other charges for costs associated with the work to
be performed under this RFP such as travel, telephone, etc., those costs must be
clearly identifies along with unit costs. In addition, if the Bidder applies any
charges for expedited work as a result of timelines being advanced by RCTC or
required priority rush work, all such charges must be identified and documented.
H. CONFLICT OF INTEREST;
Address any possible conflicts of interest the Bidder may have as a result of work
with other clients and work to be performed under this RFP on behalf of RCTC.
Although the Bidder will not be automatically disqualified by reason of work
performed for such firms, RCTC reserves the right to consider the nature and
extent of such work in evaluating any proposal.
SECTION 7 - CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
An RCTC Selection Committee will review and evaluate all proposals submitted to
determine their responsiveness to the RFP requirements. Proposals determined to be
responsive will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the criteria outlined in
Section 8 — Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation criteria and points are included
to provide the Bidder with additional guidance as to the importance of each criteria the
proposal will be evaluated against.
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 9
The Selection Committee will develop a priority list of responsive proposals based on
each proposals total average score. It is anticipated that the top three (3) ranked firms
will be invited to participate in oral interviews scheduled for Friday, October 1, 1999
beginning at 1:00 p.m. in the RCTC offices. Based on the oral interviews, the Selection
Committee will forward their consultant firm recommendation to RCTC's Budget and
Implementation Committee. Upon review and approval by the RCTC Committee, it is
projected that a recommendation will be sent to the full RCTC Board for final approval.
A Consultant contract will be awarded to a responsible and responsive Bidder whose
proposal best conforms to the RFP and is, in the opinion of RCTC, the most qualified
firm to perform the Scope of Work. The successful Bidder must enter into a contract
with RCTC as a condition of receiving any funding. A model RCTC contract is attached
to this RFP (see Section 9) and should be reviewed by any interested Consultant prior
to submitting a proposal.
Once submitted, proposals cannot be altered without the prior written consent of RCTC.
All proposals shall be firm offers valid for a period of ninety (90) days following the
deadline for proposal submission.
The RCTC reserves the right to: 1) reject any and all proposals submitted, 2) request
clarifying information of any Bidder, 3) negotiate terms with any Bidder, and 4) waive
any irregularities in a proposal.
All proposals become the property of RCTC upon submission. RCTC intends to keep all
proposals confidential prior to contract award. Upon contract award, all proposals are
subject to applicable public information laws.
All time, materials, and costs associated with the preparation of a proposal shall be
borne solely by the Consultant firm responding to this RFP.
SECTION 8 — PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following factors will be considered in the evaluation of all responsive proposals.
Proposals should provide information in sufficient detail to allow evaluation based on
the established criteria:
A. Responsiveness of the proposal to the RFP 10 Points
B. Firm's relevant experience 20 Points
C. Creativity, diversity and quality of sample work products 20 Points
D. Experience and strength of firm's assigned personnel 20 Points
E. Range of firm's in-house services 10 Points
E. Consultant labor rates and other chargers 20 Points
TOTAL: 100 Points
RCTC Communications and Graphic Design Request for Proposal Page 10
SECTION 9 - RCTC MODEL CONSULTANT CONTRACT
The Commission is in the process of revising its model consultant contract and expects
to have it completed within several days of this RFP's issuance. The revised model
contract will be distributed under separate cover to all consultant firms receiving this
RFP. All potential Bidder's are encouraged to review the model contract prior to
preparing a proposal. Particular attention should be paid to the insurance,
indemnification, confidentiality and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
requirements.
F:\users\preprint\mw\prrfp.doc
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
ATTACHMENT "B"
3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501
phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787 7920 • www.retc.org
September 9, 1999
COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS
Received by 9/8/99
1. What was the impetus for sending out this RFP? Was it a legal requirement? Are you
not satisfied with your current relationship(s)? Please explain. (Ervin/Bell)
2(a). Do you currently have a relationship with an ad agency/design firm? If so, who are
they and how long have you worked with them? Are you happy with the work they
have done? (Ervin/Bell)
2(b). Does RCTC currently have an ad agency of record? If so, which one? Why have sent
out this RFP if you currently have an ad agency of record? Is that agency participating
in this RFP? (Rieches/Baird)
3. Do you have a campaign or theme that you are implementing at this time? If so, do
you see that it is not working and/or its time to change creative direction?
(Ervin/Bell)
4. In Section 2, fourth paragraph of the RFP, it mentions a budget of $360,000 for time
and material costs for FY 1999-2000. What was your budget based. upon? Is media a
part of this? What has been budgeted for media? (Rieches/Baird)
5. In Section 5, point B, you have listed a wide range of items needed by the RCTC. Is it
the expectation that the $360,000 budget will cover all of those items, including
outside buyouts involved with broadcast production, photography, printing,
promotional items, and display booths? (Rieches/Baird)
6. Is the Commission open to a retainer rather than time and material costs in order to
save money? (M K Walker)
7. Is there an existing marketing plan to work with or will the chosen agency be tasked
with developing a new one? (M K Walker)
8. In the proposal may we include information not specifically requested, but relevant to
what MK Walker has to offer? (M K Walker)
9. Will the Commission appoint one contact person for purposes of signing and creative
approval? (M K Walker)
RwersideCounty
•ransportation C,ommission
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Response to Questions ref: Communications and Graphic Design Request for
Proposal
ATTACHMENT "C"
3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501
phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787-7920 • www.rctc.org
September 16, 1999
Consultant Firms
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Pursuant to Section 3 - Schedule of Events in the Communications and Graphic Design
Request for Proposal dated August 23, 1999, the following questions were received by
RCTC no later than 5:00 .p.m. on September 16th. As indicated at the mandatory pre -bid
meeting held on September 9th, the answers to submitted questions will be transmitted to
all meeting attendees. On Friday, September 17, 1999, this question response memo will
be FAXed and a hard copy placed in the U.S. mail to the firm addresses and numbers noted
on the meeting sign -in sheet by the attending firm representative. No additional questions
will be acknowledged. RCTC's answers to the submitted questions are underlined for easy
reference.
Just a reminder to those firms who will be responding to the RFP, all proposals must be
received by RCTC no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 22, 1999.
Questions submitted by Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc.:
1. Do you want us to present an overall budget? No
2. Do you want us to give you estimates for any of the material that you distributed
at the pre -bid meeting or any of the materials listed on Page 4? No
3. Section C requests "number and type of current clients", Section D requests "a
list of existing clients detailing the types of services and work products
produced for each client". Can you please explain the difference between
the two lists? Section D is intended to focus on a Bidder's client experience
over the past six years. For clarity, the word "existing" should be deleted
from the referenced sentenced at the top of page 7. A bidder may or may
not elect to include "current" clients in Section D which is designed to be
much more detailed in describing specific work products produced.
4. There is no section F. Is a section missing or is this a typo? The missing F is a
typographical error. Under Section 6, sub -sections G and H should read F
and G.
Questions submitted by The Larson Group:
1. We plan on including divider pages in our binders, will those count as actual
pages? No.
2. Does the cover letter count as a page? Yes.
Questions submitted by Topspin Communications:
1. What is the current charges to the RCTC for design per hour? $40/hour.
2. What is the current charges for art production per hour? $40/hour.
3. What is your agencies current markup for outside vendor purchases such as
printing, etc.? 15%. What is the allocated hourly charge for press checks?
None.
4. What is your current agency receiving for commission based on media
placement? N/A. Print ads are purchased directly by RCTC. No other media
formats have been used to date.
Question submitted by Johnson/Ukropina:
1. Your model agreement indicates this is a time and materials contract. Will RCTC
pay for in-house charges based on the estimates of services provided which
will be reflected in the invoice submitted without any further back-up? No.
The successful consultant will be required to maintain timesheets to verify
actual hours expended per approved task. For additional requirements
regarding documentation of expenses please see Section 3.14 - Accounting
Records in the RCTC model agreement.
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Executive Committee
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
THROUGH
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
RCTC Classification Analysis
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission receive and approve the Classification Analysis of RCTC positions,
prepared by Creative Management Solutions (CMS).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
At the direction of the Commission, staff hired a consultant to conduct a Classification
and Compensation survey. The Consultant selected to perform the classification
analysis and to conduct the survey was Creative Management Solutions headed by Barry
Newton.
The first step in developing a classification plan was to have staff members complete
a questionnaire by listing examples of essential functions and any physical requirements
of their respective positions. The Consultant reviewed the questionnaires submitted by
staff as well as the current job description for each classification and prepared new class
specifications. The Classification Report that describes the study background,
methodology, findings, and final recommendations were reviewed by the Executive
Committee at their meeting in September. Changes were made to appropriate position
titles in response to the comments made by Commissioner Dick Kelly.
The next phase of the study is a salary survey. In determining the survey participants,
the Executive Committee selected comparable transportation and regional planning
organizations with similar job classifications. The selected agencies were Fresno County
Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino
Associated Governments, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Southern California Association of Governments,
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Sacramento Transportation Authority, and
the Ventura County Transportation Commission. The Consultant is in the process of
evaluating the survey and a report will be presented to the Committee and to the
Commission next month.
nk
Attachments
STUDY BACKSROUNQ
Organizational classification plans are periodically updated. The RCTC's classification
plan is being reviewed in order to incorporate changes that have occurred in job assignments,
staffing levels, internal reporting relationships, program and service requirements,
performance standards, and statutory requirements since the plan was last studied.
There are other advantages associated with reviewing the classification plan. The
RCTC is able to more fully recognize the types of work being performed by different
employees, to identify training needs, to assess the effectiveness of hiring and performance
evaluation practices, and to ensure that employees are paid fairly for their responsibilities.
Given the scope of the classification analysis and the need for an objective third party
review, the RCTC retained the services of Creative Management Solutions (CMS), a
management consulting firm (hereafter referred to as "The Consultant"), to perform the study.
The firm has worked with over 150 clients during the past 10 years in conducting similar types
of analyses.
The classification study is intended to achieve a number of organizational goals.
Among these goals are the need to: a) determine how many classification levels are needed
given differences in the job functions and qualifications requirements of various positions; b)
assess whether the current job titling is appropriate; and, c) establish whether the current job
classifications are representative of the scope and types of work performed by positions in
each job classification and to make changes as needed. The information from this job
analysis will also be used to: a) conduct internal job evaluation comparisons; and, b) to
perform a market compensation study of similar benchmark jobs for the purpose of assigning
the jobs to salary ranges.
WORK M
ETMODOLOO
The Consultant used a number of common job analysis methods to improve the validity
and reliability of the study results. An introductory letter was drafted on behalf of the
Executive Manager to describe the goals of the study and to provide an overview of the work
plan to employees, supervisors, and management. The Consultant also conducted an
orientation meeting with the management team to introduce the study methodology and to
answer questions related to the data collection process.
Full-time employees were asked to complete a position questionnaire and to review
their current job description in order to identify any job functions that no longer applied, had
been modified, or had been added to the job definitions. The questionnaires were reviewed
for completeness and accuracy by the supervisors and managers. Additional comments were
provided at that time.
As part of the classification review process, these employees had the opportunity to
consider their current job definitions and the minimum level of experience, training, education,
knowledge, skills, abilities, certification and special requirements.
The Consultant reviewed the completed questionnaires and conducted interviews with
a representative sampling of employees and supervisors for each department and division,
and shared written supervisory or managerial comments with the employees during the
interview process. Meetings were also conducted with the Executive Director and Director
of Administrative Services to study the agency's development plan and to discuss major
classification issues. After the presentation of the Preliminary Report, the Consultant has
also considered additional comments and recommendations from the employees and
supervisors. The results of this analysis are presented in this Final Classification Report.
As part of the next phases of the study, the Consultant will be presenting the results
of the market compensation analysis and internal job evaluation study in order to assign the
jobs to salary ranges. The compensation survey results, internal job evaluation results, and
salary range recommendations will be presented later in the Compensation Report.
I
!. EXECUTI
E SU
M
MARY
MAJO
R RECOIVI
MEN
DA'Cl+d
NS
❑ Reclassify the Junior Account Clerk to Accounting Clerk to more properly
recognize the full range of accounting support functions performed by this
position.
❑ Consolidate the Program Manager I and II classifications into a single job of
Program Manager; reclassify the existing incumbents.
❑ Reclassify and consolidate the Secretary I and II classifications into a new job
of Administrative Support Specialist; this new job definition recognizes the
broader variety of office support functions performed by the two positions
assigned to this job and is more consistent with emerging job titles in the
marketplace; reclassify the existing incumbents.
❑ Modernize the Senior Bookkeeper classification and create an Accounting
Technician classification; reclassify the existing incumbents.
❑ Consolidate the Staff Analyst I and II classifications into a single job of Staff
Analyst and reclassify the existing incumbents.
❑ Continue to use broadly defined job classifications to meet the RCTC's needs
for flexible staffing and to respond to changing program requirements and
service needs.
❑ Adopt the new class specifications and amended class specifications that have
been reviewed by managers, supervisors and employees for appropriate
modifications.
❑ Improve the current performance evaluation system to ensure more effective
linkage between job performance and employee compensation.
IFI
..............................
.............................
ATION R
EC
OPAMENDATIONS BY I
ND
1v1
The classification recommendations are presented by position below:
ITION
Current Dept/Classification
Name of
Employee
Proposed Classification
Junior Account Clerk
Towa Reabroi
Accounting Clerk
Accounting Supervisor
Michele Cisneros
Accounting Supervisor
Administrative Assistant
Traci McGinley
Administrative Assistant
Chief Financial Officer
Dean Martin
Chief Financial Officer
Deputy Executive Director
Paul Blackwelder
Deputy Executive Director
Director of Administrative
Services/Clerk of the Board
Naty Kopenhaver
Director of Administrative
Services/Clerk of the Board
Director of Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs
David Shepherd
Director of Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs
Director of Planning and
Programming
Hideo Sugita
Director of Planning and Programming
Director of Regional Issues and
Communications
Marilyn Williams
Director of Regional Issues and
Communications
Executive Assistant
Joni Shay
Executive Assistant
Executive Director
Eric Haley
Executive Director
Program Manager II
Cathy Bechtel
Program Manager
Program Manager II
Jerome Rivera
Program Manager
Program Manager II
Susan Cornelison
Program Manager
Program Manager II
Tanya Love
Program Manager
Property Agent
Claudia Chase
Property Agent
Public Information Officer
John Standiford
Public Information Officer
Secretary I
Annette Blough
Administrative Support Specialist
Secretary II
Jane Dobberpuhl
Administrative Support Specialist
Secretary II
Jolene Shaw
Administrative Support Specialist
Secretary II
Shirley Gooding
Administrative Support Specialist
Senior Bookkeeper
Anne Hallberg
Accounting Technician
Senior Bookkeeper
Donna Polmounter
Accounting Technician
Staff Analyst II
Shirley Medina
Staff Analyst
Staff Analyst II
Stephanie Wiggins
Staff Analyst
U. OVERALL CO
M
M
ENTARY REGARD
ING CLASI�IT
The Consultant supports the philosophy of creating a classification plan that reinforces the
mission, development plan, and management philosophy of the RCTC. The Consultant also
recognizes that the development goals of the RCTC will foster the need to develop a greater
range of employee competencies within each job.
The agency should adopt classification practices that are consistent with public
expectations, operational needs and service requirements. The design of the RCTC's job
classifications should promote productivity, quality, customer service and cost-effectiveness. The
classification structure should also encourage cross -training and employee development. By
doing so, employee job satisfaction can be increased and turnover can be reduced. Employees
will also be better prepared to compete for future promotional opportunities.
The agency's classification plan should follow federal classification principles and non-
discrimination guidelines so that positions that require similar qualifications and similar functions
should be assigned to the same job classification. Separate job classifications are recommended
where there are fundamental differences in the types of job functions performed, skill levels,
working conditions, and registration, licensor or certification requirements.
The Executive Director should have the authority to determine what type of an
organizational structure can best meet the needs of the community and what types of staffing
levels are needed to provide public services. The Executive Director should also want to consider
the number of direct reports are desired and whether any functions or divisions may be assigned
to different areas, or whether particular programs or services may be provided on a contract basis.
These types of management practices are ultimately subject to the approval of the RCTC Board
of Commissioners.
As a whole, the current class specifications are largely accurate in depicting the range of
job functions and qualifications required of incumbents. There are some changes that should be
made in classification assignments and job titles. These recommendations have been presented
in the Findings Section and the new class specifications.
The Executive Director has stressed that it is necessary to strengthen the current
performance evaluation system so that there will be more effective linkage between job
accountabilities and employee compensation. The Consultant concurs with this assessment and
recommends that the system be upgraded with the assistance of an independent facilitator and
trainer within this calendar year.
Vl. ygRALL HANG
.....................................................................
ES'IN.Cl ASSIFIPATI N$ ......... ..................................................................................................................................
The information in this section is presented in order of the job title and provides an
overview of positions in which classification changes have been proposed. In addition, the
Consultant has modified other classification specifications to reflect current responsibilities and
qualifications.
The Consultant has concluded that a number of organizational, operational and
technological changes are not reflected within the scope of the current job classifications. The
classification plan has been updated to ensure the proper allocation of positions to jobs that
represent the range of skills and responsibilities and qualifications that are required of positions
that are assigned to different departments, programs and projects.
It should be noted that the agency may wish to restructure the job assignments and cross -
training programs associated with these positions in the future. The classification findings that
follow are based upon the current job definitions and if these job definitions are changed, the
classification recommendations might be correspondingly altered.
In most cases, the RCTC's current job titles appropriately represent the scope of work that
is performed by employees in these jobs. However, in some cases, changes have been
recommended in order to reflect the nature and level of responsibilities of these jobs and the
types of qualifications that are required to perform these functions.
The Consultant has not attempted to provide the details of every job function and
qualification guideline that applies to these jobs in this Classification Report. However, the
Consultant has attempted to highlight recommendations that apply to proposed changes in
department names, job titles, job functions and qualifications guidelines
VI
I.
RECOMMENDED RECLASSIFICATI
Junior Account Clerk
O
N$
The current job title is somewhat narrow in its connotation and does not reflect the full
scope of accounting support functions as related to accounts payable, payroll, accounts
receivable, purchasing support, and retirement plan record keeping. The job title and the job
description have been revised to Accounting Clerk to reflect these responsibilities and
qualifications.
Program Manager I and ll
The present classification plan designates two levels of Program Manager, the Program
Manager I and the Program Manager II. These two designations are very similar in the scope of
their job responsibilities, knowledge requirements, judgement and interfaces. As a matter of
practice, the RCTC has also been recruiting individuals that have the slightly higher qualifications
associated with the Program Manager II.
Consistent with the desire to create broader job classifications that promote staffing
flexibility and to provide clear distinctions in separate job classifications, it has been
recommended that the two classification levels by combined into Program Manager. The job title
and the job description have been revised to reflect these responsibilities and qualifications.
Secretary I and ll
The current classification plan designates two levels of Secretary, the Secretary I and the
Secretary II. These two designations are very similar in the scope of their job responsibilities,
knowledge requirements, skill, judgement and interfaces. The current classification levels are not
supported by differences in the job content and qualifications and are not consistent with the
broad uses of classifications that are part of the management philosophy of the organization. The
two jobs should be combined into one level. All four incumbents should be placed into the same
new job classification.
The Secretary job title is too narrow in that it tends to reflect only the typing, minutes,
record keeping and interpersonal contacts that are associated with positions in this classification.
The actual job responsibilities are more varied and entail preparing agendas, maintaining
databases, preparing mailing materials, and compiling materials for various documents. Amore
accurate job title would be broader in nature and would be consistent with the titles being used
for similar classifications in the marketplace. It is recommended that the job title be modified to
Administrative Support Specialist. The job description has also been revised to reflect these
responsibilities and qualifications.
Senior Bookkeeper
The current job title is somewhat outdated and does not reflect the nature of the technical
accounting support that is provided by these positions relative to the general ledger, budget
schedules, financial and investment reports, account analysis schedules, loan records and related
functions. A more appropriate job title that reflects the knowledge of accounting methods and
principles in the public sector is Accounting Technician. The job title and the job description have
been revised to reflect these responsibilities and qualifications.
Staff Analyst I and ll
The present classification plan designates two levels of Staff Analyst, the Staff Analyst
and the Staff Analyst II. These two designations are very similar in the scope of their job
responsibilities, knowledge requirements, judgement and interfaces. As a matter of practice, the
RCTC has also been recruiting individuals that have the slightly higher qualifications associated
with the Staff Analyst II.
Consistent with the desire to create broader job classifications that promote staffing
flexibility and to provide clear distinctions in separate job classifications, it has been
recommended that the two classification levels by combined into Staff Analyst. The job title and
the job description have been revised to reflect these responsibilities and qualifications.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
FY 1999/00 Section 5310 Allocations
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission include the FY 99/00 Section 5310 projects in the Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The FTA Section 5310 program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting
private nonprofit corporations and public agencies, under certain circumstances, in
providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with
disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable,
insufficient, or inappropriate. The program provides funding for approved projects on
an 80% federa1/20% local match basis.
Section 5310 funds are awarded through a statewide competition with approximately
$9.4 million in federal dollars available for programming during FY99/00. The California
Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the FY99-00 Program at their meeting on
August 18, 1999. They received a total of 124 applications representing 357 projects
totaling $16,359,373 in requests. Of those 357 projects, 221 will be funded totaling
9,436,258. RCTC submitted the applications received from seven non-profit agencies
requesting $705,200 for 16 projects. Our non-profit agencies prepared excellent
applications and were awarded a total of $430,000 for 9 capital projects ($344,000 in
federal funds--80%).
The following agencies were successful applicants in the FY99/00 program:
Angel View 1 expansion vehicle $ 45,000
Care -A -Van Transit 1 expansion and 2 replacement vehicles $133,000
Transportation Specialists 2 expansion and 2 replacement vehicles $207,000
Family Services 1 expansion vehicle $ 45,000
TOTAL: $430,000
The Commission is required to include the awarded projects in the Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan.
For the last several months, the CTC was researching the possibility of adopting a
biennial program cycle instead of an annual cycle. After further exploration, Caltrans
staff recommended that the process stay on an annual basis. To reach this conclusion,
a survey was sent to 132 applicant agencies and 43 regional planning agencies that
actively participated in the Program. Seventy-seven applicant agencies responded: 27
supported the biennial process, 24 agencies did not respond and 26 were neutral. A
total of 25 regional planning agencies responded: 16 supported the proposal, 4 opposed
and 5 were neutral. Given the lack of consensus, the uneven workload at Caltrans that
may have resulted with an biennial program and the suggestion that some small non-
profit agencies possibly could not adjust to the two year cycle and actually may be
forced out of business, Caltrans staff recommended to continue with the annual
process. This recommendation was adopted by the CTC's at its annual meeting held
in August, 1999.
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Programs Committee
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Family Services Association of Western Riverside County -
Request for Measure A Western County Specialized Transit
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for the Measure A
Specialized Transit Program and a specific budget for Section 5310 matching funds
has been identified in the RCTC program budget. There are adequate funds available
and staff recommends approval of this request.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Family Service Association of Western Riverside County (Family Service) was notified
by Caltrans that they were approved for $90,000 in funding under the FTA Section
5310 program for FY 98/99. Equipment approved includes the replacement of two
para transit buses. The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the
capital project ($72,000). Family Service is requesting that the required 20% match
($18,000) be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the
western Riverside County. Family Service's provides transportation in the
Jurupa/Rubidoux area to surrounding communities to senior citizens, persons with
disabilities, and the truly needy.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$18, 000
Source of Funds
Measure A Western County Specialized Transit
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Y
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
'99
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
'99
Budget Adjustment Required
N
Financial Impact Not Applicable
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Office Engineer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney & Associates, Inc., for
Phase I Conceptual Studies, Preliminary Layout and Design, and
Environmental Clearance for the proposed new Metrolink Commuter
Rail Station in Riverside near Van Buren Blvd. and Route 91.
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1) Award Contract No. RO-2028 to Pountney & Associates, Inc., for Phase I
Conceptual Studies, Preliminary Layout and Design, and Environmental Clearance for
the proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in Riverside near Van Buren Blvd.
and Route 91, for an amount not to exceed $221,900 for Base Work with an Extra
Work contingency of $23,100, for a total not to exceed Contract amount of
$245,000. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used and reviewed by
Legal Counsel. It is estimated that it will take Pountney & Associates approximately
six (6) months to complete the above referenced Phase I Studies. When the Phase I
Studies are completed staff will submit a future Agenda Item to the Commission with
recommendations for the completion of Phase II, Final Design, for the project.
2) Authorize the use of unallocated rail program revenues to fund the Phase I work,
including the appropriate budget and Short Range Transit Plan amendments.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC's existing Metrolink stations: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, Riverside -La Sierra
and West Corona, were built over a period of 5 years using state rail bonds and
grants, matched by Measure A funds. These four stations are referred to as the Tier
I stations, necessary for the beginning levels of commuter rail service on both the
Riverside Line to Los Angeles and the Inland Empire Line to Orange County.
The second phase of Riverside County stations, referred to as the Tier II stations, has
been envisioned as necessary to accommodate future growth on the existing
commuter lines, caused in a major part by, the inception of Metrolink service through
Corona and Fullerton to Los Angeles.
A Tier II Station Study was requested by the Commission, prepared By Carl
Schiermeyer Consulting Services, completed and presented to the Commission at the
April 1999 Commission Meeting. The conclusions of the study recommended that two
additional Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations be constructed, one in Riverside at Van
Buren Blvd. and Route 91, and one in Downtown Corona, near Main Street and
Route 91.
At the April 14, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Tier II
Station Analysis and Recommendations Report and directed staff to prepare and
advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate
(PS&E) for each of the two new proposed Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations in
Riverside, at Van Buren Blvd. and Route 91, and in Downtown Corona, at Main Street
and Route 91.
This agenda Item covers the events, actions, and recommendations for the selection
of a Consultant to perform Design Services for the proposed Riverside Van Buren
Metrolink Commuter Rail Station only. The events, actions, and recommendations for
the selection of a Consultant to perform Design Services for the proposed Downtown
Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Station are part of another Agenda Item.
The calendar of events for the Riverside Van Buren Station were as follows:
Distribution of RFP
Proposals delivered to RCTC
Short Listed Firms Notified
Interviews of Short Listed Firms
July 29, 1999
August 26, 1999
September 7, 1999
September21,1999
Staff received proposals from nine (9) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which
consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans, SCRAA, the City of
Riverside, and from Schiermeyer Consulting Services. The selection panel reviewed
the nine (9) proposals and short listed two (2) of the nine (9) firms.
The two (2) firms presented teams that would be capable of competing the proposed
scope of work. After consideration of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the
project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the two (2) firms
interviewed as follows:
Top Ranked Pountney & Associates
Second DMJM
After Pountney & Associates was selected as the top ranked firm, staff immediately
started working with Pountney & Associates to develop a scope of services for the
referenced project and negotiate the respective costs for the agreed upon scope of
services. In the process of developing the scope of services it was ascertained that
there were several issues that require resolution prior to proceeding into final design.
These main issues involved:
1. Rail Access
2. Vehicle Access
3. Pedestrian Access
4. Adjoining Local Streets and Freeway Interface
Because of the extent of these issues, and their impact on the overall cost to design
and construct the proposed new station, staff directed Pountney & Associates to
separate the scope of services for the development of the Riverside Van Buren
Metrolink Commuter Rail Station into two phases. The scope of the first phase, Phase
I, was to encompass all the preliminary activities to develop a Master Plan for the
development of the Station, including the resolution of the issues identified above.
After Phase I is completed, RCTC and Pountney will have a specific agreed upon
conceptual plan that will allow both parties to make intelligent decisions to develop
the scope of services and costs for Phase II, the preparation of the final Design Plans,
Specifications, and Estimate.
Pountney, working with staff, developed the attached scope of services, for Phase
I Conceptual Design Services and Environmental Clearance for the proposed new
Riverside Van Buren Metrolink Commuter Rail Station. Also attached, are the
negotiated respective costs for the agreed upon scope of services. Staff is in
agreement with both the attached scope of services and cost of services.
Staff is recommending that the Commission award Contract No. RO-2028 to
Pountney & Associates, Inc., for the Phase I Conceptual Studies, for the proposed
new Riverside Van Buren Metrolink Station, for an amount not to exceed $221,900
for Base Work with an Extra Work contingency of $23,100, for a total not to exceed
Contract amount of $245,000.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$221,900 + $23,100 = $245,000
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Unallocated rail program revenues
Year
Included in Program Budget
Y
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
FROM POUNTNEY (SUN) 10. 17' 99 12:17/ST. 12:16/N0. 3560067215 P 2
RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Metro&tic Station at Van Buren Boulevard & Route 91
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services identified herein is supplemented by the detailed proposals referenced, that
were prepared by our various team of subconsultants. All specific scope items contained therein
are part of this proposal, and all exclusions and/or assumptions apply.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT:
SCOPE DEFINITION -
We will meet with RCTC towards the development of a dear, well developed, written scope of
services. In general, we will seek to identify the stakeholders their expectations as to the q iality
and size of facility, amenities, overall planning and construction schedule and overall projizt
budget. We will sit with RCTC to identify initial expectations, minimum design criteria, and other
project factors, which are known at the outset (recognizing that they may change with time).
Potential or real conflicting objectives between ROTC and stakeholders can be identified,
discussed and, hopefully, resolved at these meetings.
We will establish required RCTC approvals, SCRRA input, Caltrans input, the City of Riverside
permitting requirements, and the BNSF criteria. A project directory, overall schedule, submittal
milestones, and plan ,check and approval process will all be established
MEETINGS -
Trend Meetings -
We anticipate up to six Trend Meetings with RCTC Staff to review overall project progress,
schedule, budget, and other project issues. We will prepare an agenda and meeting minutes with
action items for each of these meeting.
Deliverables: Meeting Agenda and Minutes
Monthly Progress Reports -
Monthly reports will be submitted to RCTC with each Trend Meeting.
Deliverables: Monthly Status Reports
Design Team Meetings -
Based on a six month Phase I duration, we will hold bi-monthly design team meetings where our
design team meet to coordinate our progress, refine the design and resolve any potential ccnflicts.
10/17/99 1
r30M POUNTNEY (SUN) 10. 17' 99 12:17/ST. 12:16/N0. 3560067215 P
Deliverables: Meeting Minutes
Public Meetings -
We will attend up to two public presentations with the RCTC, City of Riverside, or other planning
group(s). Out architect, and landscape architect prepare colored site plans, rendered elevations
and sketches.
Deliverables: Colored drawings and sketches
PROJECT MANAGEMENT/SUBCONSULTANT COORDJNATION-
We will provide overall Project Management to monitor schedules, budgets, and monitor the
activities of our subconsultants including negotiating written and signed contracts with each
subconsultant to clearly establish his or her respective scope, insurance obligations, schedEQe,
budget and production responsibilities. we will also review and process subconsultant's invoices.
Deliverables: Monthly invoices and subconsultant correspondence, as/required
PROTECT INITIATION
RESEARCH -
We will research applicable records, existing utililies, regulations, permit requirements, etc with
the City of Riverside, BNSF, and Caltrans that will establish the design parameters and the permit
requirements.
Deliverables: List of collected documents
SITE RECONNALSSANCE-
Several members of our design team will re -visit the site to visually review various site corstraints
and opportunities, and access to the site for field investigation requirements.
Deliverables: Field notes and copies of photo -documentation
BLASE MAPPING/SURVEYS-
Reference: See RBF proposal (Survey section)
Our project team will undertake the collection and review of legal descriptions and title reports
(up to three) to establish the project boundaries, and will undertake a boundary survey (and, if
appropriate, a record of survey with the next phase of the project). Concurrently, we will set
control points and arrange to have the: project site flown for 1"=20' scale aerial topographic;
mapping. Collection of utility and public right of way record drawings will facilitate the plotting
and locating of all existing utilities, and will be followed by field verification to confirm du it we
have established the location and elevation of all existing streets, public improvements ant.
10/17/99 2
FROM PCUNTNEY (SUN) 10, 17' 99 12:18/ST. 12:16/NO, 3560067215 P
franchise utilities. The survey crew will also arrange for and/or establish top of track elevations,
which will in turn, establish platform elevations,
Deliverables: Hardcopy and digital files of a comprehensive existing conditions site plan,
all field survey notes, and cakulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -
Reference: See RBF proposal (Environmental section)
Environmental Documentation will be prepared based upon the results of a preliminary si to
assessment, and shall be in conformance with the NEPA, CEQ,A/NEPA regulations, CEQJk, and
the CEQA Guidelines. Our Environmental subconsultant will prepare an Initial
Study/Environmental Assessment leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration/Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). A Preliminary Environmental Study Form (PES) will also be
undertaken.
Deliverables: Copies of all pertinent applications and reports
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVEST'TGATIONS-
Reference: See Ninyo & Moore proposal
Preliminary geotechnical and geology report will provide input on the following data:
Description of the existing geology and suitability of the proposed construction, co: edition
of existing soils; percolation potential (for drainage of landscape areas), corrosivity (for
design of metal improvements), soluble sulfates (for concrete design), soil quality Cor
landscape design), foundation design parameters (for platforms, structures, tunnel:1
and/or bridges, and retaining walls). Our geotechnical subconsultants will undert.ike one
deep boring (i.e., 50 feet deep) and two shallower borings (i.e., 20 feet deep).
Environmental sampling for a Phase I Site Assessment hazardous waste survey will also be
undertaken to establish the presence of any hazardous material residues.
Deliverables: (4) copies of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report
(4) copies of the Phase I Environmental Sampling Report
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -
Reference: See Katz Okitsu proposal
Our traffic consultant will undertake a traffic study to ascertain existing and projected traffic
movements at Van Buren and Rudicill, Van Buren and Indiana, and Van Buren and High% ay 91 to
10/17/99 3
FROM POUNTNEY
(SUN) 10. 17' 99 12:18/ST. 12:16/NOE 3560067215 P 5
l
establish optimal signal patterns, turn pocket dimensions, etc. Coordinatiorp with Caltrare and the
City of Riverside will coordinate the need for any necessary public way street, turning ma rement,
and signal improvements for Van Buren, Indiana and Rudicill to minimize the impacts that Route
91 traffic will have on ingress and egress to the station and vice versa. Design criteria will be
established at this time.
Deliverables: (4) copies of the Traffic Analysis Report
PRELIMINARY DESIGN -
We will evaluate up to three alternate site plans. Prior to and noncurrent with the development of
these site plans we will undertake not less than the following:
Coordination with RCTC and SCRRA regarding minimum platform criteria, minim um
parking objectives, project signage, equipment and site furnishings (benches, ticketng
machines, money changing machines, lighting, bicycle lockers and racks, vendor cart
utility access, drinking fountains and other site amenities.
Coordination meetings with RTA to verify existing and proposed bus routes, the projected
need for transfers (bus to bus and bus to train), the optimal number of bus bays (if/as
required) for simultaneous bus operations, and the desirability of bus bays accessible from
Rudicill vs Indiana. Design criteria will be identified at this time.
Coordination with BNSF Railway Company and their stub track users to establish
available options as to abandonment, relocation or consolidation of existing stub t i cks vs
third main line. Propose alternative track re -alignment to accommodate the proposed
improvements. Verification of contractor insurance requirements, construction
responsibilities for BNSF vs our contractor, flagmen requirements, live track work zone
requirements, etc. We will also undertake discussion with BNSF regarding tunnels vs
bridges for pedestrian crossings.
Coordination with RCTC and contract trash Haulers regarding minimum dimensions and
optimal locations for trash dumpster enclosures.
Coordination with the City of Riverside as to specific needed improvements to the public
rights of way fronting the project site, zoning requirements, etc. Verification of zon ng and
general plan designations, minimum landscaping, handicap accessible routes, lighting,
signage permitting requirements, etc.
Prepare a hydrology drainage study to identify the amount of storm run-off arrivinf; at the
site (using local drainage criteria), estimating the additional run-off generated by the new
improvements, and identifying new facilities required to handle project run-off in
accordance with local requirements.
Coordination with building department regarding building permits for sunshade platform
structures, retaining walls, bridges, etc.
10/17/99 4
FAON' POUNTNEY (SUN) 10. 17' 99 12:19/ST. 12:16/N0. 3560067215 P
Coordination with City of Riverside police and fire departments regarding minimu m
standards to optimize security and requirements for onsite fire hydrant and fire lane
circulation.
We will develop up to two, workable functional site alternatives that will meet those criter..a.
Budgetary construction cost estimates will be developed for the selected alternative. Schematic
signage locations, sun shelters and other site amenities will be schematically identified for
preliminary budgeting purposes (contingency budget at this level of design will be 25%).
Preliminary Design Report will summarize the basis of design, project and site constraints, and
asstu nptions made.
A six -week window of time has been set aside for discretionary review and critique of the hree
alternatives.
Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) reproducible of each of the Alternative Site Plans
(10) copies of Preliminary Design Cost Estimates
(10) copies of Preliminary Design Report
SCHEMATIC DESIGN -
Reference: See proposals from Oncina, Teshima, Kanrad, REF (structural), Railroad Pzi€;irteers,
and Sanchez-Kamps
Once the alternative site concepts have been developed and a site concept has been selectee 1, a
more detailed schematic design of the optimal site plan can be developed. This plan will b ! taken
to a schematic (approximately 15%) level of design with approximate utility, landscape are ss,
parking' lot configuration, handicap accessible routes, sun shelter sizes and locations, and other
major site amenities laved out horizontally. Bus bays, driveways, handicap ramps, bridge or
tunnel will also be illustrated as will conceptual grading and drainage information.
Our project architect will develop a number of typical sections and elevations to illustrate all
proposed structures, canopies, entry features, etc. These and the conceptual landscape plan can be
rendered for public hearing presentations, if desired. The signage consultant will develop in.
outline of the overall signage program and the lighting consultant will identify the approximate
location,, height and candlepower of all site lighting. Platform electrical, lighting, and ticketing
requirements will make reference the SCRRA Metrolink Station Design Manual_
A preliminary construction cost estimate will be developed at this level of project developr tent
with a 20% contingency factor applied_
Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) reproducible of Schematic Design
OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION-
10/17/99 5
FROM POUNTNEY (SUN) 10, 17' 99 12:19/ST, 12:16/N0, 3560057215 P ?
We will coordinate requirements, design parameters, and design intent with the City of Ri ✓erside,
SCRRA, Caltrans, BNSP, and RTA.
Deliverables: Copies of all correspondence
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL)
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL)
BID PERIOD SERVICES (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL)
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD SERVICES (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROPOSAL)
10/17/99 6
w�rf . w NE
POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC. FEE PROPOSAL
10/17/99
PHASE'
PREUMINARY ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION
HOURS/OUANT-
RATE
TOTAL
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
I
Scope Definition
Pnncipal Engineer
4
565.00
$260.00
Project Manager
8
S45.00
$360.00
Senior Engineer
41
$36.00
$144.00
Meetings -
Trend Meeti�s (6 meetings)
Principal Engineer
12
$65.00
$780.00
Project Manager
24
$45.00
$1,080.00
Word Processor/Clerical
8
$16.50
5132.00
Monthly Progress Reports (6 total)
Project Manager
24
$45.00
$1,080.00
Word Processor/Clerical
12
$16.50
S198.00
Design Team Meetings (4 total)
Project Manager
20
$45.00
$900.00
Senior Engineer
10
S36.00
$360.00
Word Processor/Clerical
6
$16.50
$99.00
Subconsultants-
Architect (4 meetings)
1.075
$967.83
$1,040.42
Landscape Architects (2 meetings)
1.075
S400.40
5430.43
Electrical Engineer (2 meetings)
1.075
S453.02
5487.00
Survey Manager (1 meetina-4hrs)
1.075
$444.39
$477.72
Structural Engineer (1 meeting-4hrs)
1.075
5595.96
$640.66
Geotechnical (1 meeting-4hrs)
1.075
$375.94
$404.14
Environmental (2 meetings)
1.075
$500.00
$537.50
Track Engineer (2 meetings)
1.075
$1,229.15
`
$1,321.34
Traffic Engineer (2 meetings)
1,075
$1,598.74
$1,718.65
Sionage Consultant (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Public Meetings-
RCTC Commission (up to 1 meeting)
Principal Engineer
4
$65.00
$260.00
Project Manager
8�
$45.00
S360.00
CADD Drafter
8
$23.00
$184.00
Word Processor/Clerical
2
$16.50,
$33.00
-
Subconsultants-
Architect (1 meetings)
1.075
$725.90
$780.34
Landscape Architects (1 meeting)
1.075
$606.40
_
$737.88
Electrical Engineer (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Survey Manager/Crew (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Structural Engineer (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Environmental (1 meetings)
1.075
$667.67
$717.75
Geotechnical (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Track Engineer (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
Traffic Engineer (1 meeting)
1.075
$737.88
$793.22
Signage Consultant (0 meeting)
1.075
$0.00
$0.00
City of Riverside City Council (up to 1 meetings)
Principal Engineer
4
$65.00
S260.00
Project Manager
8
$45.00
5360.00
CADD Drafter
8
$23.00
$184.00
Word Processor/Clercaf
2
$16.50
$33.00
Subconsultants-
Architect (1 meetings)
1.075
S725.90
$780.34
Landscape Architects (1 meeting)
1.075
$686.40
$737.88
Efectrical Engineer (0 meetings)
1,075
$0.00
$0.00
Survey Manager/Crew (0 meetings)
1.075
S0.00
$0.00
RCTC-VBPF1110-15-99
Page 1
. iV.Y. , VZNEY
•
,SIN, ;; _. .
POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC.
10/17/99
FEE PROPOSAL
PHAQEI
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Structural Engineer (0 meetings)
1.076
$0.0050.00
Environmental (1 meetings)
1.075
$667.67 $717.75
Geoter--. cal (0 meetings)
1.075
$0.001 $0,00
Track Engineer (0 meeting)
1,075
$0.00
$0,00
Traffic Engineer (1 meeting)
1.075
$737.88
$793.22
Signage Consultant (0 meeting)
I
1.075
S0.00
$0.00
Subconsultant Coordination
Project Manager
40
$45.00
$1,800.00
Senior Engineer
20
S36.00
$720.00
Word Processor/Clarice(
8 516.50
S132.00
Quality Control
Principal Engineer
a $65.00
S520.00
Project Manager
e1 545.0o
5360.00
Project Engineer
8, S30.00
_
$240.00
SUBTOTAL - Project Management
$23,955.21
I
I
PROJECT INITIATION
I
Research
1
Project Engineer
161 $30.00
$480.00
Staff Engineer
241 $25.00
$600.00
Word Processor/Clerical
el $16.50
$132.00
Site Reconnaissance
I
Principal Engineer
81 $65.00
$520.00
Project Manager
81 $45.00
$350.00
Project Engineer'
81 $30.00
_
$240.00
Re imbursabl.as-
Site Photographs
1LS
I $100.00
$100.00
Postage 8 Mileage
1LS
$250.00
$250.00
SUBTOTAL - Project Initiation
$2,682.00
BASE MAPPING/SURVEYS
Records Research
Utility Letters
CADD Drafter
4
$23.00
$92.00
Word Processor/Clerical
2
$16.50
$33.00
Research (RBF to provide as-bullts)
Staff Engineer
4
$25.00
$100.00
Designer
8
$25.00
$200.00
Plot Existing Utilities/Field Edit
Project Manager
2
S45.00
S90.00
Designer
8
525.00
$200.00
_ CADD Drafter
32
$23.00
$736.00
-
Title Report Review
Project Surveyor
8
$33.00
S198.00
Staff Engineer
4
$25.00
S100.00
Subconsultants-
RBF - Surveys
1.075
S25,000.00
S26,875.00
Reimbursables-
Computer Time
20
$10.00
$200.00
CADD Plotting
8
$10.00
S80.00
Reproduction 1LS
S100.00
$100.00
Postage & Mileage 1LS
- $100.00
$100.00
SUBTOTAL - Base Maps
S29,104.00
RCTC-VBP11II0-15-99
Page 2
FROM POUNTNEY
(SUN) 10. 17' y9 12:20/ST. 12: 16/N0. 3560067215 P 10
POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC.
10/17/99
FEE PROPOSAL
PHASE
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Subconsultants-
Environmental- RBF &Assoc.
1.075
$9,000.00
$9,675.00
Geotechnical Consultant-Ninyo & Moore
1.075
$2,500.00
$2,667.50
SUBTOTAL - Environmental Assessment
$12,362.50
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Subconsultants-
Geotechnical Consultant-Ninyo & Moore
1.075
$9,000.00
$9,675.00
SUBTOTAL - Geotechnical Investigations
$9,675.00
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Subconsultants-
Traffic Engineer -Katz Okitsu & Assoc.
1.075
$16,000.00
$17,200.00
SUBTOTAL - Traffic Analysis
S17.200.00
1
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Alternative Track Layout
Alternative Site Layout (estimate 2 alternatives)
Preliminary Hydrology/Hydraufic Studies
Preliminary Construction Estimates
Principal Engineer
al
$65.00
S520.00
Project Manager
32
$45.00
51,440.00
Senior Project Engineer
24
$36.00
$864.00
Project Engineer
80
$30.00
$2,400.00
Staff Engineer
40
$25.00
$1,000.00
Designer
24
$25.00
$600.00
CADD Drafter
80
$23.00
S1,840.00
Word Processor/Clerical
8
$16.50
5132.00
Preliminary Design Report
Project Manager
32
$45.00
$1,440.00
Senior Project Engineer
16
$36.00
S578.00
Project Engineer
40
$30.00
51,200.00
CADD Drafter
12
$23.00
$276.00
Word Processor/Clerical
8
$16.50
$132.00
A
Reimbursables-
Computer Time
40
$10.00
S400.00
CADD Plotting
20
510.00
5200.00
Reproduction
1 LS
$250.00
$250.00
Postage & Mileage +1
LS
$100.00
$100.00
SUBTOTAL - Preliminary Design
$13,370.00
SCHEMATIC DESIGN (15%.) - PHASE III
Principal Engineer
8
S65.00
$520.00
Project Manager
40
$45.00
$1,800.00
Senior Project Engineer
16
$36.00
S576.00
Project Engineer
40
$30.00
51,200.00
Staff Engineer
20
S25.00
S500.00
Designer
40
$25.00
$1,000.00
CADD Drafter
60
$23.00
$1,380.00
Word Processor/Clerical
4
$18_50
S66.00
•
ROTC-VBPH110-15-99
Page 3
: vw-.
POUNTNEY ASSOC., INC.
10/17/99
FEE PROPOSAL
PHASE
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Subconsultants-
ArchiteCt
1.075 $8,000.00
$8.600.00
Landscape Architects
1.075 $3,000.00
S3,225.00
Electrical Engineer
1.075 $4,000.00
$4,300.00
Structural Engineer
1.075 S3,000.00
$3,225.00
Track Engineer
1.075 38,000.00
S8,600.00
Traffic Engineer
1.075 $0 00
$0.00
Signage Consultant
1.075 $3,000.00
$3,225.00
Reimbursables-
Computer Time
40 $10.00
$400.00
CADD PlottiN
20 $10.00
$200.00
Reproduction
1 LS
$250.00
$250.00
Postage & Mileage
1LS
S100.00
S100.00
SUBTOTAL - Schematic Design
$39,167.00
OUTSIDE AGENCY COORDINATION
City of Riverside
SCRRA
Caitrans
BNSF
RTA
Project Manager
40
$45.00
$1,800.00
Project Engineer
24
$30.00
$720.00
GADO Drafter
8
$23.00
$184.00
Word Processor/Clerical
B
$16.50
$132.00
SUBTOTAL - Outside Agency Coordination
$2,836.00
TOTAL HOURS/DIRECT LABOR • PounMay
1080
$37,218.00
OVERHEAD MULTIPLIER (1.85)
$81,409.70
REIMBURSABLES
52,730.00
TOTAL- POUNTNEY
$101,357.70
FIXED FEE (10%)
S10,135.77
SUBCONSULTANTS (with 7.6%mark-up) t
S110,403.71
IGRAND TOTAL
$221,897.18
I
SUBCONSULTANTS-
Sub. Markup (7.5%)
Sub. Fees
Sub. Fees + 7.6%
Oncina - Architect
1.075
S10.419.63
S11.201.10
Teshima - Landscape Architects
1.075
64,773.20
$5,131.19
Kanrad - Electrcal Engineer
1.075
$4,453.02
54,757.00
RBF - Survey/Mapping
1.075
$25,444.39
$27,352.72
RBF - Structural Engineer
1.075
$3,595.96
$3,865.66
RBF - Environmental
1.075
S10,835.34
$11,647.99
Ninyo & Moore - Enyironmental 1.075
$2,500.00
$2,687.50
Ninyo & Moore - Geotechnical
1.075
39,375.94
$10,079.14
Railroad E&C - Track Engineer
1.075
$9,229.15
$9,921.34
Katz Okitsu - Traffic Engineer
1.075
S19,074.50
S20,505.09
Sanchez Kamps - Signage Consultant 1.075
T/VT A ,
$3,000.00
$3,225.00
$102,701.13
5110,403.71
RCTC-VBPH110-15-8e
Page 4
FROM POUNTNEY (SUN) 10. 17' 99 12:21/ST. 12:16/N0. 3560067215 P 12
t
Thu 10/14/99
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ID
1
Torn Name
NOTICE To PROCEED
Oan6en
lee taupe
RMA
Tug flame
2
f
PROJECT YpW RENENi
6d
Tw IMMO Man magic
SubeoneuRMM AOaomonr<
TL01/4/00 Men 1/10100
6
7
PROJECT 1NMATION
Tue 1Im/00
Mon 1n7/oD
e
Reaaaren
rid
Tua 1/11/00 Mon 1n7100
a
9Ae RecOmgh sinco
td
Tua twee
Tee 1/e/00
70
1
SASE MAP/PIELD SURVEYS
17
Reaeree Aeeeaah
12
(Madam Stammerer)
14
Plat Windom
3111
66
120
64
PA 1/100
FA ;/7/00
Prl 2/1Sres
Thu tnvoei
Fn 1r7/tb
Man 1/JdroO
Tut• 1116100
Man 1/21/00
16
to
OmarTele Aspen
123
Tao In woo
Mat 1/24030
17
Rs..ere oSo Report
6d
Tao treSeSe
Man 1/71/to
u
Pat La..mama
t6
Tua 2/1/e0
Tear a/f/ae
20
Bet Anil Tamar,
Fd 1/tdr0p
Mnn 1re7/00
21
Mor2ortmei ereasl IConom aorr.q
Tue 1AM00
Pd 1/2troo
22
AMU 22010smrmrey
Red
Mon 1/74116
FA l/1100
22
Seeneey Surrey
1O0
Too 1Aa/00
Men 1/MIOD
2/
Mareknews Mold Swveyr
ad Man 1MAIO
Frl 1/a•00
1!6
limo Map Coeplea
27
Po d1I1NV00
FAImmo
2s 671VIAba stercr L ABa®BMENT
TIM 1/11103
Mon
so EC- 11CNRICAL IRVESTEM11100
Too 1/1 V00
Mon 341030
21
82 rRaFFtc ANALYSIS
tad
Tee in1/00
FA SOCA
A
81 PRELIMINARY DEMON
Mon &nod
en4n4.0o
26
AtOonaa.e Sete Layout
86
Arantmere POO Layout
20d
Mat 70102
Fri Salem
20d
Mon 2/21r00
PA lr17/00
87
Hveredopyrliytlealc Suess
lad
Mori 2alroo
Po site/ea
32
Preaerr Praananary Dorian Flamm
lad
Mon m2100
Fel r/TMed
as
do 1
6 Ai?* PMllretnary 094101 Aspen
0d
FA 414/00
Frt 4/terp0
Al
Aaeneres Room.
Mon er1Trap
Mad 5/P0r00
Ae
scrams.= D mo( (TIM D661GM
202
Tarr 9211/00
Sled ih1/00
ry�I
Rwoke Proem OeflanComenens
1d
Tnu Shen
Tlru SOAree
Soimmada DARIN
Zoe
TIw Sit d00 Wad am DO
r
sums Selrenmto Oslogn
.21
ere
Wad eat/MO Mad er2l/00
Atarnolaa Rodin,
The ergy0a Wed 7n DM
PR
PHASE I - PRELIM
METROLINK STATIO
January PaenarT
12/Re I 12 L ire J trip f Ira the ( 2/0 l SINS 1 l/P)
to
i
1
1 7JZi `
i
Newt SCHE010.1341pAIPP
Dom.: Tler 1 WILMA
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Office Engineer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall
(DMJM) for Phase I Conceptual Studies, Preliminary Layout and Design,
and Environmental Clearance for the proposed new Metrolink Commuter
Rail Station in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) Award Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, &
Mendenhall (DMJM) for Phase I Conceptual Studies, Preliminary Layout and Design, and
Environmental Clearance for the proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in
Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91, for an amount not to exceed $217,909
for Base Work with an Extra Work contingency of $27,091, for a total not to exceed
Contract amount of $245,000. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used and
reviewed by Legal Counsel. It is estimated that it will take DMJM approximately six (6)
months to complete the above referenced Phase I Studies. When the Phase I Studies are
completed, staff will submit a future agenda item to the Commission with recommendations
for the completion of Phase II, Final Design, for the project; and, 2) Authorize the use of
unallocated rail program revenues to fund Phase I design, including the appropriate budget
and Short Range Transit Plan amendments.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC's existing Metrolink stations: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, Riverside -La Sierra and
West Corona, were built over a period of 5 years using state rail bonds and grants,
matched by Measure A funds. These four stations are referred to as the Tier I stations,
necessary for the beginning levels of commuter rail service on both the Riverside Line to
Los Angeles and the Inland Empire Line to Orange County.
The second phase of Riverside County stations, referred to as the Tier II stations, has been
envisioned as necessary to accommodate future growth on the existing commuter lines,
caused in a major part by, the inception of Metrolink service through Corona and Fullerton
to Los Angeles.
A Tier II Station Study was requested by the Commission, prepared By Carl Schiermeyer
Consulting Services, completed and presented to the Commission at the April 1999
Commission Meeting. The conclusions of the study recommended that two additional
Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations be constructed, one in Riverside at Van Buren Blvd. and
Route 91, and one in Downtown Corona, near Main Street and Route 91.
At the April 14, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Tier II Station
Analysis and Recommendations Report and directed staff to prepare and advertise a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) for each
of the two new proposed Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations in Riverside, at Van Buren Blvd.
and Route 91, and in Downtown Corona, at Main Street and Route 91.
This agenda Item covers the events, actions, and recommendations for the selection of a
Consultant to perform Design Services for the proposed Downtown Corona Metrolink
Commuter Rail Station only. The events, actions, and recommendations for the selection
of a Consultant to perform Design Services for the proposed Riverside Van Buren Metrolink
Commuter Rail Station are part of another Agenda Item.
The calendar of events for the Downtown Corona Station was as follows:
Distribution of RFP
Proposals delivered to RCTC
Short Listed Firms Notified
Interviews of Short Listed Firms
July 29, 1999
August 26, 1999
September 9, 1999
September23,1999
Staff received proposals from seven (7) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which
consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans, SCRAA, the City of Corona, and
from Schiermeyer Consulting Services. The selection panel reviewed the seven (7)
proposals and short listed four (4) of the seven (7) firms.
The four (4) firms presented teams that would be capable of competing the proposed scope
of work. After consideration of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the project and
proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the four (4) firms interviewed, as
follows:
Top Ranked
Second
Third
Fourth
DMJM
Wildan
MiraIles Associates
Boyle Engineering Corporation
After DMJM was selected as the top ranked firm, staff immediately started working with
DMJM to develop a scope of services for the referenced project and negotiate the
respective costs for the agreed upon scope of services. In the process of developing the
scope of services it was ascertained that there were several issues that require resolution
prior to proceeding into final design. These main issues were:
1. Rail Access
2. Vehicle Access
3. Pedestrian Access
4. Existing Santa Fe Depot Building
5. Adjoining Developments
Because of the extent of these issues, and their impact on the overall cost to design and
construct the proposed new station, staff directed DMJM to separate the scope of services
for the development of the Downtown Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Station into two
phases. The scope of the first phase, Phase I, was to encompass all the preliminary
activities to develop a Master Plan for the development of the Station, including the
resolution of the issues identified above. After Phase I is completed, RCTC and DMJM will
have a specific agreed upon conceptual plan that will allow both parties to make intelligent
decisions to develop the scope of services and costs for Phase II, the preparation of the
final Design Plans, Specifications, and Estimate.
DMJM, working with staff, developed the attached scope of services, for Phase I
Conceptual Design Services and Environmental Clearance for the proposed new Downtown
Corona Metrolink Commuter Rail Station. Attached is the negotiated, respective costs for
the agreed upon scope of services. Staff is in agreement with both the attached scope of
services and cost of services.
Staff is recommending that the Commission award Contract No. RO-2027 to DMJM, for
the Phase I Conceptual Studies, for the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station,
for an amount not to exceed $217,909 for Base Work with an Extra Work contingency of
$27,091, for a total not to exceed Contract amount of $245,000.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$217,909 + $27,091 = $25,000
Source of Funds
Unallocated rail program revenues
:......r..........• ..
r. •: ••:.:n :,:: :: v:•�.; ,•..�••ivx.' ;••.v .. .......
............:..:..•......., ... , .,...................•..
.. .., . ••5$.ff ....., .. .•. ...:....,.. ...................
:6',5::} : r,# . x
•. �•
.
...............
........:.........................:::::....
.. vvi:::}}}�::n•..:vr.:::::: ?x. .:..............••.x.
.....................................................; .......... ......... ........... ............. .
}. .
..tr........
•}Y•};i•':.,':^•?•i:•}•{..%S,n.L r{..:.2 r.{ :. r:: w.Y• .
.
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
y
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CORONA - MAIN STREET
COMMUTER RAIL STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PHASE 1 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
At the request of the Riverside County Transportation Commission DMJM has separated
the Scope Of Services for the Corona — Main Street Commuter Rail Station into two
phases. The Scope of Phase One is to develop a Master Plan for the development of
the Station, and the Scope for Phase Two will consist of the preparation of the Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates. To prepare a document that will adequately address the
issues associated with the project DMJM proposes the following PHASE 1 SCOPE OF
SERVICES:
Task A — Meetings/Preliminary Data
A.1
Meetings: This element of the project scope deals with the meetings
necessary to develop the project design concepts, obtain the necessary
record data, coordinate the effort with the various stakeholders and
utilities, and maintain the project schedule.
A.1.1 Conduct "kick-off" meeting with all project stakeholders to discuss
conceptual approval process, schedules, initial design criteria,
meeting formats, team/project assignments, and other issues
regarding the site development. Establish the Project Advisory
Group (PAG) members and establish the frequency of future
meetings. For this scope it is assumed that there will be between
four to six meetings.
A.1.2 Conduct PAG meetings at the agreed upon schedule to develop
site planning concepts such as passenger circulation, vehicular
access, inter -modal opportunities and platform location.
Subsequent meetings will address relocation of the Santa Fe
Depot, various station concept designs, project cost analyses, and
the preferred station concept.
A.1.3 Upon acceptance by the PAG, formally present the preferred
alternative to the various Boards and Commissions required for
project approval. Including, but not limited to the City of Corona
Planning Commission, RCTC, SCRRA, etc.
A.1.4 Conduct two utility coordination meetings during the conceptual
design process. The first meeting to alert the various utilities of
the project and the second to identify any potential areas of
conflict.
FEE A.1 = $15,919
Page No. 1
A.2 Document Review and Research: This element deals with the
collection of data and coordination with the various entities that will affect
the project.
A.2.1 Formally issue Utility Notices to all affected utilities identifying the
project scope, proposed schedule, and physical limits. Request
name of person responsible for coordination of design.
A.2.2 Obtain all available record plans and documents pertaining to the
development of the project site. Said data will include perimeter
street plans, existing site plans (for either current or proposed
uses), rail plans, and existing utility atlas sheets.
A.2.3 Obtain record property data. Said data to include plats, maps or
other documents affecting the project site. RCTC to provide a
Preliminary Title Report for the property(ies) involved.
FEE A.2 = $4,888
A.3 Design Surveys: This element describes the field effort to obtain the
data necessary to establish the lines and grades for the project.
A.3.1 Aerial Topography Control: Perform field survey to establish
horizontal and vertical control for the aerial mapping effort.
A.3.2 Perform boundary survey to accurately establish the project
boundaries. Boundary survey will include locating the centerline
of both Harrison Avenue and Joy Street as well as the streets
bordering the project site.
A3.3 Perform field survey to accurately locate both, horizontally and
vertically, the centerline and top of low rail of the existing tracks.
This survey will extend beyond the site limits far enough to
accurately determine the limits of rail modifications.
A3.4 Culture and Utility Survey*: Field locate all physical surface
features either on or abutting the project site.
*For the purposes of the culture and utility survey the project site is
bounded by Ganahl Lumber Company on the west, Joy Street on the
east, Blaine Street to the north and Grand Boulevard to the south.
Detailed surveys for Harrison Avenue and any connector road between
Blaine Street will be performed when the alignment of such a road has
been determined. The aerial mapping will be of sufficient detail to make
such a determination.
FEE A.3 = $15,984
Aerial Mapping = $3,300
A.4 Geotechnical Investigations: It is our opinion that it is appropriate to
obtain this data at this stage of the project to assure ourselves of the site
conditions.
A.4.1 Provide coordination effort to obtain preliminary geotechnical data
sufficient to accurately assess the site's suitability for the
proposed use.
A.4.2 Review available reports, maps and aerial photographs.
A.4.3 Drill, sample and log six borings for the platform structure (3 on
each side of the platform - one 50-foot and five 25-foot deep), and
Page No. 2
nine (6 on the north and 3 on the south of the railroad track) 5-foot
deep borings for the parking and other pavement areas.
A.4.4 Perform geotechnical laboratory tests. These tests will include
moisture and insitu density, maximum density and optimum
moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, direct
shear, consolidation and collapse, Expansion Index, R-Value, pH,
sulfate, chloride, and resistivity.
A.4.5 Perform soil characterization, engineering analyses, and
interpretation.
A.4.6 Prepare draft and final reports.
FEE A.4 = $847
Geotechnical Consultant = $25,190
A.5 Traffic Studies: Specifically, any and all concept designs will be heavily
dependent upon their impact on the surrounding local roadways. To that
end, it is critical to identify any such impacts at this phase of work.
A.5.1 Obtain existing traffic data collected by the City of Corona.
A.5.2 Review available data.
A.5.3 Determine need for additional traffic data and request said
additional data from City of Corona. Additional data may include
automated and/or manual traffic counts. If DMJM is to provide
traffic counts, they may be provided at extra cost.
A.5.4 Prepare traffic report evaluating access to the new station and it's
impact upon local circulation. Suggest remedies for any negative
impacts caused by the proposed station.
A.5.5 Present findings to both RCTC and the City of Corona
Engineering Department.
FEE A.5 = $13,443
A.6 Rail Geometry Assessment: Early coordination with the rail operators
will be necessary to develop a workable plan whether for rail, vehicles or
pedestrians.
A.6.1 Coordinate operational requirements of BNSF and AMTRAK with
the SCRRA commuter operations
A.6.2 Analyze rail alignments that will best support the proposed station
development.
A.6.3 Prepare rail alignment study(ies) that will accomplish the project
goals.
A.6.4 Present analyses to BNSF and SCRRA for their review and
comment.
A.6.5 Finalize rail alignment study to accommodate rail operators
comments.
FEE A.6 = $10,238
A.7 Environmental Assessment: Once again, conducting the preliminary
environmental analyses is essential to the development of an accurate
conceptual plan for the station. Early identification of any potential
environmental constraints will assist in the mitigation of those issues.
Page No. 3
A.7.1 Coordinate environmental determination effort.
A.7.2 Review existing environmental data (to be provided by City of
Corona).
A.7.3 Perform technical analyses (e.g., traffic, air quality, noise, land
use/socioeconomics, hazardous materials, and cultural resources)
and prepare an Initial Study to identify whether a Categorical
Exemption from CEQA and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under
NEPA or whether an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
(IS/EA) leading to a Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant
Impact (ND/FONSI) is required.
A.7.4 If a CE is appropriate, prepare necessary documentation for
agency signature.
FEE A.7 = $1,544
Environmental Consultant = $32,059
A.8 Santa Fe Depot Assessment
A.8.1 Review documents prepared by Myra L. Frank & Associates
(under a separate contract) regarding the Santa Fe Depot.
A.8.2 Perform building survey to determine suitability of structure for
relocation.
A.8.3 Review appropriate methods of movement for the structure.
A.8.4 Develop cost analyses for the building relocation.
A.8.5 Identify options of adaptive re -use of the building as a part of the
Metrolink Station.
A.8.6 Prepare pro and con matrix regarding building relocation.
Task B — Station Concept Design
B.1
FEE A.8 = $9,262
SUBTOTAL TASK A = $132,673
Station Layout
B.1.1 Determine property requirements for the project. (Ownership)
B.1.2 Develop architectural design scheme based upon input gathered
during Task A.
B.1.3 Prepare Conceptual Site Plan (Master Plan) based upon layouts
developed during design development period
B.1.4 Prepare conceptual drainage and grading plan for recommended
site layout.
B.1.5 Prepare conceptual utility plan indicating both existing and
proposed facilities including proposed points of connection.
B.1.6 Prepare conceptual landscape plan
FEE B.1 = $35,644
Landscape Architect = $8,163
B.2 BNSF & SCRRA Coordination
B.2.1 Develop rail alignment concepts
B.2.2 Present concept drawings to rail agencies for review and
comment
Page No. 4
B.2.3 Revise concept drawings to reflect rail agency concerns.
112.4 Obtain rail agency concept approval,
FEE B.2 = $10,280
B.3 Alternatives for Santa Fe Depot (SFD)
B.3.1 Obtain input from various interested parties regarding SFD
development.
B.3.2 Develop altemative design concepts for SFD.
B.3.3 Prepare cost evaluations for suggested design alternatives.
B.3.4 Present design alternatives to appropriate reviewing bodies.
FEE B.3 = $13,261
SUBTOTAL TASK B = $67,348
Task C — Initial Review
C.1 Agency Reviews
C.1.1 Present Station Master Plan to appropriate reviewing agency(ies)
for their review and comment.
C.1.2 Revise Master Plan to accommodate agency concems.
C.1.3 After addressing the various agency concerns, if required, attend
RCTC Board meeting and City of Corona Planning Commission
meeting to make a public presentation of the Station Master Plan.
C.2 City of Corona Site Development Approvals
C.2.1 Prepare and submit Site Development Plan to City of Corona
Planning Department for Site Plan approval and a Conditional Use
Permit.
C.2.2 Attend all necessary internal and Public Hearings regarding the
approval of the petitions.
SUBTOTAL TASK C = $11,098
ESTIMATED REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES = $ 6,790
ESTIMATED TOTAL PHASE 1 COST = $217,909
After City of Corona Planning Commission Approval of the Site Plan and the Conditional
Use Permit proceed to Phase 2 — Construction Documents.
+The preparation of PS&E can be started concurrently with the Site Plan Approval and
CUP process due to the high probability that they will be approved and the conditions of
that approval will be understood.
Page No. 5
PROJECT COST SUMMARY SHEET
DIRECT LABOR
Staffer Hours Rate/hr Amount
Principal In Charge/Rail Coordinator 35 54.42 1,904.70
Project Manager 106 48.51 5,142.06
Senior Project Engineer 116 46.39 5,381.24
Project Civil Engineer 120 33.84 4,060.80
Project Traffic Engineer 68 46.50 3,162.00
Project Rail Engineer 40 37.44 1,497.60
Project Architect 160 31.18 4,988.80
Technical Staff 484 29.39* 14,224.76
Support Staff 82 15.00 1,230.00
Total, Direct Labor 41,591.96
*Average Rate
Fringe Benefits (47.8% x D.L) 19,880.96
Overhead (88.7% x D.L.) 36,892.07
Fixed Fee (10.0% x D.L. + Fringe + Overhead) 9,836.50
Total, Direct Labor, Fringe, Overhead, and Fixed Fee 108,201.50
SUBCONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc.
Leighton & Associates, Inc.
Lynn Capouya, Inc.
37,506.00
32,059.00
25,190.00
8,163.00
Total, Subcontractors/Consultants 102,918.00
DIRECT COSTS
Travel 1,000.00
Printing, reproduction, mailing, phone, fax, etc. 5,789.50
Total, Direct Costs
TOTAL CONTRACT COST
6,789.50
217,909.00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Corona Metrolink Station
PHASE I - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
PM DM PE/PA/TE Designer GADD Clerical LS Flagman 2M Crew HOURS TASK COSTS TOTALS
134.00 $ 120.60 $ 107 20 $ 75 04 $ 160
Task A
Meetings/Preliminary Data
-.-
A.1
Meetings
"Kick-Ofr Meeting
4
4
12
4
24
PAG Meetings
24
24
36
24
108
Presentation Meetings
8
8
8
4
28
Utility Coordination Meetings
8
4
12
Hours subtotal
36
36
56
0
0
32
0
0
0
172
Labor Cost
$4,824
$4,342
$5,553
$0
$0
$1,201
$0
$0
$0
$15,919
A.2
Document Review and Research
Issue Utility Notices
8
4
12
Obtain Existing Plans
4
8
16
28
Obtain Record Property Data
8
8
Hours subtotal
4
8
24
0
0
4
8
0
0
48
Labor Cost
$536
$965
$2,380
$0
$0
$150
$858
$0
$0
$0
$4,888
A.3
Design Surveys
Aerial topography control
1
2
1
2
4
8
18
Boundary Surveys
1
4
6
8
10
12
41
RR Track Surveys
1
2
4
4
8
4
16
12
51
Culture and Utilities
1
2
4
12
4
12
35
Hours subtotal
4
10
8
11
30
0
22
16
44
145
Labor Cost
$536
$1,206
$793
$884
$1,930
$0
$2,358
$1,201
$7,075
$15,984
Inland Aerial Surveys:;.;.;;
(Aerial Mapping)
.........
.........
..........:...:.:.::..:.
••:� �Ni
:::::•
•••••....
$3,300
A.4
Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical Coordination
1
2
4
2
9
Hours subtotal
1
2
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
Labor Cost
$134
$241
$397
$0
$0
$75
$0
$0
$0
$847
Leighton hton & Associates
�:�;i:::::�;:`•s3:#:�:•::
;:::::2�:%�:
:5r'i:%�:?�
�:'•:�:�r::i:i
�:�:2$:�:�:t$;
�:�;;.;.;.;.
:.S.:.:.�S.:.;.�;.:.%.�5.::..::.
i.s.�i.;.:.:.:.:.:.5.:..:.;.%.�.:.:.:.:.�:.5.:.:.�.:.�:.:.•:.;.::
$25,190
(Geotechnical/Hazardous)
A.5
Traffic Studies
Review existing traffic data
2
4
8
14
Prepare Traffic Report
2
8
60
32
24
16
142
Hours subtotal
4
12
68
32
24
16
0
0
0
156
Labor Cost
$536
$1,447
$6,743
$2,573
$1,544
$600
$0
$0
$0
$13,443
A.6
Rail Geometry Assessment
Coordinate rail operations
Assess exist. track alignments
8
8
12
2
30
8
2
10
Alignment Studies
12
16
8
36
Review and comment
4
4
8
4
36
Finalize
2
4
4
4
Hours subtotal
14
8
40
28
16
4
0
0
0
112
•
Labor Cost
$1,876
$965
$3,966
$2,251
$1,029
$150
$0
$0
$0
$10,238
A.7
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Doc. Coordination
8
4
2
14
Hours subtotal
8
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
Labor Cost
$1,072
$0
$397
$0
$0
$75
$0
$0
$0
$1,544
Myra Frank Associates
;:3#i:it:a:
giiMiigii
MiNiMi
3:?i:E:?;
`•3;:;:5
iMNiiiNi:.:liM:3n::
a'£Na
Ai:MiM;;
: s>:;i:•::::
(Environmental Assessment)
A.B
Santa Fe Depot Assessment
Architectural Review
4
16
32
24
24
4
104
Hours subtotal
4
16
32
24
24
4
0
0
0
104
Labor Cost
$536
$1,930
$3,173
$1,930
$1,544
$150
$0
$0
$0
$9,262
TASK A TOTAL
$132,673
RCTC_Corona Phase 1_FEE.xIs, Fee Breakdown
11/2/99, 3:42 PM
PAGE 1 OF 2 DMJM/ERSC
PM DM PEIPAlTE Designer CADD Clerical LS Flagman 2M Crew HOURS TASK COSTS TOTALS
$ 134.00 $ 120.60 $ 99.16
TASK B
B.1
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Conceptual Station Layout
.-.....--
Property Requirements
2
4
4
8
8
26
Architectural Scheme
4
32
40
40
116
Conceptual Site Plan
8
24
32
40
32
136
Con. Drainage & Grading Plan
4
12
16
20
32
84
Conc. Utility Plan
4
8
8
16
16
52
Hours subtotal
22
48
88
120
128
8
0
0
0
414
Labor Cost
$2,948
$5,789
$8,726
$9,648
$8,233
$300
$0
$0
$0
$35,644
Lynn Capouya,Inc.
$8,163
(Landscape Architect)
B.2
Review with BNSF & SCRRA
Concept Rail Modification
4
8
12
16
16
56
Review with BNSF & SCRRA
12
8
8
28
Revise Drawings
4
4
4
12
Obtain Approval
4
4
8
Hours subtotal
20
16
28
20
20
0
0
0
0
104
Labor Cost
$2,680
$1,930
$2,776
$1,608
$1,286
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,280
B.3
Altematives for S.F. Depot
Obtain Input
g
8
Prepare Alternative Concepts
4
4
32
40
40
2
122
Prepare cost evaluations
2
4
12
4
4
26
Hours subtotal
6
8
52
44
40
6
0
0
0
156
Labor Cost
$804
$965
$5,156
$3,538
$2,573
$225
$0
$0
$0
$13,261
TASK B TOTAL
967,348
TASK C
INITIAL REVIEW (30%)
Coordinate Agency Reviews
14
24
28
8
74
SPA and CUP Approval
4
4
8
16
8
40
Hours subtotal
18
28
36
0
16
16
0
0
0
114
Labor Cost
$2,412
$3,377
$3,570
$0
$1,029
$600
$0
$0
$0
$11,098
TASK C TOTAL
$11,098
1
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
TASK A
TASK B
TASK C
PRELIMINARY DATA
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
INITIAL REVIEW (30%)
ESTIMATED REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES
Mileage $1,000
Telephone/Fax $300
Blueprinting $1,890
Reproduction $1,000
Postage/Delivery $600
Presentation Boards $2,000
TOTAL REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES
$132,673
667,348
$11,098
$6,790
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST S217,909
RCTC_Corona Phase 1_FEE.xIs, Fee Breakdown
11/2/99, 3:42 PM PAGE 2 OF 2 DMJM/ERSC
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
County of Riverside and City of Canyon Lake Trade of Surface
Transportation Program Funds
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the agreement between the County of Riverside and City of Canyon Lake to
trade Surface Transportation Program local funds for County gas tax funds.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Due to restrictions and additional processes placed upon transportation projects using
federal funds, the City of Canyon Lake has proposed to trade federal Surface
Transportation Program local funds (STP) with the County of Riverside. The County
of Riverside has agreed to trade their local gas tax funds with Canyon Lake at an
exchange rate of $0.85 for each $1 .00 of federal funds.
The City of Canyon Lake currently has $251,628 of Local STP funds allocated to
them covering fiscal years 1999/00 through 2002/03. The City has one road,
Railroad Canyon Road, for which federal funds would be eligible.
At the October 18, 1999 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the TAC
recommended approval of the County and City of Canyon Lake trade of STP funds.
The TAC recognizes the need to eliminate federal processes from projects that would
otherwise not require federal involvement.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$251,628
Source of Funds
Surface Transportation Program Local Funds
Attachment
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
September 28, 1999
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
RE: City of Canyon Lake Trade of STP Funds
Dear Mr Haley:
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
The City of Canyon Lake has requested the County trade for the City's share of STP Local
funds. The County has agreed in concept to the City's request. However, before we
formalize a funding agreement with the City, we need RCTC's concurrence.
It is my understanding the City has a total of approximately $250,000 of Federal STP funds
available to trade. Please confirm the total available STP funds and process this request
for approval. Upon RCTC approval, we will finalize our funding agreement with the City.
E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: Supervisor Jim Venable
Del Powers, City of Canyon Lake
Habib Motlagh, City of Canyon Lake
Clark Marshall
4080 Lemon Street. 8th Floor • Riverside. California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
P.O. Box 1000 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
August 2, 1999
Mr. Delbert L. Powers, City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
31532 Railroad Canyon Road, Suite 101
Canyon Lake, California 92587
David E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
RE: Federal STP Local Road Funds
Dear Mr. Powers:
As we discussed on July 22, 1999, the City of Canyon Lake requests the County of Riverside's
assistance in exchanging the City's share of STP Local Road Funds.
In an effort to help the City of Canyon Lake, the Riverside County Transportation Department
will agree to exchange the City's portion of STP Local Road Funds at an exchange rate of 85%
($0.85 for each $1.00 of Federal STP funds). The reason behind the 851% exchange rate has
to do with the Federal restrictions and additional administrative costs in using the Federal
dollars. You estimated the City has approximately $250,000 available and the County is willing
to exchange the full amount. If the City wants to pursue the exchange, please let me know so
we can involve RCTC to initiate the transaction.
You also expressed a concern regarding the traffic congestion at the intersection of Newport
Road at Goetz Road. The County shares your concerns and is willing to participate with the
City in providing operational and capacity improvements to the intersection.
It is my understanding you will take these items to the City Council for further consideration.
Please let me know the outcome of your discussion so we can move toward a resolution of
mutual benefit.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (909) 955-
6740.
Sincerely,
eor= - A. Johns
Deputy Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: Elaine Johnson, Supervisor Venable's Office
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
Dave Barnhart, Transportation Department
Roy Null, Transportation Department
Clark Marshall, Transportation Department
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
County of Riverside Request to Reprogram Congestion Mitigation
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORYCOMM/TTEE
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the reallocation of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds from a signal interconnect project on
State Route 79 South to supplement funding on an approved signal interconnect
project on State Route 79 North. The City of Temecula will be the lead agency for
the State Route 79 North project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The County of Riverside is the lead agency for two signal interconnect projects on
State Route 79: 1) SR 79 South from Butterfield Stage Road, and 2) SR 79 North
from 1-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The SR79 South signal interconnect project
was constructed in conjunction with a widening project funded with local funds
totaling $8 million. This was done in an effort to minimize costs on and to deliver the
widening project without having to use federal funds which would have delayed the
project and required additional steps in delivering the project.
The SR 79 North project has not been completed and is currently programmed for
$97,350. The estimated project cost is $320,000. The County is requesting that the
CMAQ funds, which were not used on the SR 79 South project, ($225,675) be
reallocated to supplement funding on the SR 79 North project.
At the October 18, 1999 Technical Advisory Committee, the TAC approved the
County's request. The TAC noted that the County's decision to keep federal funding
out of the widening project was necessary to avoid delaying the project.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
$225,675
Source of Funds
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds
04769.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Transportation Department
September 28, 1999
Mr. Eric Haley
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
RE: CMAQ Funded Traffic Signal Interconnect
State Route 79 North and State Route 79 South
Dear Mr. Haley:
Cy OF
TION
Davie! E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
The County of Riverside has two traffic signal interconnect projects funded with CMAQ
funds. One on State Route 79 North from I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the other
on State Route 79 South from 1-15 to Butterfield Stage Road. The approved CMAQ
funding is $97,350 and $225,675, respectively, for a total of $323,025.
The County recently awarded and is constructing State Route 79 South. State Route 79
South is being improved to a six -lane highway for a total construction cost of approximately
$8.0 million, entirely with local funds. We are interconnecting the signals along this stretch
of highway, but decided not to use the Federal CMAQ money, which would have delayed
the project by requiring the whole project to be federalized.
The signals on State Route 79 North still need to be interconnected. However, $97,350
is not enough to fund the project. We estimate the cost will be closer to $320,000. We
request the approved CMAQ funding from State Route 79 South of $225,675 be
transferred to fully fund the State Route 79 North signal interconnect project at a total
estimated cost of $323,000.
The County was the lead agency for the State Route 79 North signal interconnect project
because of our involvement with Assessment District 161. However, this portion of State
Route 79 North is entirely within the City of Temecula. We believe it is more appropriate
for the City of Temecula to be the lead agency for this project. We have discussed this
with Bill Hughes, and he concurs.
40R0 Lemon Street. 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740
P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721
Eric Haley
September 28, 1999
Page 2
Please take the necessary steps to reprogram the CMAQ money and have it placed on the
State Route 79 North signal interconnect project. Also identify the City of Temecula as the
lead agency for the project. If you have any questions or require any additional
information, please contact my office.
Siely,
avid E. Barnhart
Director of Transportation
GAJ:sa
cc: Supervisor Bob Buster
Bill Hughes, City of Temecula
Mike Ghahramani
Roy Null
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Executive Committee
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Proposed County of Riverside Regional Complex
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
To authorize staff with the Executive Committee to work with the County of Riverside in
the planning of office and meeting room spaces for the Riverside County Transportation
Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Commission at their April 14, 1999 meeting, approved the extension of the office
lease at 3560 University Avenue for two years to October 31, 2001. In addition, staff
was directed to hire a space planner to review the Commission's office needs and
available office space in order to have Commission offices ready by November 1, 2001.
In order to reduce cost and time, the Executive Director contracted with the County's
space planner, Westgroup Designs, Inc.
Following the Commission action, staff was notified by the County of Riverside of their
plans to build a regional center. According to the conceptual master plan, the center is
an 80,000 sq. ft. four-story building (20,000 sq. ft. per floor) to be constructed where
the court yard currently exists on Lemon Street. The County departments proposed to
be relocated to this building are the Board of Supervisors, Administrative Office, the Clerk
of the Board, and others. Plans for the Center include a Board Room, training/meeting
rooms, cafeteria and public information counter. Staff was informed that there is
sufficient office space for the Commission and others in this building. In addition, they
could accommodate the Commission to hold their monthly meetings on the first floor of
the building, where the Board Room and other meeting/training rooms will be located.
The proposed plan for the building was presented to the Executive Committee on
September 8th wherein they recommended to continue discussions with the County on
specific office needs and amenities and focus on the County proposal at this time,
excluding seeking other sites. The Committee's recommendation was relayed to the
Commission in September.
For information, the total square footage where the Commission offices are currently
located is 10,595. At the proposed regional center, RCTC will require less space as the
reception area, meeting and lunch rooms will be shared with WRCOG.
At the Commission meeting, Steven Sigler of Riverside County Building Services, Sima
Hassini, Westgroup Designs, Inc., and Dave Slaughter, Riverside County Real Property
Division, will make a presentation to provide a status report on office space, building
design and cost.
nk
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Review of RCTC's Policy Committees
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission review, amend and approve the structure and jurisdiction of RCTC's
two policy committees, and direct staff, if required, to prepare changes updating the current
administrative code.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
To serve the expanded 30 member Commission pursuant to SB1851, two broad policy
committees, the Plans and Programs Committee and the Budget and Implementation
Committee, were established by the Commission at its September 1998 meeting. The
committees began operation in January 1999.
The structure and jurisdiction of the committees were incorporated into the administrative
code of the Commission and are detailed in Ordinance 98-02. As stated in the Ordinance,
"each committee shall be composed of fourteen regular members of the Commission
selected by the Chair to provide adequate representation from the western and desert areas
of the County". The current committee membership assignments are outlined on Exhibit A.
Each committee's oversight responsibilities were specifically identified and are listed on
Exhibit B.
Recognizing that the newly defined committees might require some adjustment once
convened, the committees were designated as "provisional". It was the express desire of
the Commission, as a whole, to review the committees after a sufficient period of operation
to identify any possible changes to their structure or subject matter jurisdictions originally
defined. To that end, this agenda item is being brought forward to facilitate the
Commission's stated objective.
A review by staff of the two committee's agendas since inception revealed that no
deviations from the oversight responsibilities outlined in the ordinance occurred. It was
however noted that the work area of Property Management is not specifically called out by
the ordinance. Given that the Budget and Implementation Committee has regularly dealt
with that area, staff suggests that Property Management be specifically called out as an
oversight responsibility.
EXHIBIT A
Riverside County Transportation Commission
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Budget and Implementation Committee
Jim Venable / County of Riverside, Chairman
Ron Roberts / City of Temecula, Vice Chair
John Hunt / City of Banning
Gregory S. Pettis / City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / City of Coachella
Andrea Puga / City of Corona
John Pena / City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / City of Lake Elsinore
Frank West / City of Moreno Valley
Don Yokaitis / City of Rancho Mirage
Alex Clifford/ City of Riverside
Tom Mullen / County of Riverside
John Tavaglione / County of Riverside
Patrick Williams / City of San Jacinto
Plans and Programs Committee
Roy Wilson / County of Riverside, Chairman
Robin ReeserLowe / City of Hemet, Vice Chair
Jan Leja / City of Beaumont
Robert Crain / City of Blythe
John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa
Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake
Doug Sherman / City of Desert Hot Springs
Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells
Chris Silva / City of Indio
Frank Hall / City of Norco
Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert
Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs
Al Landers / City of Perris
Bob Buster / County of Riverside
EXHIBIT B
Riverside County Transportation Commission
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
Budget and Implementation Committee
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure A Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21 (CMAQ & STP), transportation
enhancement, SB 821 (bicycle & pedestrian)
SAFE and Freeway Service Patrol
And other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission
Plans and Programs Committee
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs: Transit, Rail and Ridesharing
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Planning & Programs
Congestion Management Program (CMP)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Strategic Plan Direction - Programming of 2000-2008
Discretionary Revenues
STIP
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on current STIP and Measure "A" revenue estimates and project scope and cost
estimates, that the Commission direct staff to program $58.1 million in STIP
Discretionary Revenues for the period 2000 - 2008 for highway projects specifically
identified in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in 1988.
Subsequent to the October 25' Budget and Implementation Committee, CVAG Executive
Director Corky Larson and RCTC Executive Director Eric Haley mutually agreed that the
language in Page 2, Paragraph I, in the report to the Committee, is potentially
ambiguous and not directly material to the recommendations, and as such, has been
modified. The Committee's recommendation remains unchanged.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its September meeting, the Budget and Implementation Committee directed staff to
allow CVAG and WRCOG time to comment on the Draft Measure 'A" Strategic Plan -
Review and Update and bring it back for action. The WRCOG Technical Committee and
Executive Committee did not meet in time for their input to be presented to the
Committee at their October meeting. The Draft Plan and comments from CVAG and
WRCOG will be brought back to the Committee for their recommendations at their
meeting on November 22 and presented to the Commission at its December meeting.
One critical issue related to the assumptions on the programming of STIP revenues in
the Strategic Plan surfaced during discussions with CVAG staff. This is a major policy
for which staff should have direction from the Commission before bringing the plan back
to the Committee for final review. The issue is whether STIP Discretionary Revenues
for the period 2000 - 2008 should be programmed for currently unfunded Measure "A"
projects as was done in the 1998 STIP or identified as available but not programmed for
a particular project.
The projected STIP funding in the Draft Plan for the period 2000 - 2008 is $240 million.
Based on the Intra-county formula adopted by the Commission for use in selecting
projects beginning with the 1998 STIP, $58.1 million will be available in Discretionary
Funding. The remaining $181.9 million is to be assigned by formula to the three areas
of the county identified in the formula and programmed for projects: $131 .5 million in
the Western County; $48 million in the Coachella Valley and; $2.5 million in the Palo
Verde Valley. The above amounts are shown in the Table below for clarity. The
formula funds for the Western County Area will all be programmed in the Strategic Plan
for highway projects identified in the Measure "A" Highway Plan.
STIP Formula Split Pursuant to March 11, 1998 RCTC Meeting
A
STIP Discretionary (24.2%)
$58. 1 million
B
STIP - Subject to Formula (75.8%)
$181.9 million
Total STIP Available 2000-2008
$240.0 million
The STIP Formula portion will result in
the following funds being available
Western County (72.230/0)
$131 .5 million
Coachella Valley (26.39%)
$48.0 million
Palo Verde Valley (1.38%)
$2.5 million
Total STIP formula
$181.9 million
Part of the Agreement in the development and approval of the STIP formula was that
completion of the Measure "A" Highway Program was critical to show the voters that
the promises made in 1998 were kept in order to maintain their trust and gain their
support for an extension of the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation program beyond
2009. The Commission decided that in the 1988 STIP, the Discretionary funds would
be programmed for highway projects specifically identified in the Measure "A" Highway
Program which could not otherwise be funded based on current revenue projections.
In the current Measure A Strategic Plan two highway projects in the Western County
Area were identified as in jeopardy of completion due to projected funding shortfalls
and other related issues; 1-215, adding one lane in each direction, from the 60/91 /215
Interchange to the San Bernardino County Line and; Route 91, adding a second lane in
each direction, from Magnolia Avenue to Route 71. In addition to funding problems, the
1-21 5 project from the 60/91 /21 5 Interchange north to the San Bernardino County Line
needs a commitment from SANBAG to fund the segment north to 1-10, and a scope of
the improvements to be constructed which is affordable and safe needs to be
successfully negotiated with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The Route 91 project to add a second lane in each direction on will require negotiations
with CPTC, the private toll road operator, which has some control over the addition of
any capacity improvements on Rte 91 from 1-15 to the Orange County Line. The
programming of the 2000 - 2008 STIP Discretionary Funds for either of these projects
would not guarantee they would be constructed at this time.
Based on current estimates of Measure "A" and STIP revenue in the Draft Strategic Plan
Update and the scope of improvements currently identified for the Route 91 project to
add one lane in each direction from Mary Street to the 60/91 /215 Interchange, this
project will become the third project identified as in jeopardy for completion unless the
$58.1 million in STIP Discretionary funds projected to be available for the period 2000 -
2008 is programmed for this project. By programming the STIP Discretionary revenues
for this project, it can be identified as one more important highway project identified in
the Measure "A" Highway Program that is funded and constructed and help to set the
stage for the development of the new plan for the next 20 years which is scheduled
to be prepared and approved by the Commission by April or May of 2000.
If the Strategic Plan Update revenue estimates prove to be low and/or should we be
successful in our efforts to redefine the scope for this project with Caltrans in the near
future to lower the cost, STIP Discretionary Funds programmed for the Route 91 project
which would then not be needed for this project and it could be reprogrammed by the
Commission for other projects.
ATTACHMENT "A"
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
antra -County Formula Allocation
STIP
Formula
75.8%
Westem County
72.23%
CoacheNa Valley
26.39%
Palo Verde
1.38%
•
Discretionary
242%
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION
AGENDA ITEM #10
NOVEMBER 10, 1999
MEETING OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Paul Blackwelder: In order for us to put together a strategic plan for the extension of
Measure "A," the first step we have to take is to update the
strategic plan that shows how we will accomplish what was
identified in Measure "A" for the first 20 years. We have been
working on a draft of that strategic plan and it was forwarded to
the Budget and Implementation Committee at their September
meeting. At that timeI' staff was directed to get input from
WRCOG and CVAG so that their concerns could be addressed in
the draft before it weInt to the Budget and Implementation
Committee. We expect to bring that back to the committee at the
end of this month and bring that update to the Commission for
action next month. As part of the discussions on the draft an
important policy issue was pointed out by CVAG staff. That
policy issue deals with the STIP money that is available for period
of 2000-2008 and how should those dollars be programmed. A
chart was provided in the agenda that shows the intra-county
formula and we are only talking about the discretionary portion
24.2%. Our instructions on how to handle the other money was
very clear. This discretionary fund amounts to about $58.1 million
over the next eight years. The strategic plan that we are putting
together that is looking at how we are doing on Measure "A" keys
in on the highway, rail and major arterial projects that were
specifically identified in Measure"A" and it is a report card on how
we are doing. That report card will be the first thing voters ask
about to see how we Idid on the first measure and why they
should support the second. In looking at those projects, in the last
update there were two projects that were in jeopardy of not being
completed in the highway area and both of those were in the
Western County region: The first is the 1-215 from the major
interchange in Riverside to North of San Bernardino. In addition to
funding problems there is also the issue of how large a project
highways require and whether San Bernardino County has the
money to extend that project from the county line to 1-10. Neither
of those questions is answered at this time so that project is still
showing in jeopardy. The second project in jeopardy is on Route
91 from Magnolia Avenue to Route 71 and that is the addition of
a second lane in each direction. The problems there that put that
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 2
project in jeopardy are the cost and the contract CPTC, the toll
road operator, has with the State of California that gives them
rights regarding the extension of facilities from the Orange County
line up 1-15. Those issues cannot be taken care of, but they can
be explained. In citing the projected revenue for Measure "A"
STIP formula dollars out through 2008, and in developing our
report card there is third project that does not appear as though
it can be funded because on the current scope of that project that
we have with Caltrans. Unless the Commission, for the purposes
of the strategic plan, programs the $58 million in discretionary
STIP dollars onto that project. That is project that will add a lane
in each direction from Mary Street to the 60/91 /215 Interchange
in Riverside. As we put the plan together, if we program the
discretionary STIP dollars for that project, the update that will
come to the Commission next month will show that project
funded. If we do not program those dollars the plan that will come
to the Commission and used as a report card to the voters will
show that project unfunded. Staff recommended to the Budget
and Implementation Committee that for the purposes of the plan,
that the Commission should program those discretionary dollars on
that project and that would become their recommendation to the
Commission. We will continue to work with Caltrans on the scope
of that project and try to reduce the cost. If in the future, in the
next couple of years, we can reduce that cost, which will take
quite a while because not only do we have to deal with Caltrans
we also have to deal with Federal Highways, or if our revenues
estimates show that our revenues are higher than expected then
the funds that are freed up would become discretionary STIP
dollars for programming by this Commission on a competitive
basis.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: What was the voteby the Budget Committee on this
recommendation?
Paul Blackwelder: I believe it was 7 to 4.
i
'Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 3
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: All right, lets go around the table, starting with Commissioner
Buster.
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
I think that unless the Commission alleviates the most congested
areas, on the now increasingly dangerous stretches of the 91
Freeway and as Mr. Blackwelder points out keep the faith with the
voters to at least get started with the main projects that were on
the ballot in 1988, unless we do that, I think it will hurt the whole
county in our efforts to pass an extension of Measure "A" and
gain confidence for the other revenues that we will need
throughout the County to meet our growth and transportation
needs. So it is extremely important that we vote today to
earmark these funds for these critical improvements on the 91
Freeway. I think it will go along way to help the entire county in
the future, whether it is the Southwest County which as you know
was not a part of Measure "A", whether it is the desert area of the
County or whether it is the Jurupa area of the County or even the
mid -area of the County. So I think it is a clear and important vote
that we have to cast today.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We will need to take comments from the public, so this round
should be questions to the staff as to the facts behind the case.
Then we will hear from the public and then come back to the
Commission for their comments and opinions.
Commissioner
Jan Leja:
Just a clarification of your timing. You have identified for us that
these projects are in jeopardy unless they get this money. When
we discussed the discretionary funds and their formula and all that
type of thing, I do not recall you saying that these projects were
in jeopardy without the help of the discretionary funds.
Paul Blackwelder: Two of the projects in the current strategic plan were identified as
in jeopardy. In the development of this document to bring
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 4
Eric Haley:
Commissioner
Jan Leja:
forward, in comparing the revenues to the expenses, it is the third
project on the 91 that now shows as in jeopardy unless these
dollars are programmed for that project. In the last couple of
months, in putting this draft plan together was when it showed
up.
This is part of a series of considerations and actions to accelerate
the development of all of the remaining projects. If you recall,
about four months ago, you approved the CMAQ commitment to
Route 60 in Moreno Valley that was outstanding, so we checked
that box. Last month you approved accelerating, through lending
procedures and cash that may be available on a cash flow basis,
accelerated Route 74. That was in the currently unfunded
category and now that box has been checked off. This remains as
the single project that is in an indeterminate status. The reason
that we bring this difficult issue to you, is that none of candidly
believe the voters will consider a proposal to reauthorize the
measure when substantial projects have not been formally
committed to. I do not believe that a sort of trust us approach
from any public agency will pass muster with the public. So we
cannot move forward on our strategic planning until we make a
determination on this project because we cannot move the money
into a different category.
So how much money are we talking about to make this project to
be not in jeopardy.
Eric Haley: $58 million.
Commissioner
Jan Leja:
It just happens to work out to $58 million that is amazing.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Anymore questions as to the facts? Go ahead.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 5
Commissioner Robin
Reeser Lowe: Paul, will you explain to us why Highway 74 was not straightened
and how Kay Cenisceros signed off on a project that was approved
by the voters. I asked five months ago and have not received an
answer.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: If you will bear with me,'' is there any juncture to this item that is
on the agenda. Lets put this on a future agenda during council
comments for discussion.
Commissioner Robin
Reeser Lowe: If we are being asked today to put faith in a system and tell the
voters that they should believe in the system and the system has
failed I would like some clarification. Because I do not feel
comfortable if we are going to move forward with a
recommendation knowing full well that another commitment was
not met.
Paul Blackwelder: In the draft plan that we
that project at the scope
improvements and I will
Eric Haley: As to the history of the
four or five years ago . .
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
have so far, there is funding identified for
that it has been determined that it needed
provide you with that information.
policy changes that I gather took place
The Councilwoman raises a good question. In Measure "A" that
went to the ballot on Highway 79, it talked about widening 79
through San Jacinto and Hemet it did not talk about a new
highway.
Commissioner Robin
Reeser Lowe: No I am talking about 74 straightening of curves that goes to the
215.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 6
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
Commissioner
Percy Byrd:
I am sorry.
My concern and question is that, if I look at your report here on
Page 116 at the end of the last paragraph, you indicate or
someone indicates that even with the programming of this money
there is no guarantee that these projects will be done. You have
said that you need this $'58 million and this is going to do it yet in
the paragraph you have reneged on that and said that you are not
sure that there will be enough money to cover it.
Paul Blackwelder: What I have said is that there are two projects that were
specifically identified that remain in jeopardy. The 215 project
from the interchange to the North and the second lane in each
direction through Corona. Yeah, those remain in jeopardy and we
Commissioner
Percy Byrd:
Eric Haley:
had to explain that even
other project in Western
after programming the $58 million to this
Riverside County. 1 guess we could have
had this discussion on the strategic plan, showing how the other
projects are funded, but the other projects that were specifically
shown on the map in the draft plan, we will show that we now
have funding for those projects and that included 74 and 79.
Does that mean the sentence at the end of that paragraph will no
longer be valid? I am concerned that when you say these projects
which can you guarantee will or will not be done.
We probably should reiterate and make clear that this 1-15 to the
Orange County line is precluded by the current state franchise.
Yet it will not be impacted by your decision today because we
cannot do anything on it, because we do not hold control of that
route given the state fraInchise for the toll road corridors. I think
that could be more forcefully stated.
Paul Blackwelder: The paragraph in Page 160 discusses the project from Mary Street
to the Interchange. The paragraph says that if the $58.1 million
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 7
is programmed this project will be identified as a project that will
be completed. That is correct in the strategic plan that we will
deliver to you next month. If the $58.1 million is not programmed
for this, based on the scope of that project currently, we will have
to identify that as a project in jeopardy.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: All right, continuing around the table. Mr. Kleindienst.
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul, in your presentation you indicated
a number of priorities on projects that are located in Western
Riverside County. Are their projects that are not in Western
Riverside County that are part of Measure A that will not be met?
Paul Blackwelder: Not those projects that were specifically identified on the map for
the expenditure plan. When we put that map together, the
attorneys told us that whatever projects you have on that map, in
the Coachella Valley that included Route 86, Route 111
operational improvements and four regional arterials, you will be
held to delivery of those projects. Based on a revenue assumption
those project identified on that map for the Coachella Valley will
be funded.
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst: Do we have a copy of that map here today and can we have
copies of it made for the members? Some follow-up questions if
may? Based on the March 11 th minutes of the RCTC meeting,
when we discussed the formula if you recall rescinding our
December 10th action and reinstating the new policy and formula,
the 24 + % of SB 45 that was determined to be discretionary was
defined to deal with issues that dealt with safety, congestion,
economic development and as I quote here consideration of special
conditions which have arisen since the 1988 passage of Measure
"A". The issue that you are asking for on the use of these
discretionary dollars is dealing with a project that was already a
problem and has not ar sen since the passage of Measure "A".
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
loigenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 8
Commissioner
Don Yokaitis:
What I am concerned about is if in fact we took the action in
March, how do we then change philosophically today the
allocation of funds that were to be used for discretionary to deal
with issues that have popped up, if you will, after Measure "A".
I need some direction and clarification from the Commissioners
more than the staff.
Without considering what the lawyers told you, are there unfunded
Measure "A" projects in the CVAG area.
Paul Blackwelder: Not projects that were
voters that said you will
Commissioner
Ron Roberts:
Eric Haley:
identified on the map that went to the
get these specific projects.
This is probably a rhetorical question, if the two remaining
Measure "A" projects do not take the complete $58.1 million, and
there are funds left over, has staff decided what is going to
happen to that and can we make that decision today or do we
have to come back and fight gain?
There are two parts to that question and the first is absolutely not.
We are bringing this to you today because we have to bring the
strategic plan forward so that we will have a plan that is publicly
available by early May that you have all agreed that is worthwhile
to circulate. So the issue today is can, we get beyond these
critical issue and move forward. The extra question was can you
decide today what you would do with any remaining funds and I
should point out that the City of Riverside is very much against the
current alignment through their community. Caltrans is supportive
of the downscaling of tie project and I am praying for it especially
right now. If we have a substantial amount of money left that will
come back to the discretionary pot. It is within your power today
to decide what you would do in a "what if " scenario. Although
I can't guarantee that you won't fight over the money that is
available, I am quite sure there will be money. The answer is yes
you can make that determination today or you may choose to
Riverside County Transportation Commissio
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 9
Commissioner
John Hunt:
make it in the future. Staff does not have any earmark on that
money, we do not know how much it is and it is your call anyway.
When we were first seated as Commissioners, the first thing that
we brought up, especially in the third district, was the need for
funding for a death trap that we have in that area and that is the
I-10 and 60. If we want to get some support for that in the
reauthorization of Measure "A", we need to satisfy some of our
issues within our communities. The Pass area is suffering
tremendously becauseI of the need for certain upgrades in
highway system and we need some over or underpasses to get
this thing worked out. As we are addressing the formula for
discretionary funds, we would like to request that we are included
in whatever is left or whatever we can get at this particular time
to straighten out this hazardous area that we have between
Banning and Beaumont into Moreno Valley.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: I am going to hold your commentary, I want to get the facts on
the table because I know we have a lot of cards from people who
want to speak. Then we will be coming back to the
Commissioners for what needs to be considered in whole.
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
I want to know where Paul is going to get the money to fund the
Intervalley Parkway, because I sure don't have any idea where we
are going to get that money. How did he figure out that we have
money to complete the Intervalley Parkway, because I can't even
imagine in my wildest dreams where the money is coming from.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Comments related to that Parkway?
Paul Blackwelder: CVAG staff has provided us with information that shows that the
regional arterials identified in this strategic plan can and will be
funded.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
'Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 10
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
I do not believe that.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Questions as to facts at
Commissioner
Chris Silva:
this point?
The confusion that I have is whether we are looking at either
language based on the map or language pertaining to Measure
Paul Blackwelder: In Measure "A" it talks about highway needs and that the
highway needs are greater than the highway money that we had.
The specific projects that identified on this map were listed in
Measure "A" and those are the projects that we are focusing on.
When you take the expenditure plan approved by the voters it will
say Route 86 - build an expressway, Route 111 operational
improvements. Route 91 add a lane in each direction. Route 60.
Those are specifically identified in Measure "A" as projects we
would complete. So any member of the public asking us how we
are doing could pick up that expenditure plan and that list of
projects and ask us who we are doing are on these projects.
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
Do we have the language of Measure "A" with us and it delineates
clearly for us?
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Could we have the person who did the copying previously, make
copies of the Measure "A" language for each of the members? I
have two questions. If we did not allocate the $58 million to
these projects, what would we be relying on to accomplish these
projects in the future? Would future growth of our sales tax base
provide additional funds perhaps in the future? Is that a fair
statement?
Riverside County Transportation Commission
'Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 11
Eric Haley:
Our current projects argue that the Western program is $8 million
in the whole. That is fairly minor, but it assumes some very
bullish revenue projects based on our successful last few years.
So it is not fair to assume that would we would capture the whole
of this obligation, maybe some small portion of it. You would be
betting on the come, and you would be overriding Ernst & Young
in terms of their assessment of our revenue flow. We are
stretching our capacity through borrowing and other things in
order to accelerate projects now. If we had an expectation of that
money we would not be talking about this today, we would be
telling you that everything is in the bag. We do not anticipate
having enough money to do this out of the natural revenue growth
and indeed at the present time we might be a little bullish.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: All right my follow-up question to that is procedurally if this $58
million were not earmarked at this point in time toward these
projects, what would normally happen in the process of dividing
these funds.
Eric Haley:
The normal is just the history of the past year. You have gone
through a couple of exercises so far where you divided up the
1998 STIP. Also, the countywide $15 million fund program and
I think they worked out
perspective I would say
fairly well and from the Coachella Valley
very well. The normal procedure would
be next year in the cycle you would come forward with proposals
for the amount of discretionary money that is available and it
would not be this $58 million. This $58 million is committed out
until 2008. You would see portions of this $58 million every two
years and then you would compete for those project monies. The
question implied, and maybe I am stepping aside, is what, would
happen if we do not act on this? This is the big question mark in
front of moving ahead with the strategic plan and that is why we
are doing this exercise, because these monies do play out in 2000,
2002 and 2004. We donot have this money today, and this is a
projection forward until the end of our measure in 2009.
Riverside County Transportation-Commissio
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 12
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: What I hear you say is the pieces of this $58 million would
become a part of future cycles of dividing money out, is that it?
Eric Haley: In normal cycles in 2000
, 2002 and 2004, yes sir.
Paul Blackwelder: As each cycle came up, if there were additional revenues or if cost
of the 91 project was lower we would announce that we do not
need those funds. You would have a choice every two years on
how to spend those funds. It is a matter of programming it at this
point in time.
Commissioner
Jan Leja:
Mr. Chairman, I think we should go onto public comments instead
of having staff try to convince us as to why we should support
their proposal. I would ike to move onto public comments.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you for your suggestions, we are going to go to public
comments.
Naty Kopenhaver: Mr. Chairman, we have received five requests to speak and the
first one being Terry Ishumatsu??.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Before we get into public comments, what are our typical rules for
public comments, timing.
Naty Kopenhaver. We have five minutes for each speaker.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Again folks, we need your cooperation it is five minutes. I have a
watch up here but I don't think I will have to worry about that.
Please try to limit your comments to five minutes. If you can state
your name and give us a', general idea of where you live or the city
you live in, it would be helpful.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 13
Cherry Ishimatsu: My name is Cherry Ishimatsu. I have served on many boards in my
lifetime and have lived here for 50 years. My concern is that I
would like to address the article that was in our editorial today. I
believe that it creates a lot of concerns to for other people. I
identify myself as a community advocate rather than representing
any special board. I think we need to have answers and
clarification as to why we were not informed about the allocation
process that you are having now before this time. It sounds like
it is a done deal, which 'I hope that it is not. I hope that it gives
our community people here time to have some input into this to
get a better picture of why we are having the shortfall problem.
What is the reason for the shortfall? Weren't the funds there for
the proposals that you presented? If so, why is there a shortage
now that we are going to be possibly losing $48 million in the
Coachella Valley in the eastern end of Riverside County or is that
a misunderstanding on our part.?
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: In recognition of your comments, we are keeping track of your
questions and will comment.
Cherry Ishimatsu: But I am sure that there are others who would to speak to this and
I would like to ask that you give this strong consideration.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you very much for coming in. Next speaker please.
Naty Kopenhaver: The next speaker is Corky Larson.
Corky Larson: If I might, could the other speakers go first?
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: That fine, Ms. Larson represents CVAG for those of you who do
not know and I sure that she will give us a fine wrap up. As far
as procedure goes, I rea ize that some of you may have questions,
please voice your questions because staff is keeping track of them
and after we have all the comments in all of the questions will be
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 14
consolidated and we will attempt to make sure that the answers
are given. I am sure that all of the Commissioners will be
watching to make sure that your answers are given to the point
where they are satisfied 5o lets have the next speaker.
Naty Kapenhaver: Bob Reinhagen.
Bob Reinhagen:
Thank you Mr. Chairman', members of the Commission, my name
is Bob Reinhagen and I live here in the City of Indio. Although, I am
the vice-president of the Business Advocacy of the Chamber of
Commerce and serve as the Chair of the Indio City Joint Image
Committee 1 am not here speaking on their behalf today, I am
speaking as a public citizen. Although I will tell you that the
reason for that I am sure is the fact that this came to us as rather
a surprise and as the previous speaker stated the concern that we
had when we read the editorial this morning. I think that all I
would like to say to you is that at this point in time it is my hope
that you will delay a decision on this until you get additional
comment from the east end of the valley. While I appreciate Mr.
Blackwelder's comments about any additional funds, we can think
about moving them down to the location somewhere in the valley.
I would suggest that CVAG not just open the checking account at
the moment, because I do not know how accurate that is. I heard
Mr. Haley say earlier that you move this Commission four times a
year so that you can stay in touch and that staff is available to go
out and remain in touch, perhaps the staff that drafted this report
and came up with this decision you could assign them to come
and visit with us in the eastern part of the county. To save a little
bit of time driving around this location, if they have appropriate
chiropractic coverage and vehicle maintenance policies, I would be
happy to serve as a tourguide. Perhaps at that point in time you
could make a decision and then maybe come to that decision by
saying even if it is the same decision you will drive around those
same streets two days a week. Then of course they will be able
to avoid the worst streets because they will know where they are.
Thank you very much.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 15
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.
Naty Kopenhaver: The next speaker is Doug York.
Doug York:
Good morning Commissioners, my name is Doug York. I live in the
county and operate a business at 83-801 Route 45 in Indio and I
am here today as a resident of the County of Riverside. I am also
the president of a construction company, a commercial/industrial
contracting company that has been in the valley for some 50
years. I am currently the President Elect of the Chamber of
Commerce and have served two previous terms as the Chamber
President. The Chamber is a 680-member business organization
that combined with its membership that employees more than
11,000 employees and we are very concerned about what goes
on. Each one of us is business owners and both the east and the
west county is both important to us. It is hard to separate them
except for the fact that we have a geographical separation. We
have had and I have been a resident of this valley for around 50
years and there has been that geographical separation and that is
the pass. I would suggest to you morning that perhaps if the staff
of the transportation department and some of the board members
were concerned about what the voters were going to think that
they are addressing this issue a little bit late. If your view was to
satisfy and hold up your commitment to the voters you would
have thought that what was one of your top priorities would have
been gotten out of the way early on thinking ahead that you
wanted to extend Measure "A". The discussions that we are
having today are not new. It seems like all of the years I have
lived here, 41 years of which I have been able to vote and have
voted every year, that our representation from the east valley has
had to aggressively, tooth and nail, fight to get our share of
funding. It has nothing to do with need, because everyone has a
need the west county has a need and the east county has a need.
It has to do with the votes and what the vote has been. I think
everyone in this room realizes it has been in the west county.
Over the years it has gotten more fair and equitable and it needs
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
;Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 16
to continue that way. would suggest that you look at all the
issues, look at the fact of what priorities should be taken early.
Other people will actually address the nuts and bolts of this, but
!would ask the Commissioners to just consider one element today
and that is fairness to the County as a whole, to the east county
individually and the west county individually. If you are concerned
about the voters, you are a little late to think about that. Thank
you!
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Mr. York, next speaker please.
Naty Kopenhaver: Councilman Michael Bracken is the next speaker.
Councilman
Michael Bracken: Good morning, Mr. Cha rman, Commissioners, my name is Mike
Bracken, City of Banning Councilmembers. As a little bit of
review, as Mayor Kleind'enst pointed out there was an agreement
cut in March of 1998 between the east valley and the west side
so to speak. As l read that agreement it only pertains to 1998
discretionary funds. The acid test for discretionary funds is still
four parts: safety, congestion, economic development and projects
that arose after the 1988 passage of Measure "A". There are
significant needs in this county beyond that fourth acid test.
These needs of course lie in Temecula, Murrieta, the Hemet Valley
and of course in the Pass. One project of course is our favorite in
the Pass area is the I-10/60 split which continues to be a problem.
I do not know how many Monday mornings I have awakened and
read the morning paper and heard about more people that have
died on that interchange or that supposed interchange. The reality
is today, the Pass area representatives, my colleagues from
Calimesa, my Mayor and the Mayor of Beaumont, my colleagues
from Murrieta, Temecula and from the Hemet Valley have an
opportunity to say now is the time to take discretionary money,
look at discretionary projects pursuant to the priority listing and
the priority criteria that was previously established and make the
right decision. I am obviously opposed to this Board making the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 17
decision today to go forward with the recommended programming
for the $5$.1 million in discretionary funds. Your option today is
to direct your staff to go back and have a call for projects that
meet that acid test to go forward and meet the needs of the
county pursuant to those four parts. Thank you.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you very much, next speaker please.
Naty Kopenhaver: We have Terry Henderson from the City of La Quinta.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Ms. Henderson, welcome.
Mayor Pro -Tern
Terry Henderson: Good morning, Terry Henderson, Mayor Pro-Tem City of La Quinta.
I am hearing very strange things this morning such as a map is
replacing the legal wording of a measure. I think that now you all
have a copy of Measure "A" and you will see in that there is a
listing of projects other than those that appear on the map. I don't
think legally I have ever had it suggested to me that a map, graph
or a chart can change what the wording of a measure is or an
issue is. I would suggest to you that dedicating funds to a project
that may or may not be complete when we go to the voters again
asking them for additional funds are anything more than a feel
good action for bureaucrats. I can guarantee you, when we have
dedicated funds in our community and the project is not done the
community does not fee any better about it because the funds are
dedicated. They only feel good about it if the project is done and
they see it. What I am hearing here is something that we all tend
to do and we all feel goad when we say we have the money kids,
are we really going this time. But if it is not done it does not
change how the general community feels about it. I think I am
seeing that problem, I am also seeing the question of discretionary
funds, if in fact that is what they are and I have every reason to
believe that is what they are. A funding formula has already been
set and additional projects are up for consideration. This needs to
'Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 18
be continued until at least another meeting with further input from
the entire board and perhaps the community. Thank you.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Ms. Henderson, next speaker please.
Naty Kopenhaver: I have the last card to speak and that is Corky Larson.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: All right Ms. Larson, I know you wanted to speak last. Were there
any other requests to speak prior to Ms. Larson. Alright go ahead.
Corky Larson:
It is not what you do here today, it is how you do it. I cannot tell
you how disappointed I am with some of the remarks as to my
perception of fairness from staff and we will leave it at that. I
don't think you could do what you are trying to do here today and
that is what I have come here to say. I don't think action can be
taken. Where in the Sam hill did I come up with that? I came up
with it over the weekend because I was researching, because I
remembered that John Tavaglione referenced the meetings at UC
Riverside and I remembered that there were two things going on
at one time. One was the programming of the 1998 STIP, that
the discretionary money in its entirety would be given to the West
and the other was Senate Bill 1851 which was the reorganization
of the Commission. So the first thing they l did was, the bill was
introduced in February of 1998 and at that time contained the
formula in the bill. TheI formula had no discretionary monies at
that time, and it was split per the ballot return to source. I have
the bill here that I pulled off the Internet and I have enough copies
of everybody. The second thing that I have is an agenda item
dated April 8`h, an RCTC agenda item and I have copies for
everyone. The RCTC agenda item speaks to Senate Bill 1851 and
the fact that there were some concerns that with the formula in it,
it would run into difficulties. It was suggested that we take the
formula out and deal with it in a Memorandum of Understanding.
We did that and I have a copy of the chapter of 1851 and I will
send that around to you, but believe me the formula is not in it.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 19
Chairman
Jack van Haaster:
Corky Larson:
Chairman
Jack van Haaster:
Commissioner
Percy Byrd:
I am going to read to you from the Memorandum of
Understanding. I took the liberty of circling the language in the
MOU that I think is significant and why l think you can't do what
you are going to do or what you are trying to do. It talks about
24.2% of the regional choice funds to be programmed, it does not
talk about the anticipated funds, it doesn't talk about project
funds, it talks about funds. CVAG unlike RCTC has never counted
funds until they were allocated and we know from the 1996 STIP,
there was no 1996 STIP. We know that these things don't
necessarily come in. f you read the two little areas that I
underlined in pencil, I think it is talking about funds that have been
allocated. So when the legislature or the CTC or whoever it is that
says this year we have 5240 million available, what I figured out
that we got in 1998, that is the time that you then address the
discretionary funds. I am here to say to you very emphatically,
and I have checked with the CVAG attorney who is in agreement,
that until those funds are allocated I do not believe that you can
allocate them or make any change without the signatures of
CVAG, WRCOG and ROTC.
Alright, thank you Ms. Larson. Is that the last of the speakers?
I just wanted to make sure that for the record, you know that was
a formal objection.
Duly noted, we are going to close the public comments section.
Did everyone on my left get all four documents? You should have
received a copy of the Senate Bill, a two -paged memo dated April
8tn the chapter of the Senate Bill was the third item and finally the
RCTC MOU dated May 13th. Okay we will open it up for
discussion. I will start with my left and kind of go in circles.
My name is Percy Byrd and I am also the Chair of the SunLine
Board. What I would like to do is point out that in addition to the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 20
Measure "A" funds there are a 1 /4% sales tax for TDA raised in
the Coachella Valley that goes from SunLine to RTA and in 1998
that amounted to $1.8 million. Why I am stating, this is that it is
an indication that the Coachella Valley has made an effort to try
to work with the rest of the county. By supporting this particular
measure and this sales tax we provide almost $2 million per year
to the rest of the County for the RTA. That is my comments.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: When we met at the UCR Extension and agreed almost to agree
not agree that one Saturday there were several of us, I think it
was Ron Roberts, Andrea, Ron Loveridge and forgive me if I
missed someone else and I that went to CVAG within the
following month and said that we are not done with this. l
remember when Eric was hired, and one of his first remarks to me
was I guess we are going to postpone the expansion of this
agency. I said Eric we have come too far to let this go, we are
moving forward with this. We reached an agreement with our
neighbors in the Coachella Valley and a lot of people said it could
not be done. Yet everyone who participated in that process
forced themselves to exasperation to make sure it was done. You,
Mr. Chairman and I had very frank discussions about and we were
very honest with each other. We had the goal that we knew there
needed to be fairness in the process. We dealt with the Measure
"A" funds and the formula, but we also said that the discretionary
pot was going to be justi that, it was going to be discretionary. It
would come before the entire body to decide what projects would
be approved. It did not mean that all of the money would go to
the West, it did not mean all of the money would go to Temecula
or Murrieta, it didn't mean it would all go to the Pass, it was all
going to Coachella. We were going to look at it project by project
to see exactly what the criteria were and it was spelled out in this
MOU. I am supporting today this MOU and I am going to vote no
on this issue before me.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Ms. Lowe, Doug.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 21
Commissioner
Doug Sherman:
I am Doug Sherman from the City of Desert Hot Springs. I could
address a great many th ngs, but I will only address the concerns
of my community. History shows that when it rains in Desert Hot
Springs, we have one artery in and out of the city and that is Palm
Drive. In doing away with the interchange it would hurt my
community, as far as, public safety but more so it would hurt my
community economically. I think we meet all the congestion, the
economic development and safety requirements for this project.
I do not know where it stands right now. I would vote no on that.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you, Andrea.
Commissioner
Andrea Puga:
I am Andrea Puga from the City of Corona and I have been sitting
here very quietly with everyone mentioning they have safety,
congestion, economic development and clean air issues. Anyone
who has ever been on the 91 Freeway knows none of you have a
problem like we have. Talk about safety, everyday there is at least
three or four accidents right there on the 91 Freeway. There are
safety problems. Congestion, coming down here today it took me
45 minutes to get to the interchange, almost as long as it took me
to get here. Eric, if we did do a call for projects the money would
not really be enough to cover anything. The reason that l am in
favor of this is that it is, dealing somewhat with the 91 Freeway
and it would somewhat help those people in that area. We are a
region from east to west, we wanting to form this agency with 29
members so that we could all help each other. I think it is going
back to my particular area and my particular people and I am very
disappointed in the way that it is turning out. So I am in favor of
this motion.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Moving around the table, anymore comments? Go ahead, Mr.
Pettis.
t
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
'Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 22
Commissioner
Greg Pettis:
I am Greg Pettis from the City of Cathedral City. Two things, one
I take issue with the statement that staff made that there are no
additional projects in the Coachella Valley or that all of the projects
are completed. We have had to downsize significantly a lot of our
projects in order to make sure that the funds stretch to do things.
Specifically, at least in my community, is the Mid Valley Parkway
having gone down from six lanes to four lanes. But when it
comes to what is needed throughout the county I would have no
problem if this discretionary money went into some of the other
projects Councilman Bracken mentioned. I know that the Pass
significantly needs funds, Temecula needs money for their things.
If we put all of the discretionary funds into these projects in one
section of the county, instead, of looking at the entire county, that
would be shortsighted qh our part. Especially with the argument
that we need to get the voters approval. We need the voters from
all over the county, not ijust from one particular section.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright, thank you Mr. Pettis.
Commissioner
John Tavaglione: I am sure that if I were '',a representative of one of the Coachella
Valley cities, I would be fighting for funds in the interest of the
Coachella Valley. I think that when we as elected officials are
elected to office, we are not only required to take on our own
responsibilities in various jurisdictions as a representative but I
think we have the responsibility and the voters expect the
responsibility of us to look at the entire region. Because it is the
region that is going to make this work well economically and
otherwise. The reauthorization of Measure "A" is one of the most
critical issues that we ae going to be addressing in the next few
years in terms of getting it passed. Because of growth projections
here in the two county region of three million people, the need to
improve our freeways is critical to the economic viability of our
county. If you look at the 91 freeway through Corona, through
Riverside and if you look at the 60 Freeway through San
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 23
Bernardino, through Riverside up to the desert, those two corridors
are corridors that without any additional expansion will completely
halt the transportation of goods and services to the eastern part of
the county. If you think that is an incorrect statement, just talk to
the truckers, talk to the businesses who are in Los Angeles and
Orange County transporting goods and services to the Coachella
Valley. When we look at the MOU it states economic
development, if we want to cut out economic development to our
region, if you in the Coachella Valley want to exclusively allow
goods and services to free get to the Western part of the county
great, that is wonderful. Lets not allow the 91, 60, 216
interchange to be built ''because trucks will not be able to get
through to you, yeah they might have a way to get through to you
on the 10 Freeway, but John that is going to cause an additional
safety problem for you. You will have all of the trucks on the 10
Freeway. We have a 1.6 million people in this county roughly and
it is growing by the day I don't know what the percentages are
here in the county in the Coachella Valley that are voters, but I
assure the percentages are much, much higher in the western part
of the county. If we do not think about those things, think about
the importance of passing Measure "A", we are all going to lose
out. So lets talk about the importance of the region and quite
frankly I think the approach brought forth by staff is critical and I
support that.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright, thank you. Mr.
Commissioner
John Chlebnik:
Chlebnik.
John Chlebnik from the City of Calimesa and I would just like to
remind all of you that Calimesa is in Riverside County.
Unfortunately the route that goes through Calimesa does not go
to anywhere else in Riverside County except the Pass, and it goes
into San Bernardino County. Sometimes I get the impression that
Calimesa is sort of treated like a back water and not really
seriously considered a part of any systems that are implemented,
whether it is transportation or other systems. Even our school
i
c
Riverside County Transportation Commission
.Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 24
Commissioner
Jan Leja:
district is in San Bernardino County. We are not seriously
considered, at least that is my perception, when it comes to any
kind of projects. Just remember we are part of the Pass area. My
recommendation on this item is that I am still thinking.
I do not want to go on with the comments that have already been
made by Councilmember Lowe and others, but this is really a
policy issue. I thank the Mayor of Banning and Councilmember
Bracken for stepping forward and advocating the area of
improvement that is needed and when we discussed and made our
agreement, signed our MOU, like Mr. Kleindienst said before the
discretionary funds were set up so that other projects could be
looked at based on the criteria that we all agreed to in March. I
think that it is imperative to the passage of Measure "A" that we
live up to those agreements as well that we outlined in March as
a means of working together. It was a civil way of agreeing to
disagree on other issues, but it got a total buy in because there
was going to be another source of funding, the discretionary
funds, which would be available to deal with significant issues that
dealt with safety or economic development and I think that we
need to live up to that asI well. To totally close out every potential
project unless it was on 'Measure "A" along time ago, really does
not play voters totally either. So what I would advocate at this
time, and I will just make it a motion is that we deny the
recommendation brought to us by the Budget and Implementation
Committee and the staff recommendation and that we uphold the
policy that we set out reserving those discretionary funds to be
used for issues such as safety, congestion and economic
development and other special conditions which have arisen since
the passage of Measure "A" in 1988.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: I will recognize that first motion, well first and second. We want
to get around the table because I know everyone wants their
chance to talk here. Mr Kelly.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
;Verbatim Transcription
'Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 25
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
Well first the staff reportand the strategic plan is no different that
it has ever been in the past. It does not include Eastern Riverside
County, it never has and every time it comes up I ask the
question. Every time you do prioritizing, this project or that, I have
to question now does this include County because I might have
something to say. No, don't not worry about it does not include
Eastern Riverside County. So it is the same old clan, we are not
even included in it. This part about Measure "A", I really don't
think that in this particular discussion of discretionary plans, where
the Measure "A" projects are doing to be completed or not has
anything to do with what needs to be done out there and what
the voters would like to see done. When Measure "A" was all put
together and the money) started to come in everyone knew from
the very beginning that there was not going to be enough money.
So what did the Coachella Valley do? The Coachella Valley started
thinking how could we get the most for the money that we are
going to get. We established a TUMF fee to begin with so that all
of our developers were going to contribute to the problem created
by development. In Western Riverside County there is no TUMF
fee. The developers make the normal contribution that they
always did, which ours do that also. They do their normal
contribution and then there is a special assessment to take care of
regional roads, interchanges and state highways. We sat down
and we said hey we have to get the most bang for our buck. So
all of the cities agreed to make contributions and to date the cities
have contributed around ''$30 million to interchange, state highway
and regional projects because we knew that we would have
trouble getting our Measure "A" projects completed. The City of
Palm Desert in just interchanges has contributed more than $7
million and we have another $30 million coming down the line that
cities are going to be 'contributing. So now should Eastern
Riverside County be penalized because we did our job in the
beginning and started right the first year when we all saw the
money and we all knew what was going to happen. Why should
our voters then be penalized. So you are going to collect taxes
and because somebody did not do the job they should have done
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
'Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 26
our voters are going to pay for it. I just do not think that it right.
I support very much the motion that was just made. I think that
in the interest of Western Riverside County and Eastern Riverside
County that things like this should take time. We should have an
opportunity to sit down and find out where these discretionary
projects should go. Fortunately for Western Riverside County I
have to make a trip to Temecula about once a week and I go over
the mountain and usually come back on Highway 79. Temecula
is a disaster and they get no money at all from the Measure "A"
program. Then you come across Highway 79 and that is an
embarrassment. That is truly an embarrassment. I am very
supportive of spending some of this money in Temecula and
Murrieta, in Hemet on Highway 79. On the 60 I go through that
all of the time, if I keep my car on the road and that area does not
get a nickel from Measure "A" and I don't see how we can go on
and not go through this process of trying to talk it out so that we
can all get along in the County instead of trying to push something
through.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright, thank you. Mr. Hunt.
Commissioner
John Hunt:
Chairman
Thank you very much. I really appreciate and I want to say to my
colleagues thank you and I really appreciate your statement. The
other thing is that I think that the three COG's should be working
together in an era of communication and communicate with our
people and so forth in our areas and sitting down and coming to
some sort of consensus We are not going to get anyplace with
the reauthorization of Measure "A" if we do not do that. We need
to be on the same page and we should not be fighting about what
is happening in the various areas, east, west or wherever. I am
going to vote in favor of the motion, because I think basically that
we should not move any other way than the way it was placed on
the table. Thank you.
;Riverside County Transportation Commission
IVerbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Rage 27
Jack van Haaster: Alright, Mr Hunt. Mr. Silva go ahead.
Commissioner
Silva: The City of Indio does not support the staff report and we support
the motion that supports the MOU of March 11, 1998. If we
were to support this staff recommendation, we would be
jeopardizing the economic growth of the Coachella Valley,
Beaumont, Blythe and all of the lower section of Riverside County.
I think that we have to be able to work together for everyone's
benefit. We are not talking about money that would be allocated
for one year, this is eight years and it would definitely hamper
traffic and hamper economic growth and I do not think it would be
beneficial. Here again we are talking about Measure "A", trying to
satisfy the voters. The voters are all over Riverside County, so if
we were to support the way it is written, Western County would
get an A + and we would fail and I don't think the voters would
appreciate that. Also, we need a majority of the voters to approve
the measure in order for it to be successful so we have to work
together, we have to share and we have to continue to work
where everyone wins. Thank you.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you, Mr. Mullen.
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
IS offer a substitute motion. First of all I don't think the City of
Riverside is not here and that is incredibly unfortunate. I support
Supervisor Tavaglione's
we will wind up doing is
comments, but I also recognize that what
having a house of cards fall on us and no
one wins. I think the saying that the Supervisor was looking for
was that we,either hang) separately or would be hung together. I
would much prefer that we stay together and that was the
premise behind the division of the SB 45 funds so I support
wholeheartedly the comments of Mayor Hunt. I think in order to
be able to get an accurate picture of where we are today,
throughout the County that we need to convene a special meeting
that reviews both the initial measure, the two strategic plans that
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 28
took place in planning sessions in the Coachella Valley and the
Western plan and marry those. Then make truly the hard decisions
with regard to those projects that the data indicates were not
complete as to the promise to the voters. Or alternately tell the
voters that what we have all known and quite frankly has been in
fact published for years that we were short. We were short
primarily as a result of the great depression in California that
affected two STIP cycles where there were no monies and clearly
affected the Measure "A" revenues at both ends of the county.
So I, Mr. Chairman, would offer that we continue this meeting to
a special meeting either next month or in January. I also recognize
that there is this date by which we are to submit an expenditure
plan to the State by April 30'. I also believe that it is absolutely
unrealistic to be able to do that in the time frame given and I
would submit that we notify the state that we are unable to do
that early on. Not now, maybe not next month but certainly in
January and ask that they extend that deadline at least until the
end of the fiscal year, iif not to the end of July. I picked July,
because if in fact the legislature comes back to place something
on the ballot in November in the early part of August the
legislature has submitted it to the Secretary of State the
appropriate language. Assuming that the reason for submitting
these expenditure plans to the State would have something to do
with that. But I would also remind everyone that without the
Inland Empire voting affirmatively, just on a 50% measure a
measure cannot pass in the state. Again I think it is in the attempt
and the spirit of really the March agreement that we continue this
and not rush into it. We deliberately take the time to absorb the
history of the measure, where we are at in all of our communities
and what in fact those two strategic plans pointed out and see if
can't call all of the money together, recognizing we are still going
to be short because of the economy.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We have a substitute motion on the floor.
i
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 29
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: I will second that substitute motion.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Remember we are going to go all around the table and then we are
going to talk a little bit about procedure. A motion and second by
Hemet as a substitute motion. Lets continue around the table and
I will hold my comments until the end.
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst: Mr. Chairman could we have the substitute motion restated,
please for clarification. You want to continue discussion?
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst:
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
I want to continue this item and we hold a special session just on
this item reviewing the Measure "A" and various strategic plan and
then making a decision.
In dealing with the discretionary monies from the STIP?
And any other.
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst: Sometime in January?
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
That is fine.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright continuing around the table. It looks like Temecula, Mr.
Roberts.
Commissioner
Ron Roberts:
I support Supervisor Mullen's substitute motion. A lot of what has
happened in the past has come back to me given all of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 30
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
Commissioner
Ron Roberts:
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
Commissioner
Ron Roberts:
documentation and listening to Robin today. We worked very hard
to put this together and there were promises made that I
remember and I am not a person that goes back on a promise. If
we were to vote on this today, I would have to vote no on it.
Because of the promise we made and I remember when we put
this together. Whether one or the other solution is right, I think
we need to determine that at a later time. What I remember now
and this documentation, the promise was made.
Which promises are you
referring to?
The MOU and the discretionary funds.
You are in favor of the first motion or the second motion?
The motion to continue
discussion on this,
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: If voted on today you would support the original motion to deny
the staff recommendation?
Commissioner
Ron Roberts:
Yes I am sorry.
Commissioner
Patrick Williams: Patrick Williams, I am from the City of San Jacinto and I am a
member of the Budget and Implementation Committee. I
supported the recommendation to bring forth staff's concept here
to the whole board. I apologize to my colleagues for not being
more informed on this matter. I sit here today reviewing some of
the documents presented to us today, it is clear to me that this
issue if nothing else needs more discussion. I know a lot of us
have come a long way to sit and talk about this, we don't want to
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 31
delay this any further but clearly these issues before us are quite
significant and I don't mind taking a little more time. I was
intrigued by Mr. Blackvvelder`s comment regarding the funding
commitments identified in Measure "A" and with the documents
provided to us that specifically outline some of the items, there are
at least a couple of items in my own San Jacinto Valley that I am
not entirely sure about whether they have been completed and
submitted for funding. I'do appreciate generally John Tavaglione
comments regarding the regional perspective on this issue for
voters of reaffirming whatever potential expansion or extension of
this funding. If we do not take a pragmatic course and are not
able to demonstrate to the voters that we have come through for
them, spent their money wisely, we will not be able to have future
discussions regarding where money will go because there will no.r
be any. With that I would support Mr. Mullen`s motion to revisit
this issue in the near term.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright, thank you Mr. Williams. Going around, Mr. Yokaitis?
Commissioner
Don Yokaitis:
I do disagree with the staff conclusion that there is no unfunded
"A" projects in the Valley, there are several. Secondly, Mr. Kelly
made a point that we have experienced here in Ranch Mirage in
the last few years. The City of Rancho Mirage in the improvement
of the Hwy. 1 1 1, which is a Measure "A" project has spent more
than$8 million in improving that highway which in affects has
displaced and met the Measure "A" requirement. Funds could go
elsewhere and yet this is used as an example of a project that no
longer needs the money. I do not think that we should be
penalized for funding which reduces the Measure "A" requirements
in a given area. Thirdly a point that we talked about in great
length when we argued the great debate about over the formula
still remains and that is Section 8 of Measure "A" that says funds
for transportation purposes shall be allocated to the Western
County, Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde area proportionate to
the Measure "A" funds generated within those areas. That is
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 32
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
more than Measure "A" funds that are the STIP funds that we
have been talking about. Having said all of that I support the
motion by Jan Leja which I think is broader and addresses the
issue better. It is not just the Coachella Valley, but is the Pass and
Hemet, it is Temecula that has these requirements. All of this
money should not go to the Western County. I will vote for the
first motion.
Just to answer some of the concerns that were raised by the
audience and others, I think our consideration of this today is
neither rushing the issue that has been on our table for a long,
long time nor it too late for the voters because Measure "A" goes
out to 2008-2009. So we are only midway in that entire initiative
approval process, although we are bonding our capacity for
Measure "A:" long before the tax actually expires. So I think that
reading this document is extremely important and the listing of
these measures is extremely important and the proposal that staff
is making coincide with the most heavily congested accident prone
and critical economic artery in our entire county. There is no
dispute about that, no matter what we say. I am arguing from a
standpoint of the Supervisor that represents the growing
Southwest area of the county that was not even incorporated at
that point and did not have any of these projects on here. Yet I
too feel that we have to reach beyond our immediate
representation to look at the entire good of the entire county. This
is not about maintenance at all, and it does not affect maintenance
funds at all, city or county. There are tremendous inequities
between and problems with our maintenance funding. This has no
impact on that whatsoever. Contrary to what my good colleague
Supervisor Mullen said, the money did come in as was expected
during the recession according to the Ernst & Young report but the
financing costs were never included and that added another $100
million to it. The thing that cries out for some attention is the
Eastern part of the county wisely included their arterial roads
system to be funded by portions of Measure "A" and the Western
County did not include that at all. But to equate an arterial road,
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 33
a future arterial road it is not even built, with an existing freeway
at the heart of the county that is overcrowded with hundreds of
thousands of cars a day and then to say that an arterial road is
more important wherever it is in the county, I could argue for Van
Buren Boulevard, to equate those two seems to me is entirely
unfair. So I think we need to vote on this as soon as possible. I
do not mind waiting another couple of weeks, but the arguments,
concerns, issues and facts are not going to change. I hope that all
of the Commissioners are going to look at this. The Western and
Southwestern part of the County does not have enough money for
arterial roads. We are coming up with a comparable TUMF fee,
probably even higher than the Eastern part of the County and I
hope that we can spread that to the entire West. But we can't
delay too much longeron this issue I think. We need as
Supervisor Mullen pointed out, we need to be as unified as
possible on these major issues otherwise we will have no chance
to get a two-thirds vote to carry on with Measure "A".
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Mr. Buster. Mr. Kleindienst?
Commissioner
Will Kleindienst:
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I think I am very proud of everyone
here today. This has been the most hearty discussion this
Commission has had since we formed this large body and it is
good to see that everyone has an opinion that they are more than
willing to share. Although in some cases on the opposite end of
the spectrum, I think it is a very healthy dialogue, it is a good
discussion and it is of great benefit to the entire county that we
air these issues. I would like to address some of the public
comments about the concern about this being a done deal. I
would hope that by listening to this table discussion you sense
clearly that there is no done deal here. In my 5 '/2 years of
experience I have never seen a deal more sideways than this one
here. There is no clear direction yet and we will find out perhaps
if Mr. Chairman can calf for a question at some point today and
see if we have a direction. With regards to some of the concerns
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 34
regarding local streets and roads in the general area of the vignette
that we are enjoying today, based on Measure "A" there is
somewhere between $4 1and 96 million dollars that was projected
in the measure for just the Coachella Valley for local streets and
roads improvements that each of the jurisdictions have control
over. Some of the local concerns that you have for some of your
streets here would not be addressed at this table, and it is not the
job of this Commission.
to each jurisdiction and
The monies are collected and distributed
they have those dollars, although we all
think they are limited, but those resources are used to improve the
quality of our road systems. So again those are genuine concerns,
but not ones that we can deal with here. I want to follow-up and
concur with Commissioner Buster's comments about being late in
this analysis. We are for all practical purposes at a midterm and
we are analyzing where we are status quo today with regards to
the projected projects and the projected revenues and where we
are going to have what we think are some shortfalls that may not
play well if in fact we go back to the voters. Our concern is how
we deal with that. If we got all of the monies allocated on our
highest projection, we would still have shortfalls and would not
meet all of the projects. Even if we met all of the projects, we are
growing in the county and in ten more years we will grow even
further and will have even bigger problems in ten years. The
reality is that there will never be enough money to address all of
the transportation needs. What we have to deal with today is how
we deal with the discretionary money that is what is on the table
today. Unfortunately, Burton's bill did not pass so we cannot go
with a 50% vote of approval, if we go back again, we need that
two-thirds vote. Although Burton may have some resurrection
possibilities, we are all crossing our fingers under the table mind
you, but we don't know what that fact is. With regards to the
Coachella Valley, those of us who serve, reside and work for the
quality of life in the Coachella Valley are quite proud of what we
do but we do not do it through some magical formula. We in fact
charge ourselves more ,money than Western Riverside County
does. We have placed, as Commissioner Kelly stated, a TUMF
fee, a transportation uniform mitigation fund, which is in fact
i
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 35
dollars used to help offset some of the costs in building some of
our transportation needs. We also ask that local jurisdictions make
contributions that can range between 25 and 50% of the project.
We do not come to a board such as this asking for money, but we
turn to our own cities to ask for those dollars. They can be
gathered through a number of sources including general fund or
those same local streets and roads funds that are available through
Measure "A". We have done a fine job dealing with our issues,
we again have more issues than the issues that we are concerned
about today with in regards to discretionary funds is how we can
have some access to some of those funds to help us meet our
goals as illustrated in both the text and the documents that formed
Measure A initially. The discussion is healthy and I am support of
the motion that was initially made and I am also in concurrence
and support with the substitute motion. If in fact that fails I will
return back to the original motion, but I think the discussion should
continue. The debate is healthy and I think it is very positive for
the entire county. Where we end up is really our own hands, but
I am very pleased to see so much healthy dialogue happening this
morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Mr. Kleindienst, any other comments. Mr. Hall.
Commissioner
Frank Halt:
There is no way that I could support the initial motion, l could
support Tom Mullen's motion. In reading the wording here, I was
not on the Commission at the time this was adopted so all of the
back ground to that is not privy to me. When you talk about other
conditions that have arisen since the passage of Measure "A" in
1988, I think that the project we are talking about clearly qualifies
under those conditions, funding is the problem and that is a
condition that has arisen. I think it is imperative that when this
issue comes up for refunding legislation that we are able to say
that best we have completed every project that was originally
envisioned. Secondly, we have at least every project underway
and third that we have at least funded every project. I think the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 36
editorial writers from the newspapers would just have a field day
with us if we have not at least done that. So for that reason, if I
had to vote today, I would have to support the staff
recommendation. I would like to have some additional information
and for that reason I can support Supervisor Mullen`s position.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you Mr. Hall. Mr
Commissioner
Frank West:
Commissioner
Greg Pettis:
West.
I just have to tell you that I thank John for the projects in Moreno
Valley that has been funded, because I could not go back and face
my constituency and say that although it is clearly spelled out to
you on the ballot there has been some power play and you were
left out. So I just really feel for the people that live in the area
where the 91 goes into San Bernardino. That needs to be
financed, we cannot go. I spend half of my time at high schools
and community service groups saying that there is credibility in
government, do not give up on us we can do the right thing.
Today if we do not take the staff recommendation, we are not
doing the right thing and it will be really difficult to go to the
voters and say that we did not it last time but we will do it next
time. I do not think they will believe us. I do not think that there
is any question that this is a political power play, it should be
those projects that were on the ballot. I support the staff
recommendation.
Obviously, in reference to that comment, from the Coachella
Valley perspective we seem to may be not wanting to not comply
with the Measure "A" ballot, but we would certainly comply with
the issue of fairness. If we were being played with fairly here, it
would certainly go along way in generating votes. One of the
problems that we have had in the Coachella Valley, obviously is
that we have felt that we would not be here today having this
discussion if there was not some issue of fairness on that
allocation of funding. Although, we receive a formula allocation
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item # 10
November 10, 1999
Page 37
of the 1998, certainly the west has received more money, above
and beyond their allocation. They have received all of the IIT
monies and that amounts to about $33 million, all of the
discretionary monies, all of the programmed STP monies an that
is another $10 million plus in 1996 all of the pilot project money.
So when we come back to our constituents and we can say to
them we have been dealt with very fairly, I think that they would
support Measure "A". But it is difficult for us to go back to them
and state that we are not being dealt with fairly. I would not
support the staff recommendation. (This person was very difficult
to hear)
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We are going to go around and those who did not have a chance
to speak in the first go around, can do so. Mr. Crain.
Commissioner
Bob Crain:
I do not think that there is anyone at the table that has to drive
farther than I do to attend these meetings. When we go into
Riverside, it is only roughly for me about 340 miles round trip to
do this. So I have an opportunity to drive many of the roads with
the issues and interchanges that you are talking about here today
and think that one of the items that is most important is the issue
of fairness. As Measure "A" was not passed by just the voters in
the west end, but by the voters in the entire county. If in fact the
vote was taken today, the City of Blythe could not support the
staff recommendation.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Thank you, anyone who, has not spoken. I am going to make a
few comments, discuss 'i procedure and then you can call for the
question. I actually was around when we negotiated the MOU and
was part of the older Commission that had to consider the tough
question of how do we create a body that represents all of us. It
was a really tough negotiation, as Lowe referred to it, and this
was part of the problem or the issue that had to be addressed on
how do we deal with this problem of providing for Measure "A"
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item # 10
November 10, 1999
Page 38
Steve DeBaun:
making sure those needs were filled. Also, representing the fact
that this is a big county,, there are communities that did not even
exist when Measure "A" was brought about and how do you
handle that and their needs. We came to an understanding with
a two -tiered process and part of which was a very important
process that there is going to be a procedure that utilizes
discretionary funds. It gives those under represented areas an
opportunity. I do not support the substitute motion, we have had
this discussion and it Was envisioned back then and I actually
support the first motion 1 With that said I want the attorney to go
over the procedures. As you recall when we set this Commission
there is a two -tiered voting process, actually a three tier. I am
telling that we will be dealing with the substitute motion first and
it will be a roll call vote! Then depending on the results of that,
we will go to the original motion. The attorney is going to
describe to you what the three tiers is just so that you are aware,
because it has to do with the numbers that are here, and there
population implications. ,Let me tell you that there is only one vote
that occurs and then there are three different ways of analyzing
that vote. I wanted you to be aware of those three different
ways. Immediately after the vote, their can be a call for a division
of the house. So lets here the procedures from the attorney.
The first step in process'' is the process that we have followed up
until this point is a majority vote based on those representatives
here, a majority vote of those represented at the meeting and a
majority vote rules the day. The first vote that is taken is based
on a majority vote of the Commissioner present at the meeting.
By my count there are 24 Commissioners present at the meeting,
additional there is one Commissioner, Supervisor Buster carrying
two votes so we have a total of 25 votes for the meeting.
Therefore, it will take 13 votes to pass the item rased on the first
level of voting. As was stated, immediately following that vote if
that vote is successful, any member of the committee can request
a weighted vote and it has three steps to it. For an item to pass
all of the three tests must be met. The first test is that a
majority of the members of Supervisors voting on the matter, must
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item # 10
November 10, 1999
Page 39
approve the matter. So if there are five members of the Board of
Supervisors voting, three members must approve the item.
Secondly, a majority of the members representing cities must
approve the item. By my count we have 20 city representatives
here today, so it would take 11 members, 11 cities to approve the
item. Finally, a majority, and this only relates to cities, of cities
with votes allocated based on their percentage of population that
they represent must approve the item. Therefore, a city such as
the City of Riverside, representing 24% of the incorporated
population would have 24% of the vote and vice versa. In this
case the larger cities can outweigh the smaller cities if it reaches
that far.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright is there any questions as to the process? Alright then the
first item that will be considered is the substitute motion. We
have a motion a second on the floor.
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
Restate the substitute motion.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: The substitute motion is to continue this to another special
meeting sometime in January or earlier if it can be arranged. This
will probably be doubtful because of the holidays, so most likely
it will be a January meeting. Naty lets call for a roll call vote and
please speak up folks.
Naty Kopenhaver: County of Riverside - District One.
Casting two votes - aye.
Naty Kopenhaver: District two.
Aye.
Naty Kopenhaver: District three.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 40
No
Naty Kopenhaver: District four.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Bob cast his vote - aye.
Naty Kopenhaver: District five.
Aye.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Banning.
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Beaumont.
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Blythe
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Calimesa
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Canyon Lake
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Cathedral City.
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Coachella
I
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 41
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Corona
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Desert Hot Springs.
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Hemet
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Indian Wells.
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Indio
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of La Quinta
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Lake Elsinore
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Moreno Valley
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Murrieta
No
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda item # 10
November 10, 1999
Page 42
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Norco
Yes
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Palm Desert
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Palm Springs
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Perris
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Rancho Mirage
No
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Riverside
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of San Jacinto
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Temecula
Yes.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Lets score the votes.
Naty Kopenhaver: We have 10 yes and 15 no.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 43
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: At this point the substitute motion fails. There can be a call for a
division of the house at this point.
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
I call for a division of the house.
Naty Kopenhaver: We have 14 no's from
Supervisors and one no
the cities and 4. yes from the Board of
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Lets go down the three 'criteria and announced the results of the
three criteria. The first one was did a majority of the Supervisors
vote in favor of the motion, yes. The second one is there a
majority of the cities, numbers only, voting for the motion, no. So
that means the substitute motion truly fails. So then we will go
to the first motion and that is to deny the staff recommendation
and reaffirm the original MOU that was previously passed. Roll
call votes and lets go down the line.
Naty Kopenhaver: County of Riverside - District One.
Casting two votes - no.
Naty Kopenhaver: District two.
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: District three.
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: District four.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Bob cast his vote - no.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 44
Naty Kopenhaver: District five.
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Banning.
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Beaumont.
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Blythe
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Calimesa
Yes
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Canyon Lake
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Cathedral City.
Yes
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Coachella
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Corona
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Desert Hot Springs.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 45
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Hemet
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Indian Wells.
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Indio
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of La Quinta
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Lake Elsinore
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Moreno Valley
No..
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Murrieta
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Norco
No.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Palm Desert
Yes.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 46
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Palm Springs
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Perris
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Rancho Mirage
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Riverside
Not present.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of San Jacinto
Yes.
Naty Kopenhaver: City of Temecula
Yes.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Do we have an announcement on the first vote?
Naty Kopenhaver: We have 1$ yes and 7 no.
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
Call for the division of the house.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Is there a majority of the Supervisors in support of this?
Naty Kopenhaver: No
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 47
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: So that means that the motion has failed. So that means both of
these motions were not passed, so nothing will be done at this
point. So the staff recommendation will not have it either. So are
there any other motions that anyone would like to put out on the
floor.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: I would like to make a motion that we hold a discussion meeting
in January to discuss this issue as to whether it should be
discretionary or Measure "A". We are going to have new
members that definitely have to be brought up to speed on this
issue and it is obvious from today. That is not part of the motion,
I am sorry.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: First of all that motion has already been voted on.
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
She has asked for a reconsideration of the motion, since she was
part of the majority.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: I was part of the majority and that is why I am asking for this
special meeting in January to discuss this issue. So that is the
motion that we have a special meeting in January to discuss
Measure "A".
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We have a motion to reconsider the prior vote, is there a second.
Commissioner
Patrick Williams: Second
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We have a motion and a
vote. We are going to
second on the floor to reconsider the prior
vote on the reconsidering, then we are
;Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 48
Commissioner
Don Yokaitis:
going to re -vote. We will do this by voice vote. We have a
motion on the floor to 'reconsider and a second, to discussion
whether we should reconsider the first vote is open.
Why when that is backtracking completely on the whole subject.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: No, I don't think it is and the reason I say that Mr. Yokaitis is that
I feel that people voted no on the substitute motion because they
felt that where would be passage of the primary motion. That
motion failed, I do not want this to die because no direction is
given to staff and it has solved nothing. We need to find a
solution to this, and we cannot just forget it. It is not going to go
away.
Commissioner
Don Yokaitis:
There was less no votes on this last one, than the one previously.
That is why I was asking.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Other comments on whether we should reconsider this?
Commissioner
Dick Kelly:
I would like to make a substitute motion to the one that we
reconsider. That we continue this item and it be a discussion of
discretionary monies on y and I don't think Measure "A" has any
part of what we are doing.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: We have no invoked Roberts Rules of Order yet and I would like to
use some discretion to talk about the motion to reconsider first to
try an make things less 'complicated.
Commissioner
Tom Mullen:
Call for the question.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 49
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: There has been a call for the question on whether we should
reconsider the earlier motion. We are going to try to do this by
voice vote. All those in favor of reconsidering, hold your hand up
and say aye.
Aye!
Commissioner
Don Yokaitis:
Commissioner
Bob Buster:
Any opposed? No. Here we go, we are going to reconsider the
first vote. We have already had all the commentary, and we are
going to just recast the vote. The motion will be to continue this
item to January, at a special meeting
If three of the Supervisors vote no, we are just wasting our time.
We are voting here to continue discussion and not to limit that
discussion. I would be frankly aghast if there would be any of our
members who would either limit us on our discussion or cast a
vote against continuing to discuss this matter. That is all we are
doing.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Alright, that is a good point. I think that you have all realized that
on division of the house a majority of the Supervisors can kill an
item, but so can a majority of the cities. This is a vote on the
first motion to continue discussion on this item until January.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: I made a new motion, Mr. Chairman, to hold a special meeting in
January to discuss Measure "A" and discretionary fund period.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Is everyone comfortable with voting on Hemet's motion at this
point in time? Please state it again.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item #10
November 10, 1999
Page 50
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: The motion is to have a special meeting in January to discuss
Measure "A" funding and discretionary funding.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: Let's try to keep this in order. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams has seconded that motion. Mr. Venable you had a
comment about that.
Commissioner
Jim Venable:
I guess I am getting a
discuss this item.
little confused here, is your motion to
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: Yes, it encompasses Measure "A" and discretionary funding.
Okay this is my reasoning, if we do not bring the whole issue of
Measure "A" back to the table along with discretionary funding we
are going to go around just like we did today. We have members
that are not here today and we have new members that are
coming on the Commiss on that will know nothing about Measure
"A" funding. We got documents today that put historical value on
our decision. We have to, as a Commission, discuss that or our
staff will have no direction whatsoever on the policy of this
Commission. My motion is that we discuss this at a special
meeting, because if we discuss it at a regular meeting, it is going
to get lost and we will be there the entire day anyway.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: For my clarification, do you envision as part of that broader
discussion the specifics of this $58 million.
Commissioner Robin
ReeserLowe: I certainly do.
Chairman
Jack van Haaster: All that we are voting on is too hold that discussion off until
January. Continuing around the table, any others. Call for the
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Verbatim Transcription
Agenda Item # 10
November 10, 1999
Page 51
Aye!
question? Shall we try
aye.
this by voice vote, all those in favor say
Any opposed? No. That motion carries.
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 10, 1999
TO:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Plans and Program Committee
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and
Communications
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Four Corners Transportation Study Proposed Recommendations
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission review and discuss the proposed recommendations, as shown
on Attachment "A", resulting from the Four Corners Transportation Study efforts and
consider taking action regarding the recommendations including approving, receiving
and filing, or disapproving the recommendations to provide policy guidance to staff
and Commissioners representing the Commission on the Four Corners Committees.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Over two years ago, various city and county representatives informally met to discuss
transportation issues within an area bounded by SR 60 on the north, SR 91 on the
south, SR 57 on the west and 1-15 on the east. The name reflects the fact that the
area includes portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange
Counties. The Four Corners discussions evolved into a formal transportation study
effort funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Orange
County Transportation Authority staff provides support services to both the Policy
and Technical Advisory Committees.
The study efforts acknowledge the significant congestion problems in the Four
Corners area given the peak period commute patterns of residents from the Inland
Empire who travel to work in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, which typifies the
existing jobs/housing imbalance. SCAG regional travel demand forecasts highlight
that today's congestion conditions will only be exacerbated to a point where volume
demand exceeds freeway capacity and creates nearly a 24 hour peak period demand
sending even larger volumes of traffic onto local streets and roads throughout the
study area.
The Four Corners Statement of Need defines a number of objectives including: 1)
quantification of existing and future demand, traffic origin and destination patterns,
and current congestion conditions; 2) identification of physical, environmental, legal
and political constraints to possible improvement strategies; 3) establishment of a
multi -jurisdictional process that recognizes local issues and provides a forum for
consensus development of strategies; and 4) development of a comprehensive plan
of realistic strategies that relieve congestion on the study areas four major inter -
county corridors and local streets and roads for inclusion in SCAG's Regional
Transportation Plan update.
To assist in the Four Corners effort, the firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas was hired to perform the analysis and modeling work required to define,
quantify, evaluate and recommend strategies as well as conduct and support local
agency and public input efforts. In addition, a separate consultant, JD Franz
Research, conducted a public opinion poll of over 650 residents within the study area
and Riverside residents east of the region. The poll was conducted to determine the:
1) extent of congestion as an issue; 2) levels of support for proposed improvements;
and 3) acceptability of various impacts and funding sources.
Attached as Exhibit A are the proposed Four Corners strategy recommendations for
review, discussion and possible action by the Commission. The recommendations
were presented for action to the Four Corners Policy Committee on October 18th for
approval but action was deferred to allow agencies an opportunity to seek guidance
from their full bodies.
A representative of Parsons will be present at the Plans and Programs Committee
meeting to provide an overview of the recommendations and respond to questions.
The Commission may wish to consider the recommendations in context to the on-
going CETAP process and any potential conflicts that may evolve in priority and
funding commitments between the two processes given that the plan development
portion of the CETAP effort is not scheduled to be completed for another 18 months.
It should be noted that the study recommendations reflect public input received from
various open houses held in the study area including the Corona/Norco area. To
support the Cities of Corona and Norco in seeking public input, the Commission
helped to sponsor a Four Corners Open House on September 30, 1999 by creating
and purchasing newspaper ads (see Exhibit B) as well as providing staff assistance
at the event. Although a formal presentation of the findings is not planned during the
Plans and Programs Committee meeting, the results of the public opinion poll are
included (see Exhibit C) as supplemental data. The poll information was solicited to
assist policy makers in their assessment of the recommended strategies.
New Roads
Express Bus Services
Add Lanes
Upgrade to Freeway
Add Toll Lanes
Convert HOV Lanes to Toll Lanes
Interchange Improvements
HOV Interchange
Toll Connector Ramps
r
60
Los Angeles County
Brea
57
' j U
U/ o
r
Pomona A; ro
coy a`
Q/ m
of c
.J
I
Q
a
Chino -Edison Ave.
Chino
Hills
I�
I
I
I
Ave.
PTIV
Q
to
r
Q
1 fit I 61 1
\�. Corona
so, \ 00
oG'
G � \2
I
Scheisman
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
Ave.
•
Arlington Ave.
FOUR CORNERS STUDY
Recommended Improvements (Preliminary)
Figure
7
„V„ 1N3UVH3V_L_L /
6661 'h 10g0130
1SM.A_LIAI11SN3S 3A11VN21311V 3NIl3SV8
ONIS110H/S80f 030N311,1W003L1 OZOZ L66L
_._
\
k$i Y. p,
\
z.�
'a,.. i
'r
-
r_
_..
.. _
kr kr
k y
\\
"-
.....
S L 0
OZ m
SZ 3
\\\\
x
�a i,
S£
Oh
-
St,
9L-110;sam 1.6-21S
1S31 AlIAl11SN3S 3/01VN21311V 3NIl3SV8
ONISf10H/S901 030N3161010038 OZOZ L66I.
'� \
@
�\\\
\\\
a
aX. r,
SZ '3D
\
-
- --- - -
\
_._
x
o£
s£
ov
sv
any puei010 )SeM LS-us/09-8s
1S31 AlIALLISN3S 3A11VN21311V 3NI13SV8
ONIS(10H/S80f 030N31411A103321 OZOZ L66L
4aa♦
\ Ce
\�
\
OL
GI,
\\\:
v
tD
49
SZ -o
\tea
k�
....
0
£se
*
ov
(Dia) ln-2!S 10lsea 16-21S
1S31AlIALISN3S 3N1VN21311V 3NIl3SV8
ONISf10H/S90f 030N31A1W03323 OZOZ L661
0
" `:
a".\
k�s':
--
�\
—
�
-•
-
01.
-
\ a,\
3
%\
SZ x
o£ -
-
!
--
S£
--
`\
Ov
sv
pa pagwei;o Lipou LS-2!S
3N11NIVW AVAA33213 NO 033dS NO11032110 )ind - 001213d NV3d
MB/N21311V 030N3WWO03U - SNOSINVdWOO 033dS 13AVI:11
AQf11S S213N21O0 dnoJ
6661'9Jagopo
1S31.WAWSN3S 3/Q0:N21311V
ONISMH/S80f 030N3WW0032!
3NIl3SV8
OZOZ
L66L
��'—
f
—
-
_-__ --
- __._.__
- --"aSe
--
SI.-Ilo;sane L6-HS
0
000S
MOO L
000SL
O
0000Z 3
m
OOOSZ
0000E
OOOSE
0000P
1S31 A11A111SN3S 3A11VN21311V 3N1l3SV8
ONISf10H/S801 030N3WW00321 OZOZ L66L
0000Z
0000E o
c
0000m
D
0000S
00009
OOOOL
any pueio;o Isom LS-NS/09-2IS
1531A1IAI11SN3S 3A11VN21311V
5NISf10H/S80f 030113WW00321
3NIl3SV8
OZOZ
L66L
krW 4
(013) LbZ-HSJopea L6-89
0
0000L
0000Z
O
0000£ 3
3
0000P
0000S
00009
1S31 AlIAIlISN3S 31\11VN21311V
ONISf10H/S80f 030N3WW00321
3NI13SV8
OZOZ
pa Uaqu/el;o 41101-1 LS-HS
3Wf1I0A N01103111a WV3d 1V101- 001213d )11i3d 'W'V
3A11VN21311V 030N3WW00321- SNOMMIA100 31A1f110A
Aaf11S S213N21O0 NnoA
L66L
0
0009
0000L
000SL
0000Z o
c
000SZ
0000E
000SE
0000P
OOOS1,
DRAFT-10/4/99
Four Corners Proposed Strategy
Recommended by Four Corners Technical Advisory Committee
Cost $
(Millions)
Rationale/Benefit
a
o
0_
0
U
'a
-0
c
0
C�
X
w
-2z
W
8
O
�
t
U
3
a
N
u
c
N
m
X
LL
N
d
O
T
2
E
a)
`O
CC�
y
>.
to
g
2
m
:co N
c
O
1—
P.
r
It
U
(0
E
N
o
&
3
c
V
c
c
LL
N
>
0
'o
C
Notes
SHORT- TERM ACTIONS (Before 2010)
Freeways, State Highways, Toll Roads, Streets
SR-91
Modify Lakeview/91 interchange to improve weave from Lakeview
to westbound SR-91 to southbound SR-55.
8.0
X
Improves or eliminates weave for southbound Lakeview
to westbound SR-91 to southbound SR-55 travel
SR-91
Optimize capacity utilization of Express Lanes:
Encourage carpooling and achieve greater use through modified
toll structures, provision of intermediate access, and
accommodation of occasional users.
TBD
X
x
x
It is assumed Express Lanes are priced to maximize allowable
return on investment rather than optimize traffic throughput.
The proposed strategy would operate lanes to result in optimal
throughput. In order of preference: (1) Support sale of SR-91
Express Lanes to non-profit organization or (2) Pursue congestion
relief partnerships/strategies with toll road franchise owner.
SR-91
Add auxiliary lanes on WB SR-91 between the truck scales and
Imperial Highway; add storage lane on EB SR-91 approaching
truck scales.
1.0
X
Improve safety/operations - pending review of franchise
agreement
Transit/Support Facilities
Bus
Add Metrolink rail feeder bus service from Chino to Chino
Hills to Industry or Pomona
9.0
X
Encourages transit ridership - mode shift
Bus
Develop express bus service from Industry Metrolink
station to activity centers in Orange County via SR-57
16.0
X
Encourages transit ridership - mode shift. Assumes three new
morning and three evening trips over 20 years
Park/Ride
Develop new park and ride facilities and increase capacity of
existing facilities to support existing and future demand.
10.0
X
Encourages transit ridership - mode shift.
Study
New
Road
Conduct detailed design alignment study of a new road
connecting Chino Hills with SR-57 through the Tonner Canyon area
to identify if there is a feasible alignment which:
- provides a minimum 2 lanes in peak direction during peak hours
- provides access to SR-57 at Brea Cyn Rd or Tonner Cyn Rd
- connects to both Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue
- minimizes visual and noise impacts on Diamond Bar residents
- avoids Boy Scout camp facilities and activity areas
- accommodates wildlife migration corriodor
- does not connect to Valencia Avenue
1.0
X
x
Relieves Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard
Provides option to Carbon Canyon Road, SR-71 and SR-91
DRAFT - 10/4/99
Four Corners Proposed Strategy
Recommended by Four Corners Technical Advisory Committee
cost $
(Millions)
Rationale/Benefit
_T
U
0
N
U
'a
p
o
pn
C
')(
w
g
n
w
y
U
'E
0
N
z
'o
a
N
u
c
�
o
m
X
LL
d
O
j
o
n
E
a
s
0
a)co(�
Q
C.
N
T
w
8
c
m
m
N
2
1—
o
z
c
W
N
o
&
ro
c
o)
C
c
LL
N
(p
>
O
C
w
S'
Notes
New
Arterial
Conduct feasibility and impact study of a new arterial corridor
linking Pine Avenue, Schleisman Avenue and Arlington.
0.5
X
Alternate route to SR-91 through Corona
Programs/Policies
Marketing
Develop a focused marketing effort to encourage carpooling,
vanpooling, and transit ridership in the Four Corners area.
TBD
X
Encourage use of modes other than single occupant vehicles.
TDM
Coordinate/improve existing efforts to reduce peak period travel
N/A
X
Coordinate transportation demand management efforts.
FSP
Implement more Freeway Service Patrols on Four Corners
freeways.
11.0
X
Ensure adequate coverage of all facilities as the peak period
spreads to mitigate accidents and delays. Assumes
five vehicles operating eight hours per day during weekdays.
E
Estimated Cost of Short -Term Improvements
56.5
LONG-TERM ACTIONS (2010-2020)
Freeways,
State Highways, Toll Roads, Streets
SR-57
Add two lanes on SR-57 from SR-60 to SR-22. If new road is
developed through Tonner Canyon area, new lanes could
terminate in the north where road connects with SR-57
307.0
X
x
x
x
Provides corridor capacity. May be high occupany toll lanes
which could be funded fully, or in part, through toll revenues.
SR-60/57
Upgrade interchange to increase capacity and reduce weaving
and merging.
250.0
x
X
x
x
Improves conditions at conflluence of two major freeways
- allows truck bypass facilities - removes bottlenecks
and weaving and expands capacity through busy interchange
SR-60
Develop HOV ramps at Grand Avenue/SR-60
6.0
X
Complete in association with 60/57 upgrade reducing weave for
HOVs accessing the freeway at Grand Avenue.
DRAFT-10/4/99
Four Corners Proposed Strategy
Recommended by Four Corners Technical Advisory Committee
Cost $
(Millions)
Rationale/Benefit
�
U
m
o.
(p
U
_
O
U
O
c
7‹
w
v
m
4
w
N
O
U
0
w
Z�
Q
V)
cii
c
E
O
ii
,
O
°a'
o
E Q
�
O
N
_
E
m
cn
8
c
t0
Ai
_
w
c
2
F`-
L
(
2
c
m
E
0
g
C m
s
c
'c
l9
c
t-
�
>
o
w-�
3)
Notes
SR-71
Upgrade SR-71 to six -lane freeway from SR-60 to 1-10
60.0
x
X
x
Removes bottleneck on SR-71 - adds capacity and provides
access to 1-10 via SR-71 - reroutes trips from SR-60 to I-10
SR-71
Upgrade SR-71 to six -lane freeway from Euclid to SR-91 providing
25.0
x
X
Removes bottleneck on SR-71 in Riverside County
SR-71/91
Upgrade existing interchange at SR-71 and SR-91
65.0
X
Improves operations at SR-71/SR-91 - reduces queuing/backup
on SR-91 and SR-71
SR-91
Extend Express Lanes to 1-15
TBD
X
x
x
x
Expands capacity in Riverside County - balances existing SR-91
12-lane configuration to I-15 - coordinate with franchise owner
SR-91
Add two toll lanes between SR-241 and SR-71
70.0
x
X
x
x
_
Adds capacity at signficant "choke point' - facilitates future
toll to toll connections on SR-91 at SR-241 and SR-71
SR-91/71
Add toll connector ramps at SR-91/SR-71
60.0
X
x
Allows option to mainline SR-91 and SR-71 - offers commuters
commuters choice for travel time savings
SR-91/241
Add toll connector ramps at SR-91/SR-241 (in RTP)
90.0
X
x
Allows option to SR-91 and SR-55 - congested corridors
offers commuters choice for travel time savings
New Road
Develop new road from Chino Hills to SR-57 pursuant to
180.0
X
Tonner Canyon region road
Eucalyptus
Avenue
Widen Eucalyptus Avenue if needed, pursuant to results
of detailed alignment study.
3.0
X
x
Provides an alternative route to Carbon Canyon and SR-71, SR-91
New Road
Develop new road linking Arlington Avenue with SR-71 at Pine
93.0
X
Develops new east -west corridor parallel to SR-91
SR-83
Upgrade to six -lane arterial from SR-60 to SR-71
27.0
X
x
x
Provides more capacity and an option to SR-71
Transit/Support Facilities
Bus Develop bus transit corridors i.e. from Chino to Ontario Airport
16.0
X
Encourages transit ridership - mode shift
Programs/Policies
Other
Develop a package of incentives to increase employment in the
Inland Empire and increase affordable housing in Los Angeles
and Orange Counties.
TBD
X
Encourage a more optimal jobs -housing balance to reduce
vehicle miles traveled.
Estimated Cost of Long -Term Improvements
1,252.0
DRAFT - 10/4/99
Four Corners Proposed Strategy
Recommended by Four Corners Technical Advisory Committee
Cost $
(Millions)
Rationale/Benefit
u
,p
a
m
U
C
O
c.)
rn
c
i
w
v
E
n
w¢
I?
-8
�E
o
,
6
Zv
a
o
g"
o
m
x
ii
�
O
a)
o
En
G/
=O
N
cc
E
N
m
<n
8
c
w
m
N
c
m
F-
O
2
w
2
co
E
o
&
c 2
g
01
C
(0
c
LE
>
-
0
c
.)
�
3
Notes
Policy Recommendations
Support strategies to improve and increase Metrolink service including:
- more frequent Metrolink service
- additional connections at destinations
- double -tracking or triple -tracking Metrolink lines
- implementation of Riverside to Los Angeles Metrolink service
x
X
Encourage transit ridership with convenient service and
support facilities
Support greater involvement of the business community in
transportation planning.
X
Examine opportunities for public - private partnerships
Support efforts of state and local agencies to cooperatively
implement ITS strategies in a coordinated fashion
X
Optimize roadway operations with enhanced traveler
information, changeable message signs, etc.
Work with SCAG to ensure demographic forecasts:
- are compatible with feasible transportation infrastructure
- reflect objectives to increase employment in the Inland
Empire and affordable housing in LA and Orange counties.
X
Ensure realistic long-term travel demand forecasts through
Four Corners area. RTP Growth Task Force is studying
socioeconomic assumptions.
Support efforts of local agencies to cooperatively implement signal
synchronization strategies in a coordinated fashion in the Four Corners area.
X
Optimize roadway operations
Support implementation of smart shuttles in the Four Corners area in cases
where demonstrations show promise of effective transit service.
X
Encourage transit use
Support strategies to encourage transit -oriented development and mixed
use development where practical and viable.
X
Encourage transit use and a more optimal jobs -housing
balance
Support implementation of SR-91 auxiliary lanes between SR-241 and SR-71
X
Improve safety in the SR-241/SR-91/SR-71 area
Pending review of franchise agreement
Support arterial road improvements such as street widenings, interchange
improvements, and signal synchronization programs.
X
Provide alternate routes along arterials and better access
to freeways
Support grade separation efforts to reduce delay at rail lines.
X
Eliminate conflict between street and rail lines
Support development of high occupancy toll lanes as a means of speeding
up implementation of freeway improvements, managing demand,
encouraging carpooling and optimizing use of additional highway capacity.
X
x
x
Potential high occupancy toll lanes in Four Corners area
are on SR-57 from SR-60 to SR-22 and on SR-71 in Riverside
County.
Work with county transportation commissions to update intercounty
bus plans and develop implementation strategies
X
x
Encourage high quality intercounty hus plans.
Encourage local agencies to study and/or update bike plans as related to
transit stations.
X
Examine the continuity of as well as gaps in the bike lane
system focusing on areas feeding transit stations.
DRAFT-10/4/99
Four Corners Proposed Strategy
Recommended by Four Corners Technical Advisory Committee
Further Study
a) Evaluate Riverside -Orange County corridor improvement options in the context of future travel demands and the effect of transportation system
capacity on development potential in the Inland Empire. This could be accomplished through the Riverside County CETAP process
if it includes both Riverside and Orange County stakeholders in the process.
b) Evaluate potential usage and cost-effectiveness of Metrolink feeder service in areas not presently served such as between Chino and West Corona
and between Temecula/Murrieta and Corona.
c) Evaluate potential usage and cost-effectiveness of express bus service between Chino/Chino Hills and the Irvine Spectrum/John Wayne area.
d) Evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a park/ride facility near Imperial Highway/SR-91 with drop ramps to and from toll lanes.
e) Study the potential for ramps to/from SR-57 carpool lanes in Brea and Fullerton.
f) Study the'feasibility of a Metrolink station near SR-71/SR-91.
g) Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of truck lanes on SR-60.
h) Evaluate high speed rail proposals in terms of cost-effectiveness, potential alignments, and stations.
I) Monitor SR-55/SR-91 interchange performance and analyze Caltrans Route Concept Plans for additional capacity
and truck by-pass lanes.
j) Pending the outcome of the new Tonner Canyon area road alignment study, determine whether the extension of Valencia to Brea Canyon is needed.
Not Recommended
a) Construct new road connecting SR-83 to SR-241
b) San Bernardino County - Riverside County toll corridor (SCAG Northern Transportation Corridor)
c) Corona bypass toll lanes
d) Extension of Orange County light rail from Brea to Industry
e) Peak hour bus lanes on Grand Avenue
f) Widen Carbon Canyon Road to add a reversible lane
ATTACHMENT "B"
IRCTC 4 corners ad.c;rk 9/23/991:30 Am Page 1
,Make your voice beard.
Vie Cities of Corona and
•;`:• Norco invite you to an
pen House on bow to
t improve travel in the Four
timers area. The Riverside
bu pty Transportation
ssion (RCTC) is par-
Scip. ng in a regionstudy
i Tl; our corners...Stuy focuses
i 'transportation improvements in
bounded by four key freewayothe 91, 57, 60 and 15. L.e.
. ut proposed alternatives and sl%atehy our comments.
666I `f7 Jaa01-00
2upaaTAI aalliuzutop kiosinpv poiugoaZ s.zau.zop mod
s&qpuiLi fax
Hod uomido allcind
/ip-tijs S.1311.103 anon
JAVZICI
uot0ax auk. Jo Tsua sluapisaN Xlunop
apis.zanTITo aIdLms pluatualddns .
uoT0aN
s zauzop zno3 jo s.zainuzutop as) quapTsa .
sluapuodsall 0S9 JaA0 •
XoAms auoudalaZ .
tpivasall ZIM.14 Qf
�fq papnpuop Hod uoiardp ailand
1��Y2Ja
saa.mos atripunj
puu spuduij snopun Jo Xmcfejdaaavv<-,
swauuanoaduii
pasodoid aoj lioddns jo siana7�
anssi uopsatuoa jo lualxa*,
:auiLuJajaQ
sampargo tijuN
(Yor'OO
auoiV
ani.1Q
%L'0
IFAA
uo0all siau.103 sialnLuuuoa
�a pasty pAukt jo sapow
1�d27�
09-2IS
LS-2IS
IL-IIS
I6-2IS
S I -I
snlniumoD
sn-ruop moj .4f pasty sX:emooJj
%i
moux.
1,LIOQ
%9 �I
anssI
ull JoN 0/017i
anssI
aoum
% L L
anssj
.io fuyv
ZUOItall SiatLIOD inoA auk u�
anssi uopsatuoD
%6L
lupiodtui
Sian
%SI
lurpodtui
lutimatuos
zsanssi aujuiZ plow &ippatuos �uioQ
an sjuaLuuianoo Joj juuliodtui sI
(0/0•z) moux Luockp
NT '9) saiaIsXs HEN 10110g<9
()An) &THOOCLIED 040ut0Jdrq
(%6) saue7 IoodzED 0.10IAL<9
(%17.0
aolnzas uopevodsuazZ oTiand puedxl<9
(0/08.9-0 spazlS pug s�Ernaaz3 puEdx1.0
i,sanssi uoTlevodsuuJI
ssaippy ollqnd auk mom moll
(80.0 wails aaefans aofew uaprm..
(ZZ.E) saueI ICHS u3nu03..
(ZZ.E) /Cemi121H z001.ip aaprM.-.
(8ZIE) LSNS pump uioa3 peon maN..
(6Z.0 LSITS sauei
17'. £) I LIN/I 6XS-�
(Lt7.0 I62IS uoP!M-•
(6-17.0 09}IS uo saucy Non-II4-a
(OS*0 LSITS/09NSi-a
anoqV siana7 poddns &tiniaaan
sMsodoad X.).RUCIUD pBOH/gU.AA.3311
EARia
(967) soul um. pauuoo sduzaT OuIpTIng+)
(t767) pcoN uoateD uoqpup uo aim ajats.zanaz ppv÷J
(67) £82IS o� itZ2IS OLiipLialx1*-)
067) sauEi floT I62IS fuipualx1A-J
(6Z7) LS2IS uo auEi II0JH-)
(00*c Moiag) lioddns mo7 Jo n!A.11333ll
spsodoad prollbiuAAaaid[
ti.s1
(o8•z)
anuany pue.TD uo sou-eI 'quo sng a
:(00'£ Moiaq) poddns Fluitqw •
(LoiO Lsxs pitund 0114 IIEIT <7. 6, u, r., .,. � „o, , 1,A3 r41 ��
(OZ. �) Li }IS uo aoinzas snq ssa.zdxg a
(oc £) tuals�is poods-tOm<=,
(E.E) aoinzas Nulloilaw &TINnoc-i<L,
W.E) sasng amnLlS lullo.ijaw_<=,
owc °noqu poddns &q.Awall •
Z.I3AASLIV alp uopuliodsuukZ aiigna sir
affuldaam al uldaaau .13n311-1. •
Z
i
I
X-CZ SOIUS
S03,1
.1adoianaQ
Xi;I SUS
sHol,
�.ttO.Iuiio
sluatuaAoidtui aaumiji ol MOH
Z
T
0
sapismq olui
SUMU
padolanapun alumni ui pling
S03.10,1
IMIO9UN /WU(' 31L'1S u! [JIltl�j
saiuog anOLLIall
sassauisnn anotuall
sluauianoidLuI uopupodsuuiZ
&Iffinsall spudtuI jo /imlTauldaaav
%C9 %69 1/17ZHs Sdwea uol �sas
%U. %06 apisaanib ui uaP!M
%99 %6L sauel 1101 l-6HS TJanuo0
% Lb %S9 sauei Ilol 66L13 Puelx�
% %E9 Aemil6H-1 e6a1J0 uapiM
saauaoo Awnoo
anon apisaanq:1
aldLuus pluatuaiddns Sjunop apisiantll
aiow papoddns siusodoad
MST
Jaaopp uo aTauITunu as tITm voda.z tuu-u .
imil Jaqopp uo aapiLuuiop
o� sOuipug Tuasaid Illm qamasaw zuE.zd •Q•r .
sdals pcoN