Loading...
07 July 3, 1991 Budget & FinanceA 4, • 053'762 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS CORKY LARSON, RUSS BEIRICH, PAT MURPHY) WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1991 1:30 P.M. LUND & GUTTRY. 415 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS. CA 92201 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. MONTHLY COST REPORT. Staff Recommendation Receive and file. 3. FY 1991-92 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATION FOR TRANSIT. Staff Recommendation Approve the FY 1991-92 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County. 4. RIDESHARE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. Staff Recommendation Staff will present its recommendations at the Committee meeting. 5. MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS FOR FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY (FSAWRC). Staff Recommendation To approve the Measure A funding request from Family Service Association of Western Riverside County of $36,457 for operating subsidy and $11,780 to provide the local match (20%) for a van applied for under the UMTA 16(b)(2) federal grant program, subject to the conditions of the Measure A Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Program policies. • • • • • 6. MONTH TO MONTH EXTENSION OF TECHPLAN CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CALL BOX OPERATIONS STATISTICS. Staff Recommendation The Riverside County SAFE approve a month to month contract with Techplan to provide monthly call box statistical reports and graphs at a fixed cost of $500.00 per month subject to legal counsel review of the contract. 7. CLOSEOUT OF ROUTE 86 DESIGN EXPENSES. Staff Recommendation That RCTC authorize reimbursement of up to an additional $125,000 ($272,451 minus $150,000, rounded up) to Caltrans District 11 for additional design services required to complete the Route 86 PS&E. 8. CAJALCO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY- ACCEPTANCE OF INTERIM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM AND AUTHORIZATION FOR P&D TECHNOLOGIES TO PROCEED WITH A TIER 1 EIS PROCESS BETWEEN I- 215 & CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST (CNF) BOUNDARY WEST OF 1-15. Staff Recommendation Receive and approve the P&D Technologies Interim Technical Memorandum for the Cajalco Corridor. Approve P&D Technologies participation in the preparation of a TIER 1 EIS and associated traffic and engineering studies for purposes of preserving a transportation corridor between 1-215 and the CNF boundary for a amount not to exceed $685,000. Final negotiated scope and cost of services will be presented at the July 10, 1991 Commission meeting. 9. ROUTE 74 MEASURE A PROJECT FROM G STREET TO 1-215 - ADVANCE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION. Staff Recommendation That RCTC authorize staff to proceed with evaluating advanced (protective) acquisitions associated with the 74/1-215 interchange including the parcel identified in the southwest quadrant, at a cost in the range of $700,000 to $1,000,000. If so approved, staff will have Caltrans proceed with appraisal work and will report back to RCTC on recommended actions. Budget for specific ROW purchase for Route 74 are included in the estimates for the projects but were not specifically budgeted for the 91/92 fiscal year. 10. ALDER CORRIDOR STUDY FUNDING REQUEST - SANBAG. Staff Recommendation That the Commission agree to provide $15,000 in Measure A Highway funds to SANBAG to fund the Riverside County share of the proposed Alder Corridor Study. • • • • • 11. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE ON THE FUNDING OF COMMUTER RAIL RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Staff Recommendation Discussion and possible action. 12. ADJOURNMENT. • • AGENDA ITEM #2 • • July 3, 1991 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager Jack Reagan, Executive Director Contractual Status and Commitment Reports The attached material depicts the current status of contracts, commitments and Cooperative Agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and Agreement, the reports list the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date and the percentage of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation. Detailed supporting material for all contracts and Cooperative Agreements is available from Bechtel staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. • • %0 00.0 %0 00.0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 SX8V1138 030N3dX3 S.380 01 111n13V 40 OIVd % SV 380 111101 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 aline o0'oOl / / O6/Zl/Zl ? N91S30.3110N801011 .0, VdP 1SN00 03X 69'14£11 Z6/0f/90 l6/91/f0 9V10-NIVN 16111 AON 1SNO3 00'oos'l / / / / 61'901 / / / / SR-1 NO OO 390181SV3 1SNO3 3389V d0-03 168S 30 30VN3N0841 d0 1S00 N0110n81SN09 1N3613389V d0-03 030N3dX3 1JV81NOO 3n1VA 131,81NO3 31110 31V0 1311811103 1SN1V9V 032180N1AV N01131d803 18V1S 1N3383d 030N3dX3 1N388n3 (0001S X sJ01100 11V) 180d38 3111V1S 10V81NO3 NOISSINNO3 NOI1V180dSNV81 A1Nn03 301S83A18 100844 180d38 NOI1d189S30/3d03S ' 01111 .S3S18d83116 000A13314 O - h£16�11 (SNV811V3) NOI1V180dSNV81 JO 1N31118Vd30 O - f f 1608 301S83A18 JO 4113 O Z£1608 VNONO3 i0 1110 0 1f1608 1NV11nSNO3 /6 1N3NON3NV /'ON 13V81N00 16/2Z/90 • • 06/27/91 ri CONTRACT NO./ AMENDMENT N/ OONSULTANT 000806 - 0 Covers Several kJ re /Consultant s/Per sons SCOPE/DESCRIPTION START DATE REPORT MPRO01 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X 51000 CURRENT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED DATE CONTRACT VALUE Salaries i Benefits 0009B1 - 0 Financial Covers Several Interest Firms/Consultants/Persons 00099P1 - 0 Covers Several Firm/Consultants/Persons IMPREST - 0 SECURITY PACIFIC R08801 - 2 RCTC/OCTC MOU (Environmental Studies) R08900 - 0 Bechtel Corporation 108901 - 2 Parsons Brinkerhoff, Ouade and Douglas, Inc. R08902 - 1 Parsons, Brinkerhoff, 07/01/90 06/30/91 Services - Bond 07/01/90 06/30/91 Bond Principal Repayment SET IMPREST FUND/ACCOUNT Environmental Studies with the Keith companies Project Management Rt. 91 Conceptual Design Services Rt. 91 Final design - converted to a lump sum 07/01/90 06/30/91 01/10/91 06/30/91 12/02/88 08/30/90 02/15/89 06/30/89 12/02/88 04/30/91 04/07/89 08/28/90 EXPENDED PERCENT TOTAL OBE AS % AGAINST CONTRACT PAID OF ACTUAL CONTRACT EXPENDED TO DBE'.S EXPENDED REMARKS 685.48 64.75 9% 0.00 0% 1,500.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 10,000.00 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 5.00 0.00 OX 0.00 0% 79.53 65.02 82% 0.00 0% PROJECT COMPLETE 170.00 170.00 100% 0.00 0% THIS CONTRACT IS CLOSED 2,234.28 2,234.28 100% 1,204.96 54% PROJECT COMPLETE 676.50 670.21 99% 0.00 0% • Converted to a lump sums contract. Approved by ROTC on 5/9/90. 1064271t94 CONTRACT AO./ AMENDMENT 0/ CONSULTANT Wade and Douglas, Inc. R08905 - 1 Sohiermeyer Consulting Services R08907 - 0 Route 86 Cooperative Agreement. R08908 - 1 tKly of Corona R09000 - 2 gechtel•Corporation R09001 4 NRS/Lowry R09002 - 4 Kates and Associates SCOPE/DESCRIPTION START DATE REPORT MPR001 RIVERSIDE COUNT, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X $1000) CURRENT EXPENDED PERCENT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CONTRACT DATE CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT EXPENDED contract Commuter Rails Consulting 06/30/89 06/30/91 155.00 Services Construct 4 lane 06/12/89 06/30/94 21,035.40 expressway at Rt. 86 Cooperative Agreement 07/19/89 06/30/94 14,605.00 Program Management 07/01/89 06/30/90 1,291.00 Final Design Svcs for Rt 10/01/89 06/01/91 9/ bet. Serfas Club S Main St. 976.01 Professional and 09/14/89 06/30/91 1,275.73 Technical Design Svcs for Rt 91 TOTAL DOE AS % PAID Of ACTUAL TO DBE'S EXPENDED REMARKS 131.51 85% 0.00 0% 1,211.57 6% 0.00 0% 2,191.91 15% 0.00 O% 1,059;10 82X 44.16 4% 967.90 99% 112.44 12% 1,244.72 98% PROJECT COMPLETE Contract value is RCTC portion only and does not include administration cost for Caltrans. The indicated cost is an estimate for design, construction and construction management. RCTC's share is 67% of total cost. Scope was amended to include geotechnical services for soundwalls (total cost = $6046.00) to be covered by extra work funds so total authorised contract value remains the same. 139.32 11% Include extra work authorization for MeV") Prod* Overhead Seismic Analysis. ;06/27/91 .> CONTRACT NO./ AMENDMENT N/ IONSULTANT t::.:.. R09003 - 0 J.F. Davidson Associates 109004 ' - 0 Caltrans 1090061 0 'South4iii- California Association of Gbvernwents (SCAG) !a• R09007 - 2 PSOMAS *09008' - 1 NOS/Lowry R09009 - 0 Chicago Title R09010 LSA SCOPE/DESCRIPTION START DATE REPORT MPR001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X S1000) CURRENT EXPENDED PERCENT COMPLETION AUTNOR12E0 AGAINST CONTRACT DATE CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT EXPENDED Right -of -Way Mapping for RT 60/91/215 IC Agreement for Rt 60/91/215 IC Planning and Support Surveying Control Rt. 215 Surveying cork Escrow and Title Fees for ROM procured for 60/91/215 IC 10/10/89 10/01/90 8.50 07/01/89 07/01/99 20,000.00 07/01/89 06/30/92 105.00 03/15/90 11/04/91 2,429.36 02/01/91 02/01/92 676.67 01/23/90 07/01/99 5.43 - 1 Environmental Study (APA) 01/31/90 12/12/91 R09011 - 0 County of Riverside Cooperative Agreement (Sanderson Project) 176.65 03/30/90 06/30/92 802.57 TOTAL DBE AS % PAID OF ACTUAL TO DBE'S EXPENDED REMARKS 8.50 100% 0.00 0% This contract is closed. 1,500.00 8% 0.00 0% This is • capital account. 10.50 10% 0.00 0% 1,530.10 63% 0.00 0% 233.S3 35% 0.00 0% 5.43 100% 0.00 0% 114.00 65% 0.00 0% 235.80 29% 0.00 0% Reimbursement to county for consultant. contract and contract administration. 0027/91 00- CONTRACT NO./ NNINSMENT N/ OONSULTANT;'" • 109012 + t •a- 0 CityWifirris R09013 - 0 OKS and Associates R09014 - O County of Riverside / Wilbur Smith Associates R09015 - 0 Cathedral City R09016 - 0 Wilbur Smith Associates R09017 - 0 P i 0 Technologies SCOPE/DESCRIPTION START DATE REPORT MPR001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONTRACT STATUS REPORT (All Dollars X $1000) CURRENT EXPENDED PERCENT COMPLETION AUTHORIZED AGAINST CONTRACT DATE CONTRACT VALUE CONTRACT EXPENDED Rt. 74 - Phase 0,2 and 01/31/90 07/30/91 3,000.00 Phase 9 Mork PAA Traffic Engineering 02/02/90 06/30/91 1,006.46 Cooperative Agreement for 02/20/90 01/31/91 62.00 I-1S Galena PSR (Loan) Rt. 111 Construction (Loan) Perez St. Intersection Traffic Engineering Services for Rt. 111 Corridor Study / / / / 600.00 03/05/90 oG WY9l 438.35 Cejalco Corridor Study 03/19/90 12/15/90 3(,1.1)0 809018 - 0 Preliminary 08/17/90 12/31/93 3,232.28 Parsons Brinkerhoff Guide Engineering/Environmental i Douglas /Traffic/for 1 21S R09020 - 0 ROTC/SANBAG (RT 215) Preliswinary Project Developement Phase / / / / 5,800.00 TOTAL OBE AS X PAID OF ACTUAL TO DBE'S EXPENDED REMARKS 216.60 7% 0.00 0% 926.05 92% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 322.92 74% 0.00 0% 554.54 es % 0.00 0% 376.14 12% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% 0.00 0% Capital project, and this amount is RCTC's share of total project costs. • This will not be a cooperative agreement but will be a loan agreement per Jack Reagan. The county is in charge of this study. This contract may be signed as a cooperative agreement or a loan arrangement with Cathedral City. Details need to be discussed with BB&K. Negotiations are on going. • • %0 00.0 %l o8•tt %0 00.0 %ll SZ'6f %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %O 00'0 %9l ,S39 xo 00.0 %O 00.0 %0 00'0 %,f Z2'LO£ *smells 1116113 11101111 Ol X1011 51111113 101 000.601$ S301113111 3f11vA o3z110111f111 lvlol to 00'0 %09 Yt'619 • %0 00.0 %99 ZL•Z6S SX1vN31 030N3dX3 S.390 Ol 1vni3v i0 01ve % Sv 390 1v101 00'009 Ol'ZSf L9'fLZ OL'Sff Zf'6Ll tr/06 00' f9f' l 6/ 3/9 / / lb-�1 !v 131JP9Ji/A90 Nu991N / / lwwno.idrl a9uvy»swl 1640/60 06/11/60 16/0f/90 06/20/tl 16/£t/60 06/2Z/60 l6/lf/Zt 06/21/60 26/S1/90 06/11/60 16/0f/90 06/1040 Z6/0f/90 06/ZO/f0 91113611112 01311 9114dVN 14 moo S3316132 1361112 0131i ! 911IddvN 16 31f101 131N1-vI1019v11/l6 Nom NO 2331613S 91113311913 31iiv11 3011 031 13111 St2/099S-9vN 1619 S33I6935 1v1N3NNO11IAN3 9N1133N19N3 A1vNIN1114 l6 311101 113139111N 91111133119113 3131 1Oi Awls 1111 131611633 1110113d 030N3dX3 131I11NO3 3111v613111103 31110 31110 13111103 1SNIv9v 03z11011111v N01131dNO3 11v1S 113313d 03013dX3 1N311N13 1000tS X $o01100 111) 110d31 SII1v1S 1311111103 NOISSINNO3 10I1v110dSNv11 Almno3 301213A11 1001d10 110d31 NOI1d113S30/3d03S. 1311106 013101 1113 O 1616011 911113311913 X311 O - 901601 2311130SW !. 31101 O - S01601 S31v13oss9toNv Apc, O ,,,i • f0160N 1311130SW ! 993M v 193111v 446911 ONI '1911139` l 7,;: 101601 uol wod.a3 1614364 0 - 001601 S13111111 132011NX-NOS 14900 2 - tZ0609 invnotokg /N 10340441. /•ON 13v11103 .16/4z/90 • 3La 1ewa� 1. 1Mnota %0 00'0 %Zf Ol'6 %0 00'0 %06 9S'ZZ %0 00'0 %f OL'61 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %28 6111 %0 00'0 %SS LZ'LZ %0 00'0 %9l 6l'f TOWN 03003dx3 S.300 01 1VI113V !0 OIVd % SV 380 1V101 S1838338911 3SV31 00'SZ 16/0f/90 06/01/20 30111-0-118Vd 31V110030 SNOI1V110930 3SV31 00'SZ 16/0f/90 06/M /90 30111-0-211Vd 31V110030 61 s1068 Jo; 8631/4A6S t2'f2S Z6/10/21 06/9Z/11 OulJami10u3 AJwlulleAd NOANV3 SONV1 6L '18 SOAS OY'fS0'l Z6/t(1/h0 16/L0/10 'N081AN3 ! '003 NI138d 00'Ol 06/1f/01 06/2Z/Ol u0l)8seu0o ONWIVI 103 Jelllllnl sou J0; peso sVi A0111S NV8908d 1031139VNV11 00'06 16/1f/L0 06nt/L0 N011530003 i0 1N3Nd013A30 00'02 1300N 3IAAV81 NVSA18 VOA VIVO 16/0f/L0 0640/10 NVOM130 ! '0'3'S/31V0d1 030030(3 13V81NO3 mitt* 13VVINO3 31V0 31V0 NOIld183S30/3d0)S 131181NO3 1SNIVSV 03ZIitamt 11 001131d1103 18V1S 103383d 0300303 mum (OOOtS X 8Jv1100 11V) 180d38 31111I1S 13V81NO3 NOISSINNO3 NOI1V18OdSNV81 A1N003 301S83A18 1008dN 100d38 '301 'S31VI3OSSV ONV18V9/SN3A31S O - 2116011 S3o1A83S NOIIV18OdSNV81 ONV1N1 O - ftl6d8 -mg 'sossuleu3 11.10 1s1'6'64w3 O - 21160V 38OON ! S316,0 O - 11160V $11013d i0 11I3 (S3IVI3OSSV ! V3A0119 '31NON) VON 0 • Ot1608 '30SSV 9NINNVId ! No8V3SVVHA311VA t 601608 '1d30 9NINNV4 A1110034101S83Af8 O - 901608 OVIl•insNoO /8 10311002M /°0N 13V81NO3 • XO 00'0 X11 88'1 XO 00'0 XO 00'0 XO 00'0 XO 00'0 XO 00'0 XO 00'0 SXVIM3V 030113dX3 S.300 01 1m13v 10 01Vd X SV 380 1V101 XO 00'0 X0, IL'OS XS 96'L XS 6f'O1 Xtt OW IS X11 6L'19t 1N3N33119V OS'9/ 16/S1/60 06/S1/01 3SV31 101 3010 ! XMVd OS'Llt 16/0f/20 16/10/Z0 Of'8Zl 16/91/01 06/91/01 95'891 16/0f/60 16/L0/10 ft'102 26/10/90 16/10/10 tf'9Lf 16/0f/90 06/Z0/11 99'Slf'l 16/8Z/L0 06/20/11 SISAIVNV S3AI1VN11311V - A0n1S A111181SV3! 130011 NVSAIV 1113MNM3A09 !0 OOSSV V3 NN3 nos O1 1S:00v 61 31n011 (S133r0Vd 081) NO ONIM33N19113 311iv81 92 •3110v (sias(o.d f) up saalAJef Oupss+1lu3 3111sJ1 61 31n0I1 9NIddVN 1V11910 ? 9NIA3AVMS '1L atom ONI1133N10113 ANVN111113Vd 030113dx3 13VV11103 3n1vA 131.1111103 31V0 31V0 13VN11103 1SNIVOV oanyominv No11314N00 1NV1S 1N33M341 030113dx3 1N3VVM3 (0001S X 111111100 IlV) 110430 sn1v1S 13VV11103 NOISSINM03 NOI1V110dSNVV1 A1Nn00 3o1s83A18 10011d11 110d3a NOIldIV3S30/3409S NVA '3 01VN00/111S83AINn VONII VIOL 0 1Z/6011 AOIIIS 11001VV03 'SNVV1- N1nOS/NINON S319010NN331 0 ! d O - 02160V S31V130SSV ONV XNP 0 - 61160V ')NI 'ONIV33N19N3 3ANOX O 21160V -8.63 SulJaautOu3 Jopnl 0 - L116011 S3IV130SSV ONV 1SOVA NV11118 'N138 11138811 O - /116011 11VNN30N3N ! NOSNNOP 'NNVN '131NV0 O - St1600 1Nv11nSN00 /N 1N3NON3MV /'ON 13VN1N0.1 16/LZ/90 • • SO 00'0 S0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 SO 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 %0 00'0 20 00'0 %0 00'0 SO 00'0 SO 00'0 SO 00'0 SS f6'0S %0 00'0 SZ Zt'S S3vVN3v 030N3eX3 S.380 01 1V11109 AO OI Vd % SV 390 1V101 030N3dX3 10V911400 10V911400 1SNIVOV 1N3093d 03014303 19'6/1 Z6/01/10 It'l01 f6/10/110 90'9S1 Z6/10/Zt 10'1ZS 26/10/2t fL'1St 16/lf/Zl LL'lfZ St-1 01 tL19 vA l6/WV0 1619 ON1933N1ON3 01AAV91 ONIOIM 301S1110 1619 tb/fZ/10 1N3NSS3SSV 1V1N31N1091AN3 t6/10/f0 ONOIV S3ONVN0931N1 So9Sd SR/099S t6/10/f0 ONO1V 3ONVN0931N1 So9Sd Olt ! I89S NO t6/ZZ/Z0 Awls rove 90A SASS ON3 099S NO (1)931N1 S190439 A0111S t6/tf/Zl t6/ZZ/Z0 rove 90A ONI933NION3 t'tt-0'0 S6'9t9 l6/111/0l t6/60/t0 Nd NOVA 16 lv ONIA3AVOS 60'Otf Z6/0£/90 l6/l0/10 S301A113S 1V1N3NNOVIN3 3111911 101,911403 3190 31110 03ZIvON11111 NO11314403 19V1S 1N3vvm (OOOIS x &Aiw0 11Y) • 190d39 511191S 10V911400 NOISSINN00 NOI1V190dSNV91 A119103 301S93A19 1009dN 190d39 NOIld193S30/3d00S S319100SSV ! vow O - O£t6011 '0N1 'S319130559 VS1 O - 6Zt60v 1619 ANVdN00 ! 93N1V0 mum O - Z21609 111N NZNO O - 9Zt6011 SOMN1ON3 113S1VN A01 O - SZt60v '0111 UNV1111SN00 SNV1 0 - MOON '0N1 ON1A3AVOS 1SV00 O - £Z160v '0N1 '3311313S 011I1133MM O - Z2160v NVN90 1NV110SN00 /N 1N3NON311V /'ON 109v1N00 16/1Z/90 • PAGE NO. 1 06/27/91 CONTRACT RUMMER CONSULTANT FIRN REPORT COMMIT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMITMENT LOG REPORT Sorted by CONTRACT SIMMER SCOPE OF IRRK AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL RCM COMMITTED TO COMMITTED TO AMOUNT COORO. SASE WORK EXTRA WORK CONITTED TOTAL AMOUNT EXPENDED 0001LS OO01151 0002FA 8002F81 0002FS 0002FS0 0n02FS1 0003ER 0003E40 0003E81 O003ET0 0003E 11 0004000 0004001 00040E0 00040E 1 00040F0 00040F1 00040100 00040LO 00040L1 00040E 00040$0 00040S1 OOOSCCQ 0005CC1 0005CP 0006PR 0006PR1 0007PC1 0007PR1 0007PS 0007PS0 0007PS1 0007►T1 0008181 000981 00090P1 !WREST R00801 108900 R01001 R08902 R00905 Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several firer/Consultants/►ersa Covers Several Fins/Consultants/Persons Covers Severs. Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Finn/Con ultents/►ersas Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Cowers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Ospertmentel Expenses Covers Severe* Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Fins/Cannsultents/►arsons Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultents/►arsons Covers Several Firms/Conssultents/►ersans Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Coven Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Censultants/Persens Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Person Covers Several firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Fins/Consultants/Persona Covers Several firms/Co sultents/►ersons Covers Several fins/Consultants/Persons Covers Severel Firms/Consultant/Persons Covers Several Firms/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firms/Cansultents/Persons Covers Several Firer/Consultants/Persons Covers Severs) Fins/Consultants/Persons Covers Several Firm/Consultants/Persons SECURIfT PACIFIC RCTC/OCTC NOU (Environmental Studies) Oechtel Corporation Parsons Orinckernoff, Wilde end Douglas, Inc. Persons, Orinckerhoff, Wade and Douglas, Inc. Schiermeyer Consulting Services Legal Services - Common to All Teaks Lopel Services General Counsel Financial Services - financial Advisor Financial Services Sand Counsel Financial Services - Common to All Tasks H snciel Services (Lapel) financial Services (Audit) Expense Reports - Common to ell tasks Commissioners Per pier Commissioners Per Diem Transportation 8 Travel Trarsportetlon and Travel Office Oepartmentsl (Special) Exposes Office Oepertmantel (Spacial) Expenses Office Equipment Neintenence Office Equipment Maintenance Office furniture/Equipment Office furniture/Equipment Office Rousabold Expenses Office Leese Office Leese Office Supply - Common to all tasks Office Apply - Common to ell tasks - 1908.89 Office supply - Common to ell tasks - 1990.91 Comms►icatios Common to all tasks • 1988.09 Comenicetians - Common to ell tasks •1990-91 Communications/Postage • Common to ell tasks Public Relations - Common to ell tasks Publications S Notices Professional Services - Contracts Professional Services - Right of Way Professional Services - Common to all Professional S Specialized Services Professional Services (Legislative Advocate) Professional Services - Trait Projects Salaries S Senefits Financial Services - Sand Int pond Principal Repsyment SET !WES, fINID/ACCOUNT Environmental Studies with the Keith cowponies Project Management Rt. 91 Canceptuel Oeslmn Services Rt. 91 Final design • converted to a lump sum contract Coaarter Rails Consulting Services LN ON ON ON LN MK ON IN MK ON MK ON MK ON MK ON NK ON NK NK ON IN NK ON NK ON IN LN ON ON DN LN NK ON DM ON OM OM K NIN LN NL MIL LN 0.00 0.00 150000.00 120000.00 225000.00 100000.00 360000.00 1000.00 438500.00 S0000.00 15000.00 36000.00 20000.00 40000.00 1000.00 40000.00 1000.00 9500.00 140000.00 50000.00 300.00 43400.00 241000.00 270000.00 9000.00 29500.00 10050.00 54000.00 38231.49 150000.00 7000.00 4473400.00 6250000.00 1296327.00 119700.00 40000.00 2251942.00 685479.00 1500000.00 10000000.00 5000.00 79527.76 170000.00 2254275.00 676500.00 155000.00 0.00 80000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150000.00 120000.00 225000.00 100000.00 300000.00 1000.00 430500.00 50000.00 15000.00 56000.00 20000.00 40000.00 1000.00 40000.00 1000.00 9500.00 140000.00 $8000.00 300.00 43400.00 241000.00 270000.00 9000.00 29500.00 10050.00 54000.00 30231.49 150000.00 7000.00 4471400.00 6250000.00 1296127.00 119700.00 40000.00 2251942.00 6115479.00 1500000.00 0.00 10080000.00 0.00 5000.00 0.00 79527.76 170000.00 2314275.00 676500.00 155000.00 0.00 0.00 160125.34 548709.32 0.00 239259.86 180550.18 0.00 452454.49 23853.10 0.00 28873.78 102.50 42987.51 0.00 12205.73 0.00 21565.13 0.00 65931.11 0.00 0.00 216254.57 250031.14 163.95 56909.64 0.00 44194.SS 36517.03 119978.61 29119.31 2043238.90 29500.00 511647.99 0.00 35918.69 206550.29 64747.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 65018.48 170000.00 2234280.00 670211.29 131514.42 • 00'0 00'2/2(02 00'0 t0'S260S fv0S6949 0212009 21'021S 00'50001f 00'0 00'291 00'00591 00'0 00'0 00'00SLII 00'0 26't120S 00'f0f021 00'Sf/0 S6'LS62 00'09S091 00'69612 00'49t01 00'021102 00'11292 66'0,01S OS'60t921 00'10061 9S'162111 00'999S1f1 001009121 09'6600 00'000SZ 00'0 06'09SZZ 00'000S2 00'0 91'S6961 tt'fl2t1S S6'99112 00'0 S1'001tS01 1S'0012t1 OS'2919 00'00001 00'0 22'99222 00'0000S 00'0 09'l6lt 00'00002 00'0 02'10911 00'000000 00'0 60'0S26t 00'2012St 00'92651 00'0 00'099122 00'969St 11'Otft9 00'969Sft 00'992t1 00'0 96'9021S1 00'0 16'02220f 00'Ltt206 09'00200 10'9f1619 00'000t9t1 00'000604 6932226S 00'692129 00'0 00'0 00'000000S 00'0 90'f019Lt 00'0022t2t 00'209120 oS'210111 00'01SSLt 00'f9601 S2'91622t 00'1StOt1 00'2112S 00'0 00'000009 00'0 00'0 00'000S9 00'000f t9'tS0926 00'6212S11 00'6960St 25'009912 00'000000f 00'0 60'661S£2 00'000616 00'tt1211 1S'966£11 00'011t02 00'019S1 00'920S 00'92,S 00'0 99'LZStt2 00'121911 00'10S101 St'2010fSt 00'2904212 S2'900092 00'00;01 00'000601 00'0 00'00000S1 00'00000002 00'0 00'00S9 00'00S9 00'0 92'2121121 00'011S/24 00'22000 1S'S60196 00'010926 00'99S21 S1'1016S01 00'0001621 00'0 26'906161Z 00'00050901 00'0 29'11S1121 00'001St012 00'0 00'Z 02 t!'9209tS 00'S9001t 00'OOS91 00'005211 00'09S111 00'5659,1 00'SS1SLl OS'S2ZL2t 00'9S01111 00'000S2 00'000SZ 9t'9l1061 19't00916 00'00001 00'0000S 00'00002 00'000009 00'92190t 00'2L6Lt2 00'016162 96'90LLS1 02'9tu62 00'0001S21 00'692429 00'000009S 00'209109Z 00'25S92t 00'000009 00'00029 00' 909001 00'000000t 00'L9S200 00.OtSL91 00'920S 00'229919 SL'SL099t2 00'000SOI 00'00000002 00'OOS9 00'L59St21 00'9,496 00'000(62l 00'0005090 00'001Sf012 ,M NN ON MN OIN' NI 031 031 NN Idl AN MN SON Sox Nr nr Nr S1 NN NN Ni a A3 M1 Nr S1 on 10 N1 NI NI NL S3 SON S3 S1 IM1 NN 9r MIN M1 1M 1M on 1M MIN 09� v)113101 S100e311 toms rove I0A 9NI03310943 1'11.0'0 10 0340 16 iv 90113800E 1L 31nov VOA 5331A03S wiN3100v1AN3 103113309V 351131 101 3010 ! 1004 S15110110 S3811VNd3110 • minis A1111115031 1300N NVSAIM 1030003909 AO 30SSV Va Nv3N1110S Ol ISIMSV 64 3U0v (Slairove 0111) 430 9N0300003 3110911 1L *mood (stasloJd t) uo gatnJ*S e01100019103 310!0J1 62 31140 911IeeVN 1011910 ! 90113AWIS 1L 3U0v 9NIv33Nt9113 A9001011304 S1031133090 351131 30111•11•10Ve 311111093N SW1111110930 3S031 301114•19Ve 311111093N 61 *mood Jo) soatnJst OutJssulOuv AJsulsll NJe NOANV3 SONVI 62 'iv SaAS 100103 ! 'SO3 11110e UO11000102 00011*J of f011111301 mu Jo; poou oyt *WS 009909d 10303900 M N011S39NO3 AO 1031d0130130 13000 3111,01 NVSAt9 1101 VIVO M1001311 ! '0'3'S/3111601 16-10 to 0D1ApoJd/Ao0 .1,001. tunsonoJdo) oouoya,»u1 9NIA3A11115 0130 911100 12 3110v S331893s 1311110$ 013IA ! 911IedVM t6 moo 1310•0110N9VM/16 3110v NO 5301,1103E 9010331119113 311001 301M 030 031111 S12/090-901 1601 $3316110 10103001100 9111933N19N3 Ad001011W t6 3110v 111311390001 901113301903 3130 VOA ions 110 v31101103 1100031 mud wwodol000, tao(o,e A,outorttodd S12 1+0//31llo+1/10muswoo+tou3/Ouwoulw3 A+oulutlo+e ApntS +OPl++oa 03100'3 Apnss AopNJoa tlt '39 Jo) soatodos Oul,00ulOu3 allle+l uotmaouomul 'tt mod - (mot) uolmxum0uo3 111 '89 (cool) 95e suits, St-1 Jo► tupuoJOV *Apo,odoo3 So1.09011993 311041 VVe 6Jon 6 *ssyd pui 2'o 064e • 12 '311 13304N+e uis+swusS) 3w00048V oolto,odoo3 (VeV) Apnas 10twww w3 31 S12/16/09 Jo) poJnaoJd I109 Jo) soot sgll wus noisov violl OuptuA s S1Z '19 to+twa 004Avo0v t+oddov pup Outuuole al 512/16409 t9 Jol tuswoBV a1 S12/16209 19 Jol Ou1dd0M 00-0-30411 16 39 Jol sans ub44044 paw** pus tsuotosopid 'IS utoM ! Tla onJos 'lsq 16 tM Jol oaA$ US10410 lould tuwpOs oN MA804e 200000J60 onllOJsdooa 99 '19 30 400000Jd110 •usl 1 tan,tsuoa '301 S 103 SMV '3111 IS 1SV03 'MI '33113 4133N19N3 001100 NVA '3 O110000/111Sd3AI101 1101111 W101 Ao111S 11001000 'SNVV1• N110S/N100 53190100331 0 ! e 53111130SSV ONV 1Nr '301 '911103301903 3Ad01 *too, Ou'A suOuJ Jowl) 5310130SSV ONV 'SOMA MVlllin '11138 1113900 111011113011311 ! Novmoor 'NNW '131000 '3111 'S310130SSV 011V19V9/SN3A31S S3314003S 110111111104110111 ONV1N1 '3111 •pJoal/1«+3 11013 lotuwawa 300011 ! S3NV0 SIV93e AO 1113 1S3111I30SSV ! 10000 '3140 0 V9M '30SSV 9101101114 ! 03903530 1311VA '1e30 9NINNVe *How 301S113/011 1311VA 003000 1113 $11111331119113 1319 5310130SSV ! 3110N S3142130013 ONV 71Nr S310130550 ! 093N V 103010 3111 '03111309 uolto,od,oa 1019309 S0331119113 *avow -monsoon (Sl2 191 ovens/nag s*t8no0 ! owe I102J001/1J2 suosJoe t010010uNa01 O ! e oat0tao0ri epos +ng1111 Att3 todpoyloa oototaoss0 ytpK ovum / oplo+snl9 /o Atuo2 sotolaosri puo SAO ',JAL) l0 Am 0pl0+on19 l0 Atu+o3 VS1 oltll Wham Mnol/S0N SNOW 0109) olusom oo9 /0 u0tt01ao0ri olu+ollloa waives sofa too sosolaosov uospino0 '!'r sole122222 pui IMAM AJool/SON wltoJod+oa totyao0 owJoa to Atta suwnJMV ont»Jodooa 99 otnov 12 600 t2160N 22160v 1216011 021600 60600 016011 211600 90600 S116011 01160v f060M 206011 10601 01600 601609 001600 10/609 901609 S0160M f01609 201601 101600 001600 1206011 020600 91060V 210600 910609 S10600 110609 t10600 21060v 110609 006011 600600 900600 100600 90060V 100609 100600 20060v 100609 000606 90600V L060041 0301003 mow 141101 03111000 'MOM 00113 MOM 009 '0003 lona* 01 031111003 01 031111003 3130 W101 1Nnow 1110041 7111011 AO 3603S loom invim Aq ratios 1110e39 SO1 10311-10003 NOISSI10103 N0t19110ANV91 Aiwa 3otsv3Aly 110103 10000 Ipl! twinsN0a owns 13000103 16/42/90 2 'ON 39114 • 1911109f9f2 01'911360M 11'9fllSlf 93 1f1016021 00'0 00'000001 00'0 00'000001 00'0 00'111/$11 00.1/9001 00'0109909 00'0 00'00000ft 00'0 00'00000ft 00'0 06'16/001 00'0 06161001 00'0 02'f11611 02'S191S 00'09116f 00'0 00.11110, 00'61f2s 00'261111 00'0 00'99,0951 00'00009 00.96096f 00'0 001190125 00.9f0192 00'3f29S2 00'0 00'ffL1f1 00'0 00'ffl1f1 NM 1M 1N NI or 1N 1M 1N 011110 1 091S30.30001101010 •01 Ydr 1$400 334 9411-4I141 1614 AON 15400 S12.1 NO 00 394141543 111400 33494 40-03 161S 00 301113404d 10 1503 NOIlON11sN00 103033199 40.03 ft-1 01 1114 11 1614 94113341943 3111441 941041 301s11q 1614 1N3NSS35SY 14143411DN1AN3 1614 94014 S30444343141 11.11S4 S12/0915 94019 311119034131111 S.NS4 011 1 1615 ND AONIs 9014 1101 SA05 903 ••. '34I 's1SININ31N3 4000/3311 /S4411/1V3) 40114140154441 10 111311144434 301S430I4 10 1113 440403 10 1113 S314130334 1 NrAr '341 •S314130554 VS1 A1144403 1 434143 IN11130 1114 4243 S43341043 4ISIII3 101 Idol ••• 1f ON ff160N U 160N 1i160N 0f1601 62/60N 121601 9316011 f31601 03003433 1NIIOIAI 1Y101 • 03111000 MOM 1111133 M N 35110 AVOW mow 01 431114403 01 431114400 3134 11I101 1NIIOIIV mow 3110I1 40 3000E N3MNN1 10YN1N00 AN pot.oS 103434 001 1N3N111NO0 N013514003 0011V1N0dSNY41 A11N100 301343014 114403 140434 I4011 1N1I1111SN00 ONION 134111003 l6/12/90 f 'ON 3994 • • • • • AGENDA ITEM #3 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1991-92 Local Transportation Fund Allocation for Transit In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for operating and capital purposes, and before the Commission can allocate funds for local street and road purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 1992-96 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Riverside County SRTP for all public transit operators in Riverside County, except the SunLine Transit Agency, Riverside Special Services (RSS), and the Hemet/San Jacinto dial -a -ride portion of the RTA, was approved at the Commission meeting in June. The FY 1992 LTF allocations are consistent with the SRTP approved in June and the recommendations regarding the approval of the plans for SunLine, RSS, and the Hemet/San Jacinto dial -a -ride portion of the RTA are contained in a separate agenda item. Any changes to the recommendations regarding these three operators will be incorporated into the recommended allocations. Carry-over funds used in these calculations are preliminary estimates and may change. Any modifications will need to be approved by the Commission prior to allocating LTF funds for local streets and roads. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 1991-92 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. Rl:sc attachment f:\usersVesorinh07-1041.ageNtlall.ii 31311 AEI 03A0EI1dV 1000'00£' IS) SPUnl V1S ouIVP1ew Pue (000'00£' It) sPunI slue d £ uomeS Y1WI1 noun xI Pond* eQ IIlN► Ie111 smog Mau (Zl) ems") sePnIuI eugunS.. 19L'619'91t 111101 00£'£St 00VOIS OS 00L'£9$ OS 00L'£9S OOE'ESf 00► Ol $ 00L'E9t 00�9N 1V101 A311VA 30113A OlVd V1AAd 199' 199V 006' l£Z'9t (996'99t) 96L'L6L' l It 96tbS£'£t oo£'Lwas 19B l9 S 00o ZZZ N (S9E'Z9S1 96►'OSL' I It 96E0%11 6001)0E9S 000' III 006'6t (009'Et) 00£'Lit OS 00£'Lit 1V10111311VA V113113V00 .. 3NI1Nf16 30,1 11w OFIJNVH 0091,16'6t 00Z3,9S'St 009'L££'lt 001'9l9'9lt 00616£►'Zt 009'9L£'t•lt o0Co99'Lt oorot I'St 00Z'9L£'IS 000'66E'>•IS oo0'09Z'Zt a00'6£l'Ztt 009'£69t 0094l9t (009'610 009'996t 001'L£t 00119WS 000'6LZt 000'IES OS 000'0ICS OS 000'010 00Z'Cle$ 006'L9It (000' IZt) 000'0114 0001££t 000'LL£t 006' LOPS 00S'ZSt OS 00VPStit 00Z3,9t 00e06£t 00e9lZt oo0' ILS OS 00VL9Zt 000'SI'S OOnt'ZS 1111011UNf10o NI131S3M v1d 301SE13A11:1 S131 VNOEI00 1Nownv3e ONINNVE1 NOLLV3011V S311N3A3E1 SOMA S1S03 S1S03 S1S00 LISNVEIl dll dll NON E13A0AkItIV0 1V101 1Y11dV3 ONLLVE13d0 Z6/1661 AA 031VVILLS3 031VWLLS3 O31VVILLS3 031VYrLLS3 OaLVVIIlS3 030N31W1033E1 E101VE13d011SNWl 11SNWl EIOd SNO11V3011V SONIld NOLLV1110dSNVIIL 1V301 Z6/166/ Al • • • • • AGENDA ITEM #4 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Rideshare Incentive Programs Rt. 91 Rideshare Incentive Program Last year, Ca!trans District 8 passed $100,000 in rideshare monies to District 12 for the specific purpose of fostering the formation of rideshare arrangements prior to the start of the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane construction on the Riverside Freeway. To meet that goal, Caltrans District 12 entered into a one year cooperative agreement with Orange County Transit District (OCTD) in April, 1990, to establish a Rt. 91 Rideshare Incentive Program. OCTO's Commuter Network hired a private consultant, Mr. Bill McCaughey of Inland Transportation Services, Inc. (ITS), to develop, implement and administer the one year Program. A steering committee was established to provide guidance throughout the Program which included Caftans District 8 and 12, RCTC, Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS) and Commuter Network. The primary goal of the Program as set by Caltrans was to reduce Rt. 91 peak period traffic volumes by 400 vehicles. In addition, the Program included the development and distribution of informational materials to increase awareness of commute alternatives and the HOV construction project. Generally, the Program offers a three month monetary rideshare incentive for new carpools, vanpools and buspools, as well as for adding riders to existing rideshare arrangements. The incentive is paid in the form of UNOCAL autoscrip which the recipient can use to purchase goods and services at any Unocal 76 service station. Various incentive levels are set for each of the rideshare categories. For instance, a new two (2) person carpool receives $1.00 per day per person for every day they carpool for up to three months, while a new three (3) person or more carpool receives $2.00 per day per person. mumis p.pw eiv-10 Yt.apeueo,plcitarw Page Two July 3, 1991 Rideshare Incentive Programs The Program requires the support and cooperation of employer ETC's in marketing, tracking placements, and approving payment of the incentive to their Riverside commuters. The incentive package offers employers and commuters flexibility in customizing a program to fit their existing trip reduction programs and individual needs. When the Program is marketed to a new employer, they are strongly encouraged to provide matching funds or other incentives such as flexible work hours to accommodate ridesharing in order to foster partnership and maximize employer commitment to the Program. Did the Program meet its goals? Yes, and more, as 548 vehicle trips or 1370/0 of the goal were removed from the Rt. 91 corridor. The success of this program along with the Rideshare Marketing Demonstration Project and the resulting formation of buspools has had a major influence on reducing the projected construction impacts of the Rt. 91 HOV widening project. In a cooperative effort, OCTD and RCTC agreed to fund the extension of the Program from mid -April through June,1991. An extension proposal from Inland Transportation Services, Inc., totaling $38,000 was accepted by OCTD in the amount of $28,000 and RCTC in the amount of $10,000. A final report for the Incentive Program will be available in August. Discussions have been on -going with OCTD and RCTC concerning funding the Rt. 91 Rideshare Incentive Program for FY 1991-92. Due to the restructuring of OCTC and OCTD, agreement has not been formally reached concerning the level of participation by the new OCTA organization. Orange County has verbally indicated their strong interest in maintaining the Incentive Program due to its measurable success and their funding commitment is expected to be identified within the next several weeks. (It should be noted that under the Caltrans contact, OCTD provided in -kind services in the development and production of public relations materials.) Commission staff worked closely with ITS in the development and implementation of the Incentive Program which was designed to motivate Riverside based commuters on Rt. 91 to rideshare. Several months of the Caltrans contract was required to design the Program and its guidelines. Once defined, the Program was then marketed to employer ETC's who in turn notified their employees of the available incentive. The Program is just now building its own momentum and staff recommends that the Commission approve a proposal by Inland Transportation Services, Inc. for FY 1991-92 to continue the Incentive Program~ The proposal will be presented at the Committee meeting. ru+.«.pr.wr1107•1041..oaunaoiog.w» • • • • • • Page Three July 3, 1991 R.ideshare Incentive Programs County -wide Rideshare Incentive Program In addition to the Rt. 91 Incentive Program, the proposal will address two new programs Commission staff recommends developing and implementing. Based on the demonstrated success of the Incentive Program, the benefit of maintaining program continuity, and the ability of Mr. McCaughey to work effectively with multiple agencies in administering the Program, staff has worked exclusively with ITS in developing the new programs which, in total, establish a county -wide Rideshare Incentive Program pursuant to the Commuter Assistance element of Measure A. The first new program simply expands the Rt. 91 Incentive Program to Riverside County employers and residents. Until now, the incentive has only been available to residents who drive the 91 freeway and their Orange/Los Angeles County employers. A county -wide program will aid Riverside employer efforts by providing a flexible rideshare incentive plan designed to supplement their existing trip reduction efforts. Further, it allows County residents to participate in the program, not just long distance drivers. The second new program will assist individuals and employers in the formation of vanpools. The concept, generally known as "quick start", is not new. OCTD's vanpool program has been in operation for several years. Generally, the proposed program will write down the cost of leasing a van for rideshare purposes for a three month period to allow time for the vanpool to secure full ridership. The vanpool program will be available to any County resident. Each of the proposed programs are designed to foster development of a public/private partnership, through cooperative efforts with employers in marketing and administering the incentives, to increase the number of commuters who rideshare. They will provide commuters a subsidy during the critical first three months in which rideshare arrangements struggle to find full ridership and establish the "habit". STAFF RECOMINENDATION: Staff will present its recommendations at the Committee meeting. MW:sc rAw.,s%p,.wint107.1041.40e neepra0.nr. • • • • • AGENDA ITEM #5 July 3, 1991 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst Jack Reagan, Executive Director Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Family Service Association of Western Riverside County (FSAWRC) Family Service Association of Westem Riverside County (FSAWRC) is a private, non-profit 501 C-3, non-sectarian, United Way funded agency which has been meeting the needs of Western Riverside County residents since 1953. Family Service's main mission is to assist families build and sustain strong and healthy relationships. Clients are encouraged to make positive changes in their lives, in part, by understanding the pressures of today's living and creating contentment at home and on the job. In September of 1990, FSAWRC obtained a 1990 El Dorado seventeen passenger bus with two wheelchair stations that had originally been slated for delivery in Northern Califomia through the UMTA 16(b)(2) program. From their modest growth in December of 1990, FSAWRC has experienced an increase in the number of requests by seniors by up to 94% in some months. Family Service is currently providing transportation to the elderly and handicapped living in the Jurupa area. This area includes the communities of Rubidoux, Sunnyslope, Glen Avon, Pedley, Belkown, and Mira Loma. In order to continue to provide the much needed transportation for the elderly and handicapped in the Westem Riverside County area, Family Service Association of Western Riverside County is submitting a request for $36,457 in Measure A operating funds (50% of the FY 1991-92 operating budget) and $11,780 in Measure A capital funds to provide the 20% local match to an UMTA 16(b)(2) grant. This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for Measure A Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Programs. wnaoa.onnww.,o.,..oeu.in.K.e • • Page Two July 3, 1991 Measure A Specialized Transit Funds for Family Service Association of Western Riverside County (FSAWRC) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Administrative Committee approve the Measure A funding request from Family Service Association of Western Riverside County of $36,457 for operating subsidy and $11,780 to provide the local match (20%) for a van applied for under the UMTA 16(b)(2) federal grant program, subject to the conditions of the Measure A Specialized Transit and Commuter Service Program policies. JRl:sc attachment • • Muslim\P,.O,Mitt07•,OYt..oe emNe.A • • FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BUDGET F/Y 91/92 EXPENSES: Salaries: Transportation Coord.(1 FTE) Clerical (.25 FTE) Senior Services Director(.05FTE) Drivers (1.25 FTE) Sub -Total $ 16,892 2,000 1,184 16,380 36,456 Fringe Benefits/Taxes/Accrued Vacation Health/Dental Insurance 1,400 Taxes FICA 0 .0751, State 0 .035 2,593 Accrued Vacation 1,320 Sub -Total 5,313 TOTAL SALARIES/BENEFITS/TAXES 41,769 General Expenses: Rent -0- Utilities -0- Repair/Maintenance 6,000 Equipment Purchase -0- Equipment Lease (Radio, Copier) 500 Insurance (Vehicle) 4,500 General Liability (pro-rata) 1,042 Dues/Fees/Taxes 1,185 Office Supplies 300 Household/Cleaning Supplies 500 Program/Instruction Supplies 300 Telephone (pro-rata) 400 Printing 200 Travel/Mileage 300 Conferences/Training 750 Subscriptions/Publications 75 Postage 100 Advertising 500 Fuel 7,200 Misc. 100 Sub -Total 23,952 Administration (10%) 7,192 (includes Bookkeeping► Audit, Attorney Fees, pro-rata) TOTAL EXPENSES $ 72,913 Family Service Association of Western Riv. Co., contd. INCOME: Grants & Contracts: Community Development Block Grants $ 15,446 Office on Aging 2,000 Measure A 36.457 Sub -Total 53,903 Client Fees/Donations: Client Donations 2,400 Private Foundations 8.000 Sub -Total 10,400 Fund Raising/United Way: United Way of the Inland Valleys Individual/Corporate Contributions Bingo/Special Events Sub -Total TOTAL INCOME: 5,000 2,310 1.300 7,300 i 72,913 EXCESS/(DEFICIT) -0- • • • • AGENDA ITEM #6 • • • • SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES July 3, 1991 TO: Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Month to Month Extension of Techplan Contract to Provide Call Box Operations Statistics As part of the Phase III contract the SAFE Board executed with Techplan Corporation, Techplan provides the service of downloading the cellular billing tape data and arranges the data in graphic formats which are part of the monthly statistical report which is included in the agenda package for information purposes. The monthly statistical report is important for tracking call box operational trends as well as input to the Riverside/San Bernardino formula for allocating the quarterly expense of CHP provided dispatch services provided by the Inland CHP office. If you will recall, the San Bernardino valley area and the western Riverside County (Corona/Temecula/Moreno Valley) receive dispatch service through the Inland CHP office. The eastern portion of the counties are dispatched from Barstow and Indio CHP offices respectively. In order to continue the compilation of call box operations data staff is recommending approval of a month to month contract with Techplan at a cost of $500.00 per month. This will be a temporary arrangement due to staff seeking a full service contract (other than fund administration) to manage the day to day operations of the call box system. Such a contract would involve the statistical reporting, overseeing vendor performance (L.A. Cellular and GTE), engineering, certification and acceptance of any expansion or infill of the call box system, and follow up on call box knock down insurance recovery. This effort will be done in conjunction with the San Bernardino County SAFE (SANBAG) in order to achieve economies of scale. Staff will be bringing a recommendation to the Board at your August meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Riverside County SAFE approve a month to month contract with Techplan to provide monthly call box statistical reports and graphs at a fixed cost of $500.00 per month subject to legal counsel review of the contract. HS:sc mussimp.orwK+07•,04,..oeuoenp.n.n. c • • • • 41, • AGENDA ITEM #7 c • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Closeout of Route 86 Design Expenses The Route 86 project has completed the design and right-of-way acquisition phases and will be beginning construction this fall. A copy of a letter written to CVAG describing the project status is included in your agenda package. Caltrans District 11 has written RCTC requesting some adjustments in our agreed upon cost sharing in order to cover closeout in the design expenses they have incurred with the consultants working on the Route 86 design. Copies of the requesting letters are included in your agenda package. A summary of these items follows: $131,276 Design of future interchange improvements at Avenue 56. RCTC authorized between $120,000 and $150,000 for this work. Signal warrants study and design. RCTC, CVAG, and Riverside County requested Caltrans perform a signal warrant review for all the proposed at - grade intersections with Route 86 and design signalized where required. Caltrans had the Route 86 consultant perform the warrant review and design signalized intersections at Dillon Road and Route 111 at a cost of $22,468 and has requested that RCTC pay for these services. Weigh -in -Motion and CHP Pullouts. Caltrans requested the consultant design a Weigh -in -Motion facility and a CHP pullout for the facility at a cost of $5,129. huwu.wr.wnnet07•+0e+.49avc eee..Tue Page Two July 3, 1991 Closeout of Route 86 Design Expenses $31,534 Additional Design Surveys. Additional design surveys were required to complete the hydrology investigation and report. $11,840 Redesign of Avenue 58 Intersection. Redesign was required to accommodate a request from Riverside County for provision to accommodate the county standard cross section. $7,200 Redesign of Grading Areas. Caltrans added grading areas to generate additional borrow material for embankments. This will reduce the need for import borrow material and reduce the overall construction cost of the project. $5,601 Redesign of Wastewav No. 2 Bridge. Additional analysis and design revisions were required in response to request by the Coachella Valley Water District. $85,000 Final Adiustment of Common Expenses. The Cooperative Agreement between RCTC and Caltrans for the Route 86 project calls for common expenses for the two projects (one funded by RCTC and one funded by Caltrans) to be split based upon preliminary estimates of the constructed value for the two project. It allows for a readjustment of expenses based upon final costs. Current project estimates indicate that this adjustment could be as much as $85,000. Total = $272,451 ($120,000 to $150,000 has been previously approved for the Avenue 58 Bridge PS&E) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that RCTC authorize reimbursement of up to an additional $125,000 (S272,451 minus $150,000, rounded up) to Caltrans District 11 for additional design services required to complete the Route 86 PS&E. MTM:sc attachments M,«mphpim07• 1 aa, ..oeaaeee.. eron • • • • 1-113 RIVEtSiOE COUNTY TRANSPORTA4N COMMISSION 1 N 61) l'nner,itq .avenue Suite 100 • Riverside. California 42501 )"14) 787-7141•FAX►7I4►747-7920 • • May 13, 1991 Les Cleveland Coachella Valley Association of Governments 74-133 E1 Paseo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Nick Nickerson Subject: Route 86 Progress Report Dear Les: At the opening ceremonies for the Monterey Avenue widening last month, Nick Nickerson asked for a progress report on the Route 86 project. I am pleased to report that the previous difficulties with right-of-way have been resolved and the project will be moving forward to construction in a timely manner. I have enclosed a schedule that we received from Caltrans District 11 that indicates that construction will begin around November of this year. This is well within the requirements for Cycle 2 of SB300. There will be activity going on prior to this related to utility relocations. I have also enclosed a recent letter from Caltrans responding to our request for study of signal warrants along the route. Based upon the warrants they have included signals at Dillon Road and Route 111 with the project. They have included provisions under the roadway for easy implementation of signals in the future. The warrant for Avenues 52 and 56 are based on projections, not on existing data. Caltrans, therefore, recommends waiting until after project implementation in order to gather operational data to re - re -evaluate the warrants for these and other intersections. The overcrossing structure design for the Avenue 56 is completed and on file (CARD tape) with Caltrans District 11. They can be accessed by anyone interested in further developing the project. The additional cost of this design was $91,177.00. Enclosed is a copy of the RCTC agenda item authorizing between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00 for this work. Caltrans also chose to use their consultant (CH2M&Hill) to perform the signal warrants requested by CVAG and RCTC resulting in an additional cost of $22,468.00. Finally, Caltrans added in some minor items including Highway Patrol pullouts and truck weigh-in station resulting in additional design cost of $5,129.00. Otherwise the design work was completed within budget and on schedule. We will have an item on the June RCTC agenda to cover these additional costs. a • • r Les Cleveland May 13, 1991 Recent conversations with Supervisor Larson indicate that she would be interested in a special ground -breaking ceremony for the project, probably sometime in November, 1991. Please advise me on how you think this should best be handled. Sincerely, ck Reagan, Executive Director iverside County Transportation Commission MTM/sc Enclosures: 1) Route 86 Implementation Schedule 2) Letter from Caltrans District 11 regarding Signal Warrants for Route 86 3) RCTC Agenda Item for Avenue 56 design cc: F. Sherkow (Riverside County Department of Transportation) M. Massman (Bechtel) • • ro►ulEl °Iv0 sold whoa*vs, ins *sinus IbMtiCC'MO *MI WW1 . ►s►S ►axou U3H3S 111,115 0 ZZ21 Hdi? S121 Wd 99 31d Ntlld 1N3WAOatia dWI N1tJOdSN1 11 38aStf314 1 ►e I gala NSSIWW03 NIdOdSNHa1 111Na00 30I5213AId /1611-400I 3401 '11N3Sig e,Nrel *id -�� —�� .Il..aln ...mum. 11111031 41.1/7Y+mown O mom h•LaUi 411.14V11 1 I 1• ) Ebd3S t 117130Z 0 NOI130S1SN03-4 It 101d1SI O) 981S 0 11,1301 lblAr? 0 adumHe0I8 13081SN03-( l 113I81SI0) 9818 1 lblflf t uobonuI bL AVM A0 ADIS4 1113IS1SI0) 981E _� IbAHWE HOblflf 1 86 (38Sd) NO1S30 'MIA II 13I81SI0) 9818 A121N43 Al1aH3 I3d NOAlInI1oH0 sinri--- --- • • • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA • BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION ANO ROUSINGAGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0i$TgicT + t P 0 80x 95406. SAN 01EGO 92186.5406 March 26, 1991 Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation 3560 University Avenue - Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Jack: 11-RIV-86 R15.2/R22.5 11208-179821 Agreement No. 11-0404 Dillon Road to Avenue 58 Commission RECT7" MAR 29 1991 Riverside we are requesting that Riverside CountyT11Q�oA ipft�br ._,_, Commission (RCTC) vote an increase of $120, 000 toscover additional costs incurred in design of the Riverside 86 project. The increased work has been discussed with Mark Massman and consists of: 1. Preparing separate contract plans, specifications and estimate for the Avenue 56 interchange. 2. Performing traffic counts, analysis, traffic for signal needs and designing signal systems for the Dillon Road ramp intersections and the Avenue 58/Route 111 intersection. 3. Designing and including in the contract plans a 11weigh- in-Motion" facility and a California Highway Patrol Pullout. 4. Revising the drainage system to reduce the construction cost of the drainage facilities. If you should have questions, please contact Paul Hardin at (619) 688-6712. Sincerely, JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By /,' Q l% J. D. FISER Pxd3 ect Manager - Design C • • FROM: CH2M ►+: __/_AC . '0 6:9 Gas 6646 411,UN 5. :99: :2:02PM U3:4 F.02 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Massman/Aechtel FROM: Paul Hardin/Caltrans District 11 DATE: June 5, 1991 SUBJECT: ROTC Cost on Route 86, Project No. 1 PROJECT: 11B596 1. Estimated Cost at Completion: S1,520,000 (talented from Table A of Amendment letter doted 4/29I91) 2. Original estimate for RCTC/Caltrans agreement: $1,035,400 3. Difference of No. 1 minus No. 2 above: $1,520,000 - $1,035,400 = $484,600 4. The $484,600 shown in No. 3 is broken down as follows: Extra Work (see breakdown on page 3) $190,000 R/W • CVWD Utilities $209,000 Additional Cost over original estimate $85.000 TOTAL $484,600 5. Total increase in RCTC budget to complete project is the extra work ($190,000) and the additional cost for the original work ($85,000). The CVWD utility work is assumed to be a right-of-way expense and not chargeable to RCTC. Extra Work $190,000 Additional t�� TOTAL, $275,600 =RCM C;;2r' ._i_AG • 'G 6:9 688 6648 ."uN 5, 199: :2:03PM =3 a =.0i MEMORANDUM Page 2 June 5, 1991 LA028117 6. Summary Original ROTC budget per Agreement $1,035,400 Extra Work $190,000 Additional cost to complete $85,600 NEW TOTAL BUDGET NEEDED $1,311,000 Total budget increase needed $275,600 Previous budget increase $120,000 CURRENT BUDGET INCREASE NEEDED $155,600 • • 5: ° See 564E 4 „h 5. : 99: :2 : 23P A. =3: a = 4 • MEMORANDUM Page 3 June 5, 1991 LA028117 EXTRA WORK BREAKDOWN Additional extra work items as included in April 29, 1991 amendment letter. • Additional design survey necessary to complete the hydrology investigation and report. Add: $31,534 • Redesign of Avenue 58 to miss several parcels and reduce cost of RAV Add: $11,840 • Added grading areas in State owned R/W adjacent to project to generate needed material for embankments and reduce imported borrow for project. Add: $7,200 • Additional analysis and revisions to Wasteway No. 2 bridge foundation by request of Coachella Valley Water District and Caltrans Headquarters, Structures/Hydrology Section. Add: $5,601 The total cost of initial items requested on March 26, 1991 memorandum totalled $131,276 not $120,000. The above four items equal an additional $56,175 for a total of $187,451. Call: $190,000 L ku1s t e R 6 R C O• l . • • • • AGENDA ITEM #8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Mike Davis, Environmental Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Cajalco Transportation Corridor Study- Acceptance of Interim Technical Memorandum and Authorization for P&D Technologies to Proceed with a TIER 1 EIS Process Between I-215 & Cleveland National Forest (CNF) Boundary West of I-15 • P & D Technologies has completed an Interim Technical Memorandum (ITM), summary attached, that describes preliminary alternatives, potential environmental impacts and engineering problems for the Cajalco Corridor. The early results of this ITM were used to initiate discussions with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Orange County agencies and developers concerning crossing the CNF and connecting to the proposed '"toll Roads" (Foothill or Eastern Corridor) in Orange County. These discussions culminated in a meeting moderated by State Senator Marian Bergeson and Assemblyman David Kelly where it was determined that Orange County was not currently supportive of a new connection to the 'Toll Roads" at this time. The toll road projects are currently going through environmental clearances and would be held up indefinitely to include assessment of a new corridor such as the Cajalco Corridor that connected to them. RCTC and Caltrans will continue negotiations with Orange County to determine the appropriate time to move forward the Cajalco Corridor connection to the toll roads. Since the timing for proposing a major a connection to the proposed 'Toll Road " system in Orange County is not right, Caltrans has decided to proceed with a corridor preservation process only requiring a TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the segment of the Cajalco Corridor between Interstate 215 (I-215) and the CNF boundary west of Interstate 15 (I-15). ACR 101 (Kelly) requires that Caimans be the lead agency for this study with funding provided by RCTC and that it be complete by July 1992. In order to meet this aggressive schedule, RCTC and Caimans have refined the alternatives in the f Ausio ApreprinM70 ap l ..pdk.,.m.m. and • • Page Two July 3, 1991 Cajalco Study ITM report to include the following: • No Project • Improve Existing Cajalco Road (major arterial) • North Expressway Alignment adjacent to and paralleling existing Cajalco Road • South Expressway/Freeway Alignment across the Gavilan Plateau • Combination Cajalco Road major arterial and South Expressway alignment These alternatives have been screened by RCTC, Caltrans and the environmental consultants so that each has a singular alignment to reduce complexity and save time during the TIER 1 analysis: This screening process which will be documented in the TIER 1 EIS originally began with several potential alignments as shown in the ITM. Those alternative alignments evaluated in the ITM with the most significant adverse environmental and engineering problems were eliminated from further consideration to arrive at those alternatives presented above. In order to meet the objectives of ACR 101, P&D Technologies has submitted a proposal to complete the necessary TIER 1 EIS and associated traffic and engineering studies by July 1992 for a cost not to exceed $685,000. Negotiations are ongoing and the final Scope of Services and Cost Estimate will be submitted for full Commission approval on July 10, 1991. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and approve the P&D Technologies Interim Technical Memorandum for the Cajalco Corridor. Approve P&D Technologies participation in the preparation of a TIER 1 EIS and associated traffic and engineering studies for purposes of preserving a transportation corridor between I-215 and the CNF boundary for a amount not to exceed $685,000. Final negotiated scope and cost of services will be presented at the July 10, 1991 Commission meeting. MD:sc attachment Mussee1omww4107.1041..oekesOrma .oa • • • • • .`E X EC,TIV E Sit MM AR Y (?:4 • • ••••:qig ` Rivanide County Transportation Commission Cajalco Transportation Corridor Study • CA3ALCO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE U INTERIM TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 (714)787-7141 Prepared By: PAO TECHNOLOGIES 1100 Town at Country Road Suite 300 Orange, CA 9266a (714)1135-4447 DECEMBER 1990 • • • • • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION As a result of the significant growth experienced in western Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, traffic congestion on the Riverside Freeway (SR 91) between Interstate 215 (1-215) and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) has emerged as one of the region's most troublesome transportation problems. This problem is particularly acute on the SR 91 segment between SR 55 in Orange County and Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside County, primarily because SR 91 is essentially the only highway link between Riverside/ San Bernardino County and central Orange County. Congestion on SR 91 is expected to continue despite anticipated improvements in the balance between jobs in Orange/Los Angeles Counties and housing in Riverside/San Bernardino Counties. Given the limited congestion relief associated with planned SR 91 capacity improvements, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has initiated consideration of improving the existing Cajalco Road between 1-15 and I-215 and raised the possibility of the extending the Cajalco Corridor directly into eastern Orange County. Such an improvement to highway capacity may be necessary to alleviate existing traffic congestion on SR 91 and to support the ultimate buildout of western Riverside County pursuant to existing General Plans. In early 1990, the Riverside County Transportation Department completed Phase I of the Cajalco Transportation Corridor Study with the identification of conceptual alignments extending between planned Toll Roads in Orange County (Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors) and I-215 in Riverside County. Two basic corridors were defined as the "Cajalco North Corridor" and the "Cajalco South Corridor" and were conceptualized as six -lane limited access facilities (see Figure S-1). Since the Corridor segment between Orange County Toll Roads and 1-15 would extend through the Cleveland National Forest's (CNF) rugged terrain and natural habitat, the North and South Corridors each included a tunnel option to minimize potential adverse effects on the Forest. The RCTC subsequently initiated Phase II of the study effort in March 1990 to further refine the study corridors developed during Phase I and to initiate preparation of a Tier 1 S-1 Legend r.�� ��•` I Cajalw Corridor Northem Route Ca)aloo Corridor Southem Route Proposed Transportation Corridors Cleveland National Forest Site Location MID Cajako Transportation Corridor Study P&D Toehnologiea j • • Route Location Study environmental document. The study was given added impetus with the adoption of Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 101 by the State legislature in June 1990. ACR 101 calls upon Caltrans to undertake a feasibility study of the Cajalco Corridor, including, but not limited to, a Tier 1 environmental document. The Resolution also states that the study shall be complete by July 1, 1992 and specifically excludes the CNF from Caltrans' authority to study. Therefore, RCTC and the Forest Service would assume responsibility for the National Forest portion of the study area. ACR 101 further specifies that the costs of the study shall be fully paid by RCTC. Preparation of a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) would provide the environmental review necessary for decisions regarding Corridor alternatives and possible adoption of a Corridor alignment. Further, completion of a Tier 1 EIR/EIS would provide the basis for early preservation of Corridor right-of-way in advance of detailed engineering and construction -level Tier 2 environmental documentation that would ultimately be required prior to actual construction of new Corridor facilities. Uncertainties regarding the necessary Tier 1 EIR/EIS scope of analysis and the need to establish consensus among the key agencies likely to spearhead the study effort lead RCTC to conduct the current "Interim" portion of the Phase II Cajalco Transportation Corridor study. The objectives of the Interim Phase II study are: 1. Refine the study alignments relative to engineering design criteria, cross -sections, and alignment plans/profiles at a mapping level of detail of 1 inch _ 1,000 feet. 2. Define a technical approach to completing the Tier 1 EIR/EIS that is mutually acceptable to the principal agencies responsible for the conduct of the study prior to formal initiation of Tier 1 EIR/EIS preparation. 3. Conduct a sensitivity analysis of key environmental issues to facilitate study objective number 2 by identifying critical areas of sensitivity affecting the viability of preliminary alignments and/or warranting closer analysis during the Tier 1 process. 4. Establish the groundwork for further coordination with other concerned agencies and the general public during the preparation of Tier 1 documentation. S-2 This Technical Memorandum describes the accomplishments of the Interim Phase II study effort to date relative to the above -listed objectives. This Technical Memorandum also discusses the preliminary conclusions drawn from the Interim tasks and recommends future steps that may be undertaken in light of the preliminary conclusions. STUDY ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE Engineering Tasks The principal engineering tasks undertaken during the Interim Phase II study entailed the following: Development of suitable base maps and aerial photos at a scale of 1 inch = 1,000 feet for the entire study area. • Coordination with others conducting regional transportation modeling and analysis as part of RCTC's overall Measure A program. Drainage basin mapping. • Refinement of Phase I study alignments. The latter task involved coordination with Caltrans to refine preliminary design criteria (e.g., minimum design speed, maximum grade, traffic lane and median widths, etc.) established for two Corridor segments. The "Orange County to Lake Mathews" segment was defined for the area between Orange County Toll Roads and the Gavilan Hills near Lake Mathews based on the rugged terrain found throughout this segment. The "Lake Mathews to I-215" segment was defined based on the relatively less rugged terrain associated with the Gavilan Plateau and. Mead Valley areas. Based on the design criteria established for the Corridor and applicable Ca!trans design guidelines, the study team also refined the initial cross -sections developed during the Phase I study. These cross -sections address a variety of considerations such as split lane concepts, side -hill bridging, crib wall construction, tunneling, and a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility operational alternative section. Sr3 • • • • • The conceptual Corridor alignments developed during Phase I were refined based on known constraints and refined design criteria. These refinements included changes in the alignments where appropriate as well as the addition of new segments. The Cajalco North Corridor (as defined by alignment number 1 shown on Figure S-2) would be approximately 38.7 miles long. This length would be reduced to approximately 32.3 miles with the tunnel option associated with the North Corridor. The Cajalco South Corridor (as defined by alignment number 2 shown on Figure S-2) would be approximately 39.1 miles long, with the associated tunnel option reducing the overall length to approximately 34.2 miles. Earlier planning -level construction cost estimates were refined for the North and South Corridor alternatives and are shown on Table S-1. Construction costs alone, not including right-of-way costs, are estimated to range from just over $l billion for both Corridor alternatives (without tunnel options) to nearly $1.4 billion for the South Corridor with the tunnel option. Environmental Tasks One of the two principal environmental tasks undertaken during the Interim Phase II study entailed development of a Tier 1 EIR/EIS study definition through a cooperative process involving RCTC, Caltrans, the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Given the complexity of the study, the requirements of ACR 101, and the potential overlap of jurisdictional responsibilities, a preliminary Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drafted to establish the respective roles and responsibilities of the four principal agencies expected to be involved in preparing the Tier 1 EIR/EIS. A principal component of the MOU is an attachment entitled "Preliminary Technical Approach for the Cajalco Corridor Study - Tier 1 EIR/EIS." This attachment sets forth the preliminary scope of alternatives and issues that the agencies agree would meet the requirements of applicable state and federal requirements for a Tier 1 document. The preliminary MOU is still undergoing further agency review and has not yet been finalized. k '.... vaik !Alf 3 .4: ^`lei► S.c.'.. 'Y::,., • • The second principal environmental task entailed the conduct of a sensitivity analysis of key environmental issues to facilitate the refinement of preliminary alignments as well as to facilitate the Tier 1 EIR/E1S study definition. This analysis was performed by an interdisciplinary study team and was focused on the following issues: Geology Land Use Aesthetics Soils and Agriculture Cultural Resources • Biological Resources Noise • Parks, Recreation, and Open Space The analysis was based primarily upon a review of existing literature and aerial photos, as well as limited field investigations. A one -mile band on either side of each potential alignment (or an overall swath of two miles) was defined as the study area to maximize flexibility in refining the preliminary alignments. The sensitivity analysis defines much of the existing environmental conditions and identifies a broad range of environmental constraints found throughout the entire length of the study area. Preliminary Agency Outreach Strategy A preliminary agency outreach strategy was developed to facilitate RCTC's efforts to coordinate the Cajalco Corridor study effectively with other public agencies as well as the general public. This strategy encompasses the broad range of federal, state, and local agencies that are likely to have some level of responsibility or concern regarding the Corridor. Key agency contact people, likely agency concerns and their potential role in the Corridor location decision process, and outreach strategies to address the concerns of each agency were identified. Similar information was developed for other key players such as major landowners and concerned citizen groups to ensure a well -coordinated study program. S-S PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Engineering Conclusions From an overall engineering standpoint, little difference exists between the constructability of a route along the North or South Corridors. Both Corridor routes could be designed within the criteria established for the study. Construction costs for the South Corridor are estimated to be higher than comparable North Corridor alternatives. The regional transportation modeling results of the January 1989 Southern Californ►a Association of Governments (SCAG) study, Route 91 and the Caialco Corr►dor - RIVSAN III, demonstrated that the Cajalco Corridor extension into Orange County would alleviate congestion on SR 91. The RCTC is presently undertaking the "Measure A Alternatives Analysis," which is a regional transportation modeling study expected to update the traffic forecasts presented in SCAG's RIVSAN III study. The updated modeling results are anticipated to be developed by May 1991. Environmental Conclusions GEOLOGY From a geotechnical standpoint, development of either the North or the South Corridors is feasible. Little difference exists between the North and South Corridor in the segment between the planned Orange County Toll Roads and.1-15 in Temescal Valley. Both Corridors would cross similar terrain with similar geologic and structural conditions. Conversely, the study area segment between I-15 and I-215 in Riverside County presents major differences for the North and South Corridors. The North Corridor would follow relatively gentle terrain compared to the mountainous terrain that would be traversed by the South Corridor. LAND USE In Orange County, concerns regarding possible disturbance of the rural residential character of the existing Silverado/Modjeska Canyon areas represent an important constraint affecting either the North or South Corridor extensions into Orange County. S-6 • • • • • However, it should be noted that none of the Corridor alternatives would traverse directly through either Silverado or Modjeska Canyons, but would extend through parallel canyons that are largely undeveloped and obscured from developed canyons by intervening topography. Since none of the approved planning programs for the Orange County portion of the study area had anticipated the Cajalco Corridor, the adoption of a new Corridor in Orange County would necessitate amendments to affected plans. The existing Cleveland National Forest presents a land use feature straddling the Orange/Riverside County boundary that could not be avoided entirely by either of the proposed North or South Corridors. Development of a new transportation corridor through the Forest may be viewed as being incompatible with inherent open space and natural resource values associated with the Forest and is of particular concern to the USFS relative to the potential cumulative effects associated with various other proposals that may impact the Forest. This issue represents a key constraint that must be balanced against the region's need to solve existing and expected transportation problems. However, it should be noted that the USFS has indicated that the Forest Management Plan is undergoing an amendment process and that the results of Corridor studies may be used in this amendment process. It is possible that the amended plan could provide for a future transportation corridor pending further USFS review and consideration. In Riverside County, prospects for development of either the North or South Corridors are constrained considerably by existing and planned land use. Neither Corridor could be developed without resulting in some degree of displacement impacts and some degree of incompatibility with land use plans. This constraint is expected to increase with growing development in the area, which underscores the need for early Corridor right-of-way preservation if new or improved facilities are to be ultimately developed. Neither the North or the South Corridor is superior to the other since they would entail similar types and degrees of potential land use effects. AESTHETICS From the standpoint of potential concerns regarding Corridor effects on landform and aesthetics, both the North and South Corridors would traverse areas of extremely high sensitivity. However, neither of the Corridor alternatives can be distinguished from the other on the basis of their relative aesthetic characteristics. S-7 SOILS AND AGRICULTURE In the Orange County portion of the study area, there is very little difference between the North and South Corridors in terms of their potential for effects upon prime agricultural soils or existing agricultural activities. However, in the Riverside County area, the North Corridor would traverse a substantially greater amount of both prime agricultural soils and existing agricultural land uses. Therefore, from the standpoint of agricultural issues, the South Corridor would encounter relatively fewer constraints in Riverside County. CULTURAL RESOURCES With regard to the Orange County portion of the study area, neither the North nor the South Corridors appear to directly traverse known historical site or structures. With regard to archaeological sites in the Orange County study area, the North and South Corridors appear to include comparable numbers of archaeological sites in their respective vicinities. Similarly, both Corridors would appear to entail comparable levels of paleontological sensitivity. Overall, there is not a substantial difference between the North and South Corridors in the Orange County areas. In the Riverside County study area, the North and South Corridors each include a comparable number of known historical sites within their vicinities. With regard to known archaeological sites, the North Corridor would entail a higher degree of sensitivity than the South Corridor relative to cultural resources. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Virtually the entire length of the study area includes biological constraints affecting both the North and South Corridors. Between the Orange County Toll Roads and 1-15, both Corridors would fragment the habitat of the Cleveland National Forest, traverse several canyons which contain sensitive riparian habitat, and would be constrained by the presence of plant and animal species of special concern. Between 1-15 and I-215, both the North and South Corridors would be constrained by riparian habitat in canyon areas as well as by habitat occupied . by the Federally endangered Stephen's kangaroo rat and associated habitat conservation planning areas. 5-8 afiewtivalui IesiauV/Kptixr) abut‘p auq AemaaljpOPlIK) ENV mpluoJ oxiorJ Pnodoid puaBri 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 TABLE S-1 CAJALCO CORRIDOR COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Orange County Corridors to 1-15 1-15 to 1-215 Total Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Length Construction Estimated Length Construction Estimated Length Construction Construction* (miles) Per Mile Construction* (miles) Per Mile Construction (miles) Per Mile Alignment (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) North $670,000 22.2 $30,200 $420,000 16.5 $25,500 $1,090,000 38.7 $28,200 North (Tunnel) 850,000 15.8 53,800 420,000 16.5 25,500 1,270,000 32.3 39,300 South 720,000 23.1 31,200 300,000 16.0 18,800 1,020,000 39.1 26,100 South (Tunnel) 1,090,000 18.2 59,900 300,000 16.0 18,800 1,390,000 34.2 40,600 *These costs only include estimated construction costs exclusive of right-of-way, engineering, or construction administration costs. • • • NOISE Both the North and South Corridors in the Orange County study area would be located in the vicinity of receptors that are highly sensitive to potential noise effects, particularly in the rural canyon areas. Similarly, both Corridors could traverse directly through the planned Limestone Canyon Regional Park where future recreational users would be sensitive to increased noise. In the Riverside County study area, both the North and South Corridors would traverse through existing communities that would be sensitive to noise impacts, including portions of Temescal Valley, Lake Mathews, Gavilan Plateau, and Mead Valley. The South Corridor is slightly more favorable than the North Corridor primarily because potential noise mitigation along the North Corridor near Lake Mathews may have a lesser chance of success due to the degree of elevation differences between the Corridor and residential estates overlooking the Corridor. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE Both tr.,: North and South Corridors would potentially traverse sensitive recreational lands throughout the study area. In the Riverside County portion of the study area, there is little difference between the two basic Corridors between 1-15 and 1-215. Similarly, both Corridors would extend across the Cleveland National Forest and through Orange County's planned Limestone Canyon Regional Park. The North Corridor is only slightly more favorable with regard to parks and recreation issues since it would traverse a relatively narrower segment of the Forest and includes an alignment alternative that could largely avoid Limestone Canyon Regional Park by extending through the East Orange General Plan area. • NEXT STEPS What, if any, additional steps should be pursued must be considered in light of what is both known and unknown about the Corridor. Unresolved engineering issues, such as the Corridor's effects on local and regional traffic circulation based on updated modeling, would not necessarily hinder further study progress at the present time. However, certain unresolved environmental issues, such as the inter -agency definition of mutually S-9 • • agreed upon Tier 1 EIR/EIS study methods, are more fundamental considerations that need to be resolved if further study progress is to be achieved. This issue has already been the subject of extensive discussions involving the FHWA, USFS, RCTC, and Caltrans. A preliminary technical approach for the Tier l EIR/EIS is currently being reviewed by these agencies and is expected to be resolved in early 1991. Future engineering steps should include further refinement of alignments to reduce or avoid known environmental sensitivities. In addition, Corridor profiles should be prepared that delineate the existing ground lines in relation to the Corridor centerline. Other engineering analyses should include preliminary drainage studies, evaluation of Corridor effects on local traffic circulation, and analyses of interchange considerations relative to other major facilities such as the Orange County Toll Roads, 1-15, and 1-215. The next step in the environmental review process should be a determination by RCTC as to whether the need for a new Cajalc° Corridor facility is sufficiently great enough to warrant more detailed consideration in light of known environmental constraints. Although a decision to move forward with a Tier 1 EIR/EIS would facilitate the early preservation of Corridor right-of-way, it would have to be based on the recognition that ultimate Corridor development would result in significant adverse environmental impacts that are not entirely avoidable. Thus, any future Corridor location decisions following Tier 1 documentation would likely require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Such a statement would set forth the public benefits of the project that may be judged to outweigh unavoidable adverse impacts. If a decision is made to move forward with a Tier 1 EIR/EIS, the initial steps to be taken should entail finalizing the draft inter -agency MOU, formulating and initiating a formal public participation program, and circulating the Notices of Preparation and Intent that are required to initiate the formal EIR/EIS process. In addition, agency outreach efforts should be intensified to develop and strengthen cooperative relationships with key agencies in Orange County. S-10 • • • • AGENDA ITEM #9 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Tom Horkan, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 74 Measure A Project From G Street to 1-215 - Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition The Measure A Plan approved by the voters of Riverside County in November of 1988 included four projects along State Highway 74. One project included in the Plan called for the widening of the overpass structure of Route 74 from the current two lanes to six lanes and modification of the existing ramps to put a diamond interchange in place. The City of Perris is currently the lead agency on the 4th Street Widening project which directly abuts this project to the West. The Measure A selected engineering consultant for this Project is Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM). The Project Study Team is currently working on completing a Draft Project Study Report for the alternatives to be studied in this project. The alternatives to be studied all include reconstruction of the interchange to a typical diamond configuration. Preliminary right-of-way investigations indicate that, regardless of the build altemative chosen for the Route 74/215 interchange, a parcel located on the southwest quadrant of the interchange will require a full take acquisition. The attached assessor's map shows the parcel in question. The current property owner is proposing to proceed with commercial development of this parcel. The property owner has applied for an encroachment permit to gain access to the existing on -ramp for the southbound movement from Route 74 to 1-215. This ramp functions as a two lane road that provides for direct freeway access at the road's termination. Since there does not exist an approved concept for the interchange at this point in time Caltrans will have difficulty in rejecting the encroachment permit. RCTC may acquire this parcel through advance acquisition procedures for protection to avoid the increased value of the property due to a capital improvement. twMAApspw007•10+1.agrA74iowth • • Page Two July 3, 1991 Route 74 Measure A Project from G Street to 1-215 - Advance Right -of -Way Acquisition To control the project cost, it would be prudent for RCTC to acquire this parcel and hold it in the name of RCTC until the final determination of the needed right of way for the selected project. The estimated acquisition cost may be in the range of $700,000 to $1,000,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that RCTC authorize staff to proceed with evaluating advanced (protective) acquisitions associated with the 74/1-215 interchange including the parcel identified in the southwest quadrant, at a cost in the range of $700,000 to $1,000,000. If so approved, staff will have Caltrans proceed with appraisal work and will report back to RCTC on recommended actions. Budget for specific ROW purchase for Route 74 are included in the estimates for the projects but were not specifically budgeted for the 91 /92 fiscal year. MTM/TH:sc r u..i ros.alrien7.,o..,..oe\7.aw.tn • • s • • AGENDA ITEM #10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Alder Corridor Study Funding Request - SANBAG SANBAG is proposing to conduct a study of the Alder Corridor between 1-10 in Fontana and Route 60 in the Rubidoux/Jurupa area of Riverside County, and possible extension north to 1-15 as shown on the attached map. The total cost of the study is estimated at $130,000 of which SANBAG has requested $15,000 from Riverside County. This is an important study in that a north -south (1-10 to Route 60) major arterial or expressway between 1-15 and 1-215 and could significantly reduce the traffic headed for Riverside from the Fontana area on 1-215 and also on Route 60 if the Alternative that connects into Rubidoux Blvd/Market Street were selected. The amount of funding requested for this study from Riverside County is reasonable and assures our involvement in the process. Funds for this study can and should be provided from the Measure A Highway funds since this corridor could provide a more reasonable alternative and may impact the ultimate scope of the 1-215 project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission agree to provide $15,000 in Measure A Highway Funds to SANBAG to fund the Riverside County share of the proposed Alder Corridor Study. PB:sc attachments ru,..rostop;mw7.1041.agea e«.oe 40V • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT June 10, 1991 FRANKLLN E SHERKOW Director a Trimplommm San Bernardino Associated Governments 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401 Attention: Kerry Forsythe, Deputy Executive Director Re: City of Fontana's Sierra/Cedar Traffic Relief Corridor Gentlemen: Reference is made to your memo dated May 30, 1991 suggesting that the County of Riverside contribute $15,000 towards the estimated $130,000 cost of the above -referenced corridor study. This Department is willing to share all available development information and traffic data, provide some technical staff assistance, and devot* administrative support to the proposed corridor study. However, we are not presently prepared to financially participate in the cost of the study as proposed. As I mentioned during the March 17, 1991 "Alder Corridor Study Meeting", the Department endorses and supports the concepts of the proposed study but did not infer that we would contribute towards its funding. Very truly yours, 40‘1 Tek Tanaka Deputy Director of Transportation TT:gh cc: Supervisor Dunlap/Rosanna Scott Jac* Reagan, RCTC Larry Toerper/Lou Gamache Ed Cooper 410V.RA Rivprsid^ Transper;a;.Lf. , COUNTY ADMNISIRATIVE CENTER • P.O. BOX 1090. 4080 LEMON STREET • 7TH FLOOR* RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502.1090 (714) 275.6880 • FAX (714) 1754711 3 REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AREA CORRIDOR ALIGNMENT LOCATION EXHIBIT I CORRIDOR STUDY AREA MAP NOV 1990 sky Revised dune t991 • • • • • AGENDA ITEM #11 • • $ • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION July 3, 1991 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding Between the County Transportation Commissions Participating in the Development of Southern California Regional Commuter Rail Service on the Funding of Commuter Rail Related Capital Improvements Ms. Sharon Greene, consultant to LACTC requested the Commission to take action on the attached Memorandum of Understanding which is related to the California Transportation Commission's requirement that full funding packages for commuter rail capital projects include commitment of "any required local matching funds as well as assurance by local agencies that local funding will be provided to backfiill future state funds not forthcoming through the Transit Capital Improvement Program (TCI) or the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)". Additionally, IJPA staff is requesting the RCTC to designate the LACTC to act as agent on behalf of the member agencies of the soon to be created Southern California Regional Rail Authority as the agency responsible for reporting on the status of funds, for processing applications for funding and for handling administrative requirements, such as the Caltrans' SB 580 Review. For your information, another item included in your agenda packet is a request for authorization to execute the Fund Transfer Agreement and begin the SB 580 review for the Commission's $1.0 million TCI grant for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Assessment of Commuter Rail service Between Riverside and Orange County. This is a separate issue due to the fact the regional commuter rail full funding packages prepared for submittal to the CTC and Ca!trans does not include this projects funding. The questions that come to mind are; What is the standing of this request with regard to the upcoming formation of the regional commuter rail JPA? Is this really necessary? muswmprepointw.1041.agemillunahs • • t .. - Page Two July 3, 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Between the County Transportation Commissions Participating in the Development of Southern California Regional Commuter Rail Service on the Funding of Commuter Rail Related Capital Improvements Staff, at this time, does not foresee any problems with designating the LACTC to act as agent for the purposes of processing applications for funding and handling requisite administrative requirements on behalf of the Commission. However, moving forward with an assurance the Commission will backfill any shortfall of funding created by the lack of future STIP or TCI funds must be brought to your attention. First, without closure of the right-of-way negotiations with the Santa Fe Railway Company it is difficult, at best, to predict the potential financial impact on our commuter rail program. Secondly, the costs identified in the Morrison-Knudsen study, and subsequently included in the SB 1402 Report, for both the Riverside to Orange and Los Angeles, and the Hemet to Los Angeles services required the RCTC to identify a funding program which involves the receipt of future TCI funding commitments. It must be noted the level of future TCI funds which are programmed in the commuter rail capital plan reflect a conservative estimate of what our County minimum is projected to be and with the recent action by the Legislature on the rail bonds (increased bond limit from $585 million to $1.3 billion and servicing the bonds as a loan from the Highway Account instead of hitting the TP&D) makes it more likely future TP&D funds will be available. Due to the Executive Director being on vacation and the late date (June 26, 1991) of receiving this request for action, staff is agendizing this item with a recommendation for "Discussion and possible action" and will continue to gather additional information to assist in formulating a recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and possible action. HS:sc attachment w,.n.Aa.a,w 407-10.,..oar ra,e.n. • • • • • • • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONS OF LOS ANGELES,RIVERSIDE, AND VENTURA COUNTIES, ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS REGARDING FUNDING OF COMMUTER RAIL RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the State of California by and among the following public agencies that are parties to this AGREEMENT: a) LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION b) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION c) VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION d) ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY e) SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS the County Transportation Commissions of Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura Counties, Orange County Transportation Authority, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments comprise the Southern California Regional Rail Authority; and WHEREAS the Southern California Regional Rail Authority was formed by the five counties to oversee the implementation and operation of the regional commuter rail program developed under Article 10, Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code (Senate Bill 1402 of 1990, Presley); and WHEREAS the five counties are committed to jointly acquire rights to use existing rail rights -of -way and to undertake capital improvements for the Southern California regional commuter rail program using state and local sources of funds; and WHEREAS the California Transportation Commission requires that full -funding packages for capital projects include commitments of any required local matching funds as well as assurance by local agencies that local funding will be provided to backfill for future state funds not forthcoming through the Transit Capital Improvement Program (TCI) or the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and WHEREAS, under Sections 14085 - 14088 of the Government Code (Chapter 1139 of the Statutes of 1975, SB 580) the California Department of Transportation is responsible for review and approval of Agency Certifications as to the policies, procedures and performance standards, and the construction management process of those agencies implementing capital projects using state funds; and WHEREAS the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is presently completing the SB 580 Agency Certification review of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission for purposes of certifying the capability of the agency to undertake projects using state funds; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County Transportation Commissions of Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura Counties, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments: 1. Commit any required local matching funds and assure that local funding will be provided to backfill for future state funds not forthcoming through the Transit Capital Improvement Program (TCI) or the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for implementation of capital projects comprising the Southern California regional commuter rail program. 2. Designate the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission to act as agent on behalf of the member agencies of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority responsible for reporting to the other member counties and the Authority on the status of funds, for processing applications for funding, and for handling procedural and administrative requirements including Caltrans' SB 580 Review. This AGREEMENT constitutes the full and complete agreement of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT by authorized officials on the dates indicated below. Date: LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION by Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION by Date: VENTURA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION by Date: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION by Date: SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS by •