Loading...
11 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 •TaX alup &uaeati oN •aomuzuzo0 Xq pauodlsod 5utarati 66/LZ/S up -oomuruzo0 suoge pdoaddy amuaS uo paouId '66/ZZ/£ uo Z-9 aomunuop saorna s unumH W uIinaH MuaS passed '66/91/£ uo 0-6 aa}liuzuzoD sToafoid uopEpodsumn 66/tI/t DID11 uo9upodsuau 1.1om o1 aJujiom poddns 66/L t DVEINVS .I.NHTAIQNHINId NHHS awuos of uoiiim 03 aTeudonide mom (XunnyA1) S9 gS snms uogclopd p.mog jo aira uomsod MEE uopdposou aotiltiviuo!wIs031I 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