Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 1, 1998 Administrative ReviewRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION htto://www.rctc.org 041720 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1998 2:00 P.M. AGENDA Naty Kopenhaver 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS. 3.. ADMINISTRATIVE/FINANCIAL ITEMS. 3A. Environmentally Sensitive Corridor Overview That the Commission direct staff. to work with Dangermond & Associates and Bechtel to develop scoping documents to address the CETAP study that would environmentally clear the future corridors required in Western Riverside County and identify sensitive habitat areas that should be preserved. Authorize an initial contract with Dangermond & Associates not to exceed $25,000 to cover the scoping effort using a standard RCTC consultant contract and bring back to the Commission a proposed scope of work, schedule of services, and project cost for review and approval. 3B. Washington and Sacramento Legislative Updates Overview The Legislative Committee will review and determine proposed RCTC positions at their April, 1998 meeting and submit them to the Commission's April 8, 1998 meeting. 3C. UCLA Symposium Overview Staff is seeking Commission approval to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, the "Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for October 1998 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center. 3D. Proclamation to Observe April 5-11, 1998 as National Records and Information Management Week Overview That the Commission endorse the proclamation in observance of April 5-11, 1998 as National Records and Information Week. Administrative Review April 1, 1998 Page 2 3E. Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports Overview Material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending February 28, 1998. This item is for receive and file. 3F. Anniversary Date/Benefits for Employee Hired From the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Overview Staff is recommending a waiver of the Commission's personnel policy regarding the anniversary date/benefits for an employee hired from the Western Riverside Council of Governments. 3G. Bi-County Legislative Staff Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission consider a proposal by the San Bernardino Associated Governments to hire a legislative staff person that would serve both SANBAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). 3H. Commissioners/Executive Director Report. Overview This item is placed on the agenda to provide Commissioners/Executive Director the opportunity to report on activities representing the Commission. 4. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/BICYCLE. 4A. FY 1998-99 Section 5310 Program - Cycle 31 Overview The FTA Section 5310 program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting agencies to meet the transit needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. The program provides funding on an 80% federal/20% local match basis. Five agencies in Riverside County have applied for funding available in the FY 1998-99 fiscal year. Staff recommends support of the Riverside County applications as ranked by the Local Review Committee. 4B. FY 1998 State Transit Assistance Incentive Bonus Overview This agenda item is requesting that the $241,852 in State Transit Assistance discretionary funds that had been set aside for use as an incentive bonus in FY 1998 be allocated on the population formula basis to each apportionment area, consistent with State TDA guidelines. Additionally, the Transit Operators are requesting that no 10% bonus be set aside for FY 1999 and that the full discretionary pot be allocated on the population basis. 00 Administrative Review April 1, 1998 Page 3 • • • 4C. Meditrans Services -Request for Measure A Western County Specialized Transit Capital Matching Funds. Overview That the Commission approve allocation of $50,900 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the Western Riverside County to Meditrans Services to be used as the required 20% federal match for the purchase of four replacement vehicles, one expansion vehicle and five mobile radio units. 4D. Transit Operator Responses to the Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations. Overview Mary Sue O'Melia will present an overview of the Transit Operator Performance Audit findings and recommendations. Additionally, the Commission is being asked to review the Operator responses and direct staff to monitor progress as appropriate. 4E. FY 1998-99 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Overview Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. Based on LTF revenues estimates for FY 1998-99, the 2% LTF funding for the SB 821 Program will be approximately $635,090. 5. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. 5A. Adoption of Resolution No. 98-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that an Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls along State Route 91, between Van Buren Blvd. and Mary St., in the City of Riverside." Overview That the Commission, following the public hearing, make the necessary findings stated above and adopt Resolution No. 98-003. 5B. Award Construction Contract for Sound Walls on State Route 91 between Van Buren Blvd. to Mary Street. Overview That the Commission award a construction contract for the project to the lowest responsive bidder. Staff's recommendation of the lowest responsive bidder will be presented to the Commission at the April 8, 1998 meeting. 0000u3 Administrative Review April 1, 1998 Page 4 5C. Approval to Advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Provide Support for Construction Support Services Related to Landscaping Projects on State Route 91 and Yuma Drive Interchange. Overview That the Commission direct Staff to advertise and select a qualified firm to provide Landscaping On -Call services to support the construction management activities related to the construction of landscaping for the State Route 91 Noise Walls and the Yuma Interchange. Following the selection process, Staff will negotiate a cost for the scope of services with the selected firm to deliver the required PS&E package. The results of the selection process, scope of services and cost to perform the work will be brought back to the Commission for review and approval. 5D. Completion of the State Route 79 Realignment Study through the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. Overview Staff is recommending that the Commission receive and file the State Route 79 Realignment Study and direct staff to study funding alternatives for the Project Study Report, Project Report, and Environmental Clearance Studies. 6. RAIL. 6A. Award Amendment No. 2 to F.R. Harris Agreement RO-9731. Overview Award Amendment No. 2 to F.R. Harris Agreement RO-9731 to provide additional compensation for additional plan check work, provide additional Construction Support Services for the new Electrical/Mechanical/Security System/CCTV Construction Support Inspection Services. 6B. Agreement with Amtrak for Special Train Ticketing Overview That the Commission approve the attached agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), subject to legal counsel review. 6C. Rail Program Update. Overview The most recent operating reports, and information regarding intercity and high speed passenger rail will be included in the agenda package for Commission review. This item is for receive and file. OI00O04 " " " Administrative Review April 1, 1998 Page 5 7. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES 7A. Cooperative Agreement Between the State of California Department of Transportation and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies for Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County. Overview The amendment to the cooperative agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation provides for an additional $4,500 in funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program for FY 1997-98, or an annual total of $500,100. The Riverside County SAFE must provide matching funds of $125,025 (20%). 8. ADJOURNMENT. 003005 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Environmentally Sensitive Corridor Planning Process At the September 10, 1997 Commission meeting, a presentation was made by Commissioner Tom Mullen, Mark Pisano the Executive Director of SCAG, and Pete Dangermond of Dangermond & Associates regarding a proposed process to environmentally clear future transportation corridors in Western Riverside County. The process proposed has been coined the Community & Environmental Approval Process (CETAP). Staff was directed to bring back an item for Commission consideration regarding funding such a. process. The Western Riverside County Area faces a critical transportation problem. The area lacks the regional transportation infrastructure necessary to: support economic development; protect existing environmentally sensitive habitats and; provide access to recreation opportunities into the 21� Century. There is limited funding to handle the sensitive nature of the Riverside's environmental demand for prudent methods of development that will address these concerns. Mark Pisano indicated the growth in population in the Western Riverside County Area and San Bernardino over the next 20 years will exceed 2,000,000 people with a projected increase in available jobs of only 800,000. Therefore, the percentage of commuters making one hour plus trips to neighboring Orange and L.A. Counties will double and triple over the next 20 years. The present transportation system within the region does not have sufficient capacity to handle the traffic movement necessary for the east/west commute. Pete Dangermond outlined the basic concepts to consider during a process to obtain approval of a plan that would provide a solution to transportation needs of the future while maintaining sensitivity to environmentally sensitive areas. The process would have to consider different modes such as freeways, light rail, heavy rail, special truck lanes, special truck/train relationships, parkways, arterials, etc. The environmental consequences of each alternative would be carefully evaluated during the process, and all stakeholders and interested parties would have to be included in order to obtain approval of the corridors and alternatives. Staff recommends that the Commission should move forward toward developing a plan to address the future corridor needs of Western Riverside County through a process which identifies acceptable improvements to existing corridors as well as new n 0000u6 corridors to be developed. In addition, sensitive environmental areas should be identified for future preservation efforts. If agreement can be obtained for the necessary corridor improvements and habitat preservation in a combined process, the time necessary to obtain all of the necessary approvals could be greatly reduced. A further advantage of having necessary corridor improvements identified and cleared, at least to a Tier I level of approval, would be that it would greatly assist future efforts to obtain funding for the needed improvements. Proceeding with this planning study at this time will allow us to coordinate this study with general plan updates of the County and Cities that are impacted, and the development of an Expenditure Plan for extending the local sales tax for transportation programs. Once the corridors and habitat areas have been identified and agreed upon, the impacted general plans will need to be updated to incorporate the appropriate land use and arterial feeder systems. The actual details of the cost and schedule of such an undertaking is unknown at this time. Staff recommends that a scoping effort be authorized by the Commission. Funding for the scoping effort could be obtained by redirecting TDA Planning funding currently remaining from the recently completed Corona By Pass study. Funding for the actual study could come from a combination of several sources including the 2% planning money established by SB45. Staff would propose working with Dangermond & Associates to prepare the scoping documents for this effort since they have been at the forefront of this effort to move the CETAP process forward. In addition, Bechtel can make Mike Davis, the previous Environmental Manager for RCTC, available to assist in the scoping effort. His services, through June 1998, can be covered under the current Bechtel Agreement with RCTC. Financial Assessment Project Cost Initial cost $25,000 for Dangermond & Associates Bechtel contract costs can be addressed within the current contract limits. Source of Funds TDA funds previously identified for the Corona By Pass Corridor Study. r +,•r. • . m i ‹. • rrr, L,:•', r+}; ` • i•• ., `�.: 'r `S•.r.:.4.:$,,,•:• : ,r. : } {..• • vr/. . r.}• Included in Fiscal Year Budget y Year Included in Program Budget y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required y Financial Impact Not Applicable • 003007 " " STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission direct: 1. Staff to work with Dangermond & Associates and Bechtel to develop scoping documents to address the CETAP study that would environmentally clear the future corridors required in Western Riverside County and identify sensitive habitat areas that should be preserved. 2. Authorization of an initial contract with Dangermond & Associates not to exceed $25,000 to cover the scoping efforts using a standard RCTC consultant contract. 3. Staff to bring back to the Commission a proposed scope of work, schedule of services, and project cost for review and approval. 003008 " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Washington and Sacramento Legislative Updates The Legislative Committee will review and determine proposed RCTC positions at their April, 1998 meeting and submit them to the Commission's April 8, 1998 meeting. This agenda item will include discussion and review of SB 1851, authored by Senator Dave Kelley, relating to the restructuring of RCTC and the ISTEA Reauthorization Projects proposed for Riverside County. 000009 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: UCLA Symposium Sponsorship Staff is again seeking Commission approval to co-sponsor the annual UCLA Symposium, scheduled for October 1998 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center. The requested sponsorship amount is $5,000. This amount was budgeted in the FY 1997/98 RCTC Budget. In return for our sponsorship RCTC is allocated three registrations which may be used by Commissioners and/or Commission staff. RCTC staff participates in planning each Symposium and is submitting the attached request and 1998 conference outline for Commission consideration. Financial Assessment Project Cost $5,000 Source of Funds :.?,+..}.:::}i :,){ " }{x ice} .:) } }k Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 97/98 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 97/98 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve sponsorship of the 1998 UCLA Symposium, the "Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," in the amount of $5,000. 000010 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Office Services Manager SUBJECT: Proclamation to Observe April 5-11, 1998 As National Records and Information Management Week • Starting in 1995 and every year since then, the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA), a professional, non-profit organization observes a week-long recognition of the importance of management of records and information to every business, organization and government agency. The primary purpose of ARMA is education in the field of records and information management. To date, there are 150 chapters in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and Jamaica. Members represent public as well as private entities. To date, there are 150 chapters in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and Jamaica. Members represent public as well as private entities. This year, April 5 through 11, 1998 is the National Records and Information Management Week. The attached proclamation will be displayed at the Upland Inland Empire Chapter of ARMA International's meeting observing the NRIM week. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Endorse the proclamation in observance of April 5-1 1, 1998 as National Records and Information Week. nk 000011 Ac1amam Gkeikaance • 4741.15-11, >998 /llrf�,nal /leco4ds and 9n�,iulialioa /19aha9emem,i 'Gt/ee4 Zt1 eRg4S, the inanafement o/ eeo is and u 04.ina,ion cn/Iieal euvuy 4aysinetis, and 9ovenament afeeteAt to /ac , the conrplexities a/ competition, crvstonteA se4# a and ; and 2tJJeRe 4s, tech`u to s k s,t.4u y *mat/. sat/. ire &X12aadiaf the amounts o/ inio4onation that can 4e a qai ed with inc'eased Io#zge itry; and kLgeRms, the need to use inio4ination to cioie valve and piaa 41/Jai al4 a a chi slimy Awe in tadary s u d; and • 2tJjeRms, .4014 4.4,14,and i4o zm tion rs necetisa,uy red w&ioui e and liaklitty as well as ieft contialiance with glofiai sue; and fiLlieRms, the &ova e C ounky (74anspfyitaiioa Conunmsion should'iecogynile the impo/dant se4fiice pelimined4�ileco4d4and44matioitp4op4ionak /VG?1J `I eRR�GRR, 9, Sipe of o B64 &skit, Chiai4man o/ the Ri le eo��nt�y (74 , declrvie 4psil5--11, 1998 as /Vational Reewids and 9� u�tion 2t1ee4 and 9 meow/lave othe3 pa4.lic arlencivs i 4ecognile this went. G',monission • /Va%y Kopenhauvi, C'le o/ tie C'onusivs'sion Suf ialson &.4 BusteA, G;'laviman Rioenside C oa#t1 y (74ansfuystaidem 000012 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value. approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending February 28,1998. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. Attachments 000013 " " " " PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Park 'n' Ride Lot Final Design (R09738) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ. /R O W (R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337,9735, 9329,9737) Project is Co mplete. Perfo rming project close- out tasks and consultant performing on -going environmental inspections. SUB TOTAL ROUTE 79 RO UTE 111 PROJECTS " (R0 9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635 SUBTO TAL ROUTE 111 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design and construction (R09101, 9337,9828) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Corona Bypass Study (R09736) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-216 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTI C-115 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY /R OJECTS BUDGET REP ORT BY R OUTE COMMISSION C ONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO D ATE ALLOCATI ON F ebruary 28, 1998 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE $39,697 339,097, $9,696,360 19,696,$$0 $6,700,115 $6,700,115: *2,608,424 $2,300,000 *169,220 ;5,077,6.44 $6,726,504 ::$8,726,611.4: *39,697 $39,097 *9,696,360 09,996,380 $6,438,616 36,438,816 *2,539,519 32,300,000 $169,220 $5,008,739 *5,878,173 $5,878,170: Page 1 of 3 100.0% 100A% 100.0 % 101):0% 96 .1 % 96=:7% 97 .4% 100 .0% 100 .0% 9864' 87.4% 87.4%. 00 $8,482 $8.482 *128,435 $39,407 $167,842 $1,704 01,704 *39,570 $39,570 $9,627,810 09,127,810 $4,993,205 $4,993,208 $727,474 $1,229,442 $135,095 02,092,0'11 $5,697,757 85,697,767' 99 .7% 991%. 99 .3 % 993% 77.6% 77.6% 28.6 % 53 .5% 79.8% 41.8% 96 .9 % PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PRO GRAM Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428) Yuma IC Constr. M gmt (R09631) Yuma IC Construction (R09636) (Pro ject is complete - doing co ntract clo se-o ut) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE. PROJECT & CONSTR. MGM T SERV. (R09800) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PROG RAM PLAN & SERVICES Special Study (ITS Plan - R09727) SUBTOTAL PRO GRAM PLA N & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDEANCENT. PRO GRAM (RO 9801 thru 9812) (9701-9712) (9740-9742) SUBTOTAL PARK• N.RIDE CO MMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (RO 0000, 9820,9843,9845) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL .... ...... . ...... . .. ..... . ........ .... . . TOTALS RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGIP H PROJECTS BUDGET REPO RT BY ROUTE COMMISSIO N AUTHORIZED ALLOCATIO N $1,294,000 $1,023,500 $6,600,000 $8817,6011: $1,974,813 $1,974,813 $450,000 $450. ,0011 $1,683,280 51,683,2881 .... .. .... .. .. ..... $1,433,202 $9,207,502 $10,640,704'. $51,906,$17' C ONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE $1,294,000 $988,050 $6,304,649 $8,586.,898; $1,904,813 $1,904,813: $450,000 $450.000 $1,683,280 $1,683,28a $1,292,354 $8,226,000 $9,518,354 $49,204,731: Page 2 of 3 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FO R % EXPENDITURES AGAINST AUTH. M ONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION February 28, 1998 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE 100.0% 96. 5% 95.5% 98.3% 96.5% 8S5% 100. 0% 100.0% 100.0% 190.0 90.2 % 89.3 % 88.5% .8% $4,434 $4,434' se 51,966 $K,a66 5194,777 $194,771 $41,323 $34,518 $75,841 3458,046 $1,284,672 $988,455 56,259,649 $8.532,776: 5745,149 045,149 $322,575 5322,575: 5808,851 8808.851: $1,067,720 $486,444 31,554,184 $34,413,868 99 .3% 100.0% 99.3 % 39.1 % 40* 71.7% 71 7% 48.1% 46.17E 82.6% 5.9 % 16.3%. 69.9% CITY OF MURRIETA Loan Agreement 1-15/1-215 Interchange improvements (R09334) (Loan Agreeme nt is Terminated) SUBTOTAL MURRIETA LOAN CITY OF CANYON LAKE Final Design and Construction of Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422) SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN CITY OF CO RONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interc hanges & Sto rm drainage structure SUBTO TAL CITY OF CORONA CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 232,187,66$0 $0 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and no t related to fiscal year budgets. '"' To tal advances of $1.377M represents the total Measure "A" previous advances under this agreement . This amt. was paid in full by City of Murrieta November 1995. (1) • RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHWAY/L OCAL STREETS & R OADS PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR T OTAL OUTSTANDING % EXPENDITURES PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" L OAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION CO MMITMENT February 28,1998 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED C OMMIT . $17,000,000 $17,000,000 61,600,000 $1,000,000 $5,212,623 $s,212 623i $1,936,419 61,324,500 0 0 $1,377,000 :i$1,317 000 $1,600,000 $1,600:1100 $5,212,623 5,212623 31,936,419 $1,324,500 $0 s0 61,419,830 $1;419,030 $4,487,011 $4,487,011 $1,863,806 61,274,833 $0 0 $0 $0I $0 8 .1% 100.0 % 100.0% 100 .0% 100:6% 100.0% 100 .0% TOTALS $5094,027 $16,644,689 $4903009 $13,048,489 100 .0% 51.4 % Page 3 of 3 Status Mo. Ending 02/28/98 " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Anniversary Date/Benefits for Employee Hired From the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) This item relates to Carolyn S. Bailey, a former WRCOG employee. On October 30, 1997, Carolyn Bailey transferred as an employee of WRCOG to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. She was told by Wes McDaniel, Interim WRCOG Executive Director, and Jack Reagan, RCTC Executive Director, that she would the be first employee to transfer to the Commission as part of the proposed functional staff integration of the two agencies. At that time, the Executive Directors agreed and assured Carolyn Bailey when she transfers to RCTC that she would carryover her years of service, accrued sick leave and vacation time, and vesting in RCTC's 401(a) and 457. She would not be considered as a new employee and, as such, would not be required to go through a probationary period. Thus, she would retain her WRCOG anniversary date. The above action would require a waiver of the Commission's personnel policy as such provision is not envisioned in the personnel policies and procedures. Approval of this would only have minimal cost to RCTC as WRCOG has indicated that they will pay for the vacation and sick leave accrued by Carolyn Bailey at WRCOG until the date of transfer to RCTC on October 30, 1997. This is being forwarded to the Personnel Committee in order to follow through with the Interim WRCOG and Past RCTC's Executive Directors' promises to Carolyn Bailey prior to the departure of Wes McDaniel as WRCOG's Interim Executive Director. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve that the anniversary date for Carolyn S. Bailey as January 18, 1993 with the corresponding accrual of sick leave and vacation time, and vesting provisions of 401(a) and 457 and, therefore, has passed probationary period. 2. That the vacation and sick leave time accrued by Carolyn Bailey during her WRCOG employment be the responsibility of WRCOG. 000017 " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS BOB BUSTER, ALEX CLIFFORD, DICK KELLY) 1:30 P.M. Wednesday, April 1, 1998 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Riverside AGENDA 3. CaII to Order. 4. Public Comments. 5. Anniversary Date/Benefits for Employee Hired from the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Overview This item is to follow through the promises to Carolyn S. Bailey by the past RCTC Executive Director and the Interim WRCOG Executive Director. 6. Bi-County Legislative Staff Overview To approve the proposal for a bi-county legislative staff person that would serve both SANBAG and RCTC. 7. Adjournment. 000018 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Bi-County Legislative Staff Last year, Louise Givens, the Commission's Assistant Director -Intergovernmental Affairs left for a similar position with the Orange County Transportation Authority. The Assistant Director position was left vacant. There is a proposal by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) hiring a legislative staff person that would serve both SANBAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC would pay for half of salary, benefits, and travel expenses. Doing so, would reduce administrative services staff cost for both counties. An example of a bi-county effort is the Rideshare Program. SANBAG contracts with RCTC to have Marilyn Williams to administer for its rideshare program. I will provide additional information how such a proposal would be beneficial to RCTC at the meeting. 000019 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1998-99 Section 5310 Program -Cycle 31 The FTA Section 5310 program provides capital grants for the purpose of assisting private nonprofit corporations and public agencies, under certain circumstances, in providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. The program provides funding for approved projects on an 80% federal/20% local match basis. Section 5310 funds are awarded through a statewide competition with approximately $5.0 million available for programming. A Local Review Committee (LRC) in each County quantitatively evaluates all applications submitted for their area, ranks them, then submits the scores to Caltrans Headquarters for the statewide competition. The Commission has utilized a sub -committee of our Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council as the Local Review Committee (LRC) for Riverside County. For Cycle 31 the LRC will be comprised of Shunna Austin, Riverside Transit Agency; Lucia Moran, City of La Quinta; Lori Nickel, City of.Moreno Valley; Fortunato Penilla, Inland Regional Center; and myself. We received five applications for evaluation in Riverside County. The LRC is scheduled to score the projects on March 31. After the evaluation is completed, all applicants will be notified of the project scores and given the opportunity to appeal. The timeline for this process will be quite tight since Commission approved scores must be submitted to Caltrans by May 8. Since the Commission's May meeting is after this date, all approvals must be completed at our April meeting. The listing of the final scores for each project will be included in the final agenda packet. The Section 5310 process requires that the local transportation commission allow public notification, participation and comment on the proposed program of projects. All applicants will be notified of the Commission meeting. The Commission is also required to include the awarded projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan and certify by resolution that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. 0000 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Adopt the FY 1998-99 FTA Section 5310 Cycle 31 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, and 3) Certify by Resolution No. 98-XX that the projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. • • • 000021 " " " RESOLUTION NO. 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Local Review Committee of Riverside County ("Committee") is charged with reviewing applications for Federal Transit Act Section 5310 funding for transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Committee has received requests for XX projects from five agencies in Riverside County; and WHEREAS the Committee has scored and ranked each such request; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency ("RTPA"), adopted the scores and ranking of the applications as determined by the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Section 5310 process, as interpreted in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1 C, Section 5, requires the RTPA to include in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program each request awarded Section 16 funding by Caltrans and to certify by resolution that the locally evaluated projects are consistent with the local area regional transportation plan. NOW, THEREFORE the Commission does hereby certify and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Commission has determined that the locally evaluated projects 000022 approved by the Committee for Section 5310 funding (as described in Exhibit "A" attached) are consistent with the Riverside County regional transportation plan. Section 2. Each of the projects awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans will be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted for Riverside County. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 1998. Robert 0. Buster, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 000023 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1998 State Transit Assistance Incentive Bonus In December 1995, the Commission approved a policy to allocate 90% of the State Transit Assistance (STA) funds based on population to each apportionment area, consistent with State TDA guidelines. It was also approved to set aside 10% of the funds off the top for allocation on an incentive award basis. In FY 1998, $241,852 was set aside for this incentive award and the Commission was advised that the transit operators would be convened to develop a proposal on how to award the bonus this year. The operators met on March 16 and they are recommending that this 10% bonus money be thrown back into the pot and allocated on the population formula basis as is done with the balance of the discretionary STA funds. This would make $184,436 available to the Western County area (which would be further divided 80/20 between bus and rail per Commission policy), $53,356 available in the Coachella Valley, and $4,060 in the Palo Verde Valley,- They also are recommending that no 10% bonus be set aside for FY 1999; they would prefer that the full discretionary pot be allocated on the population basis so that they can more appropriately plan for the use of the funds in FY 1999. Financial Assessment Project Cost $241,852 Source of Funds State Transit Assistance Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 98 Budget Adjustment Required N • Financial Impact Not Applicable 003024 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Allocate the $241,852 in State Transit Assistance discretionary funds using the population formula basis as was done with the balance of the discretionary funds for FY 1998, and 2) That the entire discretionary pot of State Transit Assistance funds available in FY 1999 be allocated based on population to each apportionment area, consistent with State TDA guidelines. 000025 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Meditrans Services --Request for Measure A Western County Meditrans Services provides inter -city transportation service for seniors and persons with disabilities from the South County to Riverside and Loma Linda, as well as service between Hemet/San Jacinto and the South County. They were recently notified by Caltrans that they have been approved for $254,500 in funding under the FTA Section 5310 program (formally known as Section 16) for four replacement vehicles and one expansion vehicle, all with mobile radio units. The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the capital project ($203,600). Meditrans Services is requesting that the required 20% match ($50,900) be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the western Riverside County. This request is in compliance with the RCTC adopted policies for the Measure A Specialized Transit Program and staff recommends approval of this request. Financial Assessment Project Cost $50,900 Source of Funds Measure ' h' A Western County Specialized Transit :...::::..: of " ." ::.:: },}��4t. ," }i?; ;}��" " v,k:z" : }:." }i,: :..tip:i." " . . Included in Fiscal Year Budget y Year, Included in Program Budget y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n Financial Impact Not Applicable 000026 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve allocation of $50,900 in Measure A Specialized Transit Funds available in the Western Riverside County to Meditrans Services to be used as the required 20% federal match for the purchase of four replacement vehicles, one expansion vehicle and five mobile radio units. • • 00^02i " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transit Operator Responses to the Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations At last month's meeting, the Commission accepted the Transit Operator Performance Audit Reports prepared by O'Melia Consulting with the understanding that a presentation on the reports would be made at the April meeting. Mary Sue O'Melia will provide an overview of all the transit operator audit findings and recommendations for improvement. An Executive Summary is being prepared and will be included in the final agenda packet to facilitate your review of the reports. The final performance audit reports were forwarded to the operators with a request that they provide the Commission with written responses to each of the audit recommendations. These responses are expected from the operators on March 31 and will be included in the final agenda packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission review and discuss the Transit Operator Performance Audit findings, recommendations, and Operator responses and direct staff to monitor progress as appropriate. 00utj " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1998-99 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1. All cities and the County are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals (all school districts in the county are also notified and asked to coordinate project(s) submissions with either their local city or the county transportation department). The Commission's SB 821 Program Policies, project application and selection criteria, and Caltrans' Highway Design Manual are also provided with the notification. 2. The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Based on LTF revenues estimates for FY 1998-99, the 2% LTF funding for the SB 821 Program will be approximately $635,090. In addition to these funds, any unapportioned carryover (receipts of LTF revenues in excess of the FY 1997-98 apportionment) will not be known until the close of the 1997-98 fiscal year. Also, there may be an unidentified amount of carryover funds from projects in the current program as a result of funds which were not claimed or because time extensions were not granted prior to the expiration of the FY 1997-98 SB 821 funding authorization. 000029 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission direct staff to notify the cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated FY 1998-99 SB 821 funding available and request that they submit project applications. • • • 003030 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1,1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 98-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls along State Route 91, between Van Buren Blvd. and Mary St., in PURPOSE Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a resolution of necessity authorizing the acquisition of temporary construction easements by eminent domain generally described in Exhibit "A" for a Measure "A" project to construct Sound Walls adjacent to Route 91 between, Van Buren Blvd. and Mary St., in the City of Riverside. The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way acquisition agent for the Commission in this acquisition. Approximately 60 temporary construction easements are required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for the County have successfully negotiated fees to acquire temporary construction easements for approximately 47 of the 60 required. It may be necessary to acquire some or all of the remaining 13 temporary construction easements described in Exhibit "A" by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is the adoption of a resolution of necessity. Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, notice and reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (3) whether the acquisition of the temporary construction easements are 000031 necessary for the project; (4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been made. Note: The value of the property is not an issue of the hearing. The notice must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the adoption of the resolutions, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that failure to file a written report to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The required notice was mailed to the property owners on March 20, 1998. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION In August of 1990 the Commission approved Agreement No. RO-9101 with URS Greiner for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services, for the Route 91, Magnolia to SR 60/1-215 Interchange Median Widening Project. During the initial project study stage it became apparent that a full standard project, from Magnolia to the SR 60/1-215 Interchange, would result in significant environmental impacts, extensive right-of-way acquisition and an EIS/EIR requirement. Therefore, in May of 1991 the Commission approved Amendment #1 to RO-9101 with URS Greiner to expand their scope of services to include a range of alternatives from reduced to full standard, focusing on a project that could be implemented in the short term. In June of 1991 Caltrans, RCTC, the City of Riverside, the County of Riverside, and FHWA agreed to move forward with a HOV median widening project with reduced project limits from Magnolia to Mary Streets in the City of Riverside. During the design of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project there was a disagreement between the City of Riverside and Caltrans concerning the location, height, and esthetics of the sound walls to be built. There was no disagreement on the need for the sound walls. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the project in March of 1992 indicated that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. In an effort not to delay the construction of the roadway improvements until this sound wall issue was resolved, Caltrans, the City of Riverside, and RCTC mutually agreed to proceed with the roadway improvements separately and delay the construction of the sound walls to a latter date. The construction of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project was complete and open to traffic in the Spring of 1995. In April and May of 1996, both the City of Riverside and RCTC agreed on the selection of the Phase 1 Sound Walls between Magnolia to Mary streets. The following Table lists the locations of each of the Sound Walls included in Phase I. • • • 000032 " " " Wall # General Location " For Specific Location see exhibit contained in Dec. 1995 Greiner report. Proposed Construction Height 35 N Side -- Tyler to Van Buren 12' 77 N Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 78 S Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 149 N Side -- Adams mid way to Jefferson 10'-12' 221 N Side -- Madison to Mary 14' 183 (Phase II) N Side  Madison to Jefferson (Commission authorized advanced funding at 1/14/98 meeting) 10' At the May 21, 1997 (special meeting) of RCTC, the Commission and Caltrans agreed to advance the delivery of Sound Wall #35, between Van Buren and Tyler streets, which was included in the Phase 1 list. The construction contract has been issued for Sound Wall #35 and construction will be completed in mid April of 1998. The remaining walls required the acquisition of approximately sixty (60) temporary construction easements. At this time there are approximately thirteen (13) temporary construction easements that have not been obtained for various reasons. Construction can not begin until all of the temporary construction easements have been obtained. The temporary construction easements are usually situated along the back or side of the property. The easements are a rectangular strip of property, 2 feet to 5 feet in width, and run the full length of the back or side of the property. The existing property fence will be replaced by the sound wall and all other existing connecting fences will be extended and attached to the new sound wall. The sound walls are to be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation on the property right- of-way line necessitating the need for an easement to allow for construction activities to clear the construction area of vegetation, erect temporary fencing, tear down existing property fences, construct the new sound wall, and finally extend existing side fences to the new sound wall. The property owners will be given a 30 day written notice by the contractor prior to start of construction. The temporary construction easements will be obtained for a period of one (1) year starting on the 31 day after the contractors written notice. 000033 DISCUSSION The following addresses the four findings that are required for adoption of the resolution of necessity: (1) THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. The criteria are based in the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) in the peak noise hour of the day. The FHWA has set 67 dBA LEQ as the noise level that is acceptable on the exterior of a residence adjacent to a highway facility. All new highway projects must study the potential of increased noise that may occur due to the construction of the new highway facility. This study must include present and projected noise levels that would occur with and without the construction of the new highway facility. Any future noise levels that exceed 67 dBA LEQ must be mitigated. The mitigation usually requires the construction of a sound wall that would reduce the future noise levels to within the acceptable FHWA stated limits. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the Route 91, Magnolia to Mary Project, in March of 1992, indicates that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time, the future noise levels, with and without the project, far exceeded the accepted noise limits, and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. The construction of the sound walls are required to reduce the present noise levels and the projected future noise levels to an acceptable level. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. (2) THE PROJECT IS PLANNED OR LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE GREATEST PUBLIC GOOD AND THE LEAST PRIVATE INJURY The design of each sound wall has been done in such a manner to obtain a balance between maximizing the noise abatement potential of the sound wall while minimizing the potential visual and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent property owners. The placement, height, shape, color, and contour of each sound wall was studied and the final design of each sound wall was mutually agreed upon by Caltrans, RCTC, and the City of Riverside. The project has been planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (3) THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT The sound walls are to be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation on the property right-of-way line necessitating the need for the temporary construction easements. The temporary construction easements will allow for construction activities to clear the construction area of vegetation, erect temporary fencing, tear down existing property fences, construct the new sound wall, and finally extend existing side fences to the new sound wall. Without the temporary 000034 " " " construction easements it would not be feasible to construct the new sound walls. The temporary construction easements are required for the project. (4) THE OFFERS OF JUST COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE Government Code Section 7267.2 requires that an offer of the fair market value of the temporary construction easement to be acquired be made to the owner. Appraisals were prepared on our behalf, and offers of the fair market value were made to the individual property owners. None of the remaining 13 property owners have accepted the offer to date. The adoption of the resolution of necessity does not preclude continuing negotiations with the property owners. Financial Assessment Project Cost $200,000 (Total cost for acquisition of all 60 temporary construction easements required for the project.) Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Measure "A" Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission, following the public hearing, make the necessary findings as stated above and adopt Resolution No. 98-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Walls along State Route 91, between Van Buren Blvd. and Mary St., in the City of Riverside." 000035 " EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 91. VAN BUREN BLVD. TO MARY ST. SOUND WALL PROJECT REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS That Have Not Been Obtained through Negotiations PARCEL GRANTOR SOUND WALL No. 1 2 16735-1 & 16736-1 PAUL & KARL MUELLER SW #77 3 16749-1 EUGENE BRAUNSTEIN SW #78 4 16756-1 SUZANNE HYDE SW #78 5 16769-1 ROSE HERRERA SW #78 6 16772-1 ELIAS CHAVEZ SW #78 7 16774-1 FERNANDO & ANTONIA ROMO SW #149 8 16780-1 MADISON PARK SW #221A 9 16784-1 ANDREW McCORMICK SW #221A 10 16785-1 JASON LUNA SW #221A 11 16786-1 MICHAEL & DEBRA KOPENHEFER SW #221A 12 16788-1 ROBERT & GLORIA ALVARADO SW #221A 13 16792-1 ELIO PALACIOS SW #221A " 000036 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract for Sound Walls on State Route 91 In April and May of 1996, both the City of Riverside and RCTC agreed on the selection of the Phase 1 Sound Walls between Magnolia to Mary streets. At the September 1996 Commission meeting, the Commission approved Amendment 4 to agreement RO 9101 with URS Greiner to prepare the plans, specifications and construction estimate (PS&E) for the Phase 1 Sound Walls. The following Table lists the locations of each of the Sound Walls included in Phase I. Wall # General Location For Specific Location see exhibit contained in Dec. 1995 Greiner report. Proposed Construction Height 35 N Side -- Tyler to Van Buren 12' 77 N Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 78 S Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 149 N Side -- Adams mid way to Jefferson 10'-12' 221 N Side -- Madison to Mary 14' 183 (Phase II) N Side -- Madison to Jefferson (Commission authorized advanced funding at 1/14/98 meeting) 10' At the May 21, 1997 (special meeting) of RCTC, the Commission and Caltrans agreed to advance the delivery of Sound Wall #35, between Van Buren and Tyler streets, which was included in the Phase 1 list. The construction contract has been issued for Sound Wall #35 and will complete construction in mid April of 1998. The remaining walls required the acquisition of approximately sixty (60) temporary construction easements and construction could not begin until all of the temporary construction easements have been obtained. Acquisition of the temporary construction easements have progressed ahead of schedule and the few that have not been obtained will be obtained through the eminent domain process. 000037 At the January 14, 1998 meeting of RCTC, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for receipt of construction bids for the Phase I Sound Wall Project. The current due date for all bids to be received by RCT is March 31, 1998. Pending the finalization of all temporary construction easements required for the project, the bids will be opened on March 31, 1998, reviewed, and evaluated prior to the April 8, 1998 Commission meeting. Staff will make its recommendation of the lowest responsive bidder to the Commission, for its approval, at the April 8, 1998 Commission meeting. This project will take approximately 8 months to construct after notice to proceed. Financial Assessment Project Cost $4,600,000 ($3,000,000 + $850,000 + 5750,000) Construction and landscaping costs for Phase I walls + Wall 183 from Phase 11 Source of Funds Measure "A" •'�:. +iz�°f�rfj�`�s':';i:>:f ` �.;•:;:.�,.,k. • N. ;;: • :{::'. v .:. .:..:.�:•::...:::•::. ;: �i 3}..: •. i:•: t.�y •. . . . 'QY' :': •.;; ••.. \•.::.'::mss•••}'.,'i! � ,�.:.. • .. .. ..: : . .':4S '•'•• : .'.:�: i ,�...•.ucx.•rX',•'•:,'�••'.,•'. •• .:S • :. .. n....::, •.v{. ::•: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET/FINANCE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission award a construction contract for the project to the lowest responsive bidder. Staff's recommendation of the lowest responsive bidder will be presented to the Commission at the April 8, 1998 meeting. • • 000033 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval to Advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Provide Support for Construction Support Services Related to Landscaping Projects on State Route 91 and Yuma Drive Interchange. Several major landscaping projects will soon be under construction that will require construction management services by RCTC. These projects include the State Route 91 Noise Walls and the Yuma Drive Interchange. The majority of the construction management oversight will be provided by Bechtel. However, based on recent Caltrans requirements, the State will require that the landscaping construction contracts have a landscape architect available to oversee critical components of the landscaping installation. Staff is therefore recommending that RCTC select a firm that can provide the on -call landscape architect to full fill these requirements in a similar fashion as RCTC selected firms to provide material testing and surveying services to support the construction management activities. A request for proposals (RFP) will be prepared and distributed to all interested firms. A selection panel will be formed to review the proposals received. The panel will be composed of members from Caltrans, the City of Riverside, RCTC and Bechtel. After the top ranked firm has been identified based on qualifications, RCTC Staff will negotiate the scope of work to be performed with the selected firm. The results of the selection panel and the scoping negotiations will be brought back for Commission for review and approval. Financial Assessment Project Cost To be determined from RFP and selection panel scoping negotiations Source of Funds Measure A - funded from the $15.98 million currently designated for the Phase 11 Noise wall project on SR 91 between Magnolia to Mary Streets and funds allocated for the Yuma Drive interchange Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget y Year Programmed 2000 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n Financial Impact Not Applicable 000039 v a r.rr nc• viwawic111LJM 1 WIN: That the commission direct Staff to advertise and select a qualified firm to provide Landscaping On -Call services to support the construction management activities related to the construction of landscaping for the State Route 91 Noise Walls and the Yuma Drive Interchange. Following the selection process, Staff will negotiate a cost for the scope of services with the selected firm to deliver the required PS&E package. The results of the selection process, scope of services and cost to perform the work will be brought back to the Commission for review and approval. • • 000040 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Completion of the State Route 79 Realignment Study through the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. At the January 8, 1997 RCTC meeting, the Commission allocated an expenditure of $75,000 to perform a route realignment study for the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. CH2MHill was selected to perform the study. The study has been complete and a final report is available. The table of contents of the report, a map depicting the study area, and copies of the studied alternatives are attached for your information. Copies of the 250 + page report with fold out maps is available to the public for $30 plus an additional $5 for shipping if required. Copies of the report were provided to Caltrans, County of Riverside, City of Hemet, and City of San Jacinto. Copies of the report are available for the Commissioners on request. Three public meetings were advertised and held during the project study. Two meetings were held at the beginning at the City of Hemet and at the Winchester Home Owners Association. The final public meeting and presentation was held as a part of a San Jacinto City Council meeting. The project team included representatives from Caltrans, the City of Hemet, the City of San Jacinto, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, County of Riverside, and RCTC. The proposed roadway cross section is shown on Figure 3 (attached) and is 134 feet which will provide for an initial 4 lanes (two in each direction) with a 5 foot inside shoulder and 10 foot outside shoulder. The remaining 56 feet provides for a 16 foot median and two 20 foot buffers between the outside shoulders and the proposed right-of-way line. The study recommends that an additional 25 foot future set back be provided through the development process on both sides of the corridor. The above cross section will allow for future expansion of State Route 79 to six lanes. Various alternatives were evaluated throughout the study area shown in the attached map. After eliminating the alternatives that were not deemed to be feasible, the study focused on three primary alternatives in the south portion of the study area through the City of Hemet and three alternatives in the north portion of the study area through the City of San Jacinto. The estimated costs for the proposed realignments are summarized below: 000 041 Summary of Costs for SR 79 realignment ($ Millions) Location Lowest Cost (at grade separation used where possible) Ultimate (includes all proposed grade separations) Hemet Area $41 - $57 $70 - $85 San Jacinto Area $19 - $27 $37 -$53 The next stage of project development would be to perform a Project Study Report or a combined Project Study Report and Project Report. If the Project Report is undertaken, the environmental clearance could be obtained at the same time. A portion of this process could be combined with the Community & Environmental Transportation Approval Process (CETAP) process discussed separately in this agenda, or it could move forward as a stand-a-Ione process. Funding for the next phase of studies could come from various sources including federal demonstration funds requested by the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto in the next authorization of ISTEA or the 2% planning money included with SB 45. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and file State Route 79 Realignment Study. 2. Direct Staff to study funding alternatives for the Project Study Report, Project Report, and environmental clearance studies and report back to the Commission with a proposed plan of action. • • 000042 " Final State Route 79 Realignment Study Report " Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Authority In Cooperation with Caltrans District 8 County of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Hemet JANUARY 1998 la CN2IMHILL IOW 3 Hutton Centre, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 SCOJ973580001.DOC/1 00 043 Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Background 2 3.0 Need and Purpose 3 Figure 1- Location Map 4 Figure 2 - Vicinity Map 5 3.1 Analysis of Traffic Conditions — Existing 6 Table 1 Existing Conditions, Daily Level of Service Summary 7 3.2 Analysis of Traffic Condition — Future 7 Table 2 Year 2001 Conditions Daily Level of Service Summary 8 Table 3 Operating Levels and Deficiencies (no build) 8 Table 4 Improvements Necessary to Attain the Route Concept 8 3.3 Accident Analysis 9 Table 5 Actual and Expected Accident Rates 9 4.0 Alternatives 9 Alternative A-0: No Build 10 Alternative "A" (South Segment) 10 Alternative "B" (South Segment) 11 Alternative "C" (South Segment) 11 Alternative "D" (South Segment) 12 Alternative "E" (North Segment) 12 Alternative "F" (North Segment) 13 Alternative "G" (North Segment) 14 Alternative "H" (North Segment) 14 SCO/973580001.DOC/1 00a44 " Contents, Continued Cost Summary of Alternatives 15 Figure 3 - Typical Cross Section 16 Table 6 Cost Summary of Proposed Alternatives  Ultimate Build Out Condition 17 Table 7 Cost Summary of Proposed Alternatives (Interim Condition) 18 Table 8 Cost Summary of Proposed Interchanges/Bridges Only 19 5.0 Environmental Constraints ... 20 Biological Resources 20 Floodplain Involvement 23 Hazardous Waste 24 Socioeconomic Impacts 24 6.0 Funding 25 7.0 Schedule 25 Exhibits: Alternatives "A" to "H" Appendix I: Public Meeting Minutes Appendix II: Detailed Quantities and Construction Cost Appendix III: Comments Received from Reviewing Agencies Caltrans County of Riverside City of Hemet City of San Jacinto Winchester Homeowners Association SR79_RPT.doc 00045 Contents, Continued Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Osborne Development Corporation Lewis Lohr Westra Family Trust SR79 RPT.doc • • VC 046 ALESSANDRO BLVD. J a c W PERRIS W N NUEVO R0. C/44414, RAMONA EXPRESSWAY T W N e RpiA-RO4 CYN. Q�• CD m NEWPORT R0. To interstate 15 area I oa. OOn CORRIDOR STUDY L►Mr7s� / R-74 WINCHESTER / GRAND AVE./ / 1 HOLLAND / / / To Interstate 10 .e 0 cc 1 \ SAN / JACINTO i // gn ESPLANADE / /r, / /f / / ti c2 To Interstate 15 /— Cf AVE 0 z S.R. 74-79 HEMET N z N STETSON AVE. PROJECT AREA LOCATION STATE ROUTE 79 RE-ALIGHNMENT PROJECT FIGURE 1 006047 CORRIDOR STUDY LIMITS WINCHES COMMUN VICINITY MAP • STATE ROUTE 79 RE -ALIGNME NT STUDY FIGURE 2 000 048 5 R EVISED BY x 30 14 se M NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RIGHT OF WAY RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT OFFICE . C) C :) CAIEGEND C.) 0 ` `,` s�I 1 II IW; �qt II �- 5: I. i;. %I. _ _-I i ' 1 - - W '•, tee. '1 1!,'':, Idlid \,-,A-- ---- - ---' i i J ,, %`\ i I I I PROPOSED CENTERLINE SR 19 i --•— PROPOSED R/W F. -- . _.. .. ._.__.._.__._.-- - - • - PROPOSED CENTERLINE FUTURE. ROAD PROPOSED BRIDGE 1 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET • ' • r • \ ' I'; I c '\' 'I IL '11 II I j!' 1 I! i liiil r, I II •. I i'IjI,- .I II! _ II iI - ---11-- - _i.-,I.. • I II 'if . I ; i I I l r—-' ' 1; 1 PITTEIRSO� AVENUE I—' I I I I `�' —• is Ii_ �I �` ` ,I i I I ! —I �. I I I _1._!_ II -; I �. I- - LH � I I� -- I I ,I` I I I 1.—I - - - I w 1 �. �� 111 IW < II =_.z. ' II 11'1 i — 1 I • rr -'II --_:=DIr 4L, II I ` ---II % I SIST COUNTS 0/ RI Raze 1,011:14011,1 111. .X/X . X 1 0E O.STERCO CIVIL ENCINEEA PLAINS MIA OW OATS CHIN HILL 3 MUTTON CENTRE DR.. •200 SANTA ANA. CA 92707 • j; • WINCHESTER I !ROAD ;11 IIt i . I ;; ,il RNATIVE A MIR ME. *SOO ' 1 -1P NOTEI FOR ACCURATE DATAr WAY A .. SEE RIGHT Cf WAY RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT OTFICE. C.D 01 1740UEDUCT—R) 1! i-1-4------'"''----t- =-1 ._ _ } 1 t 1 - A\sue 1 \ i________ _ I n I ; \\ 1 �\ SAN OIECO CANAL `— i.l _ --T- ' ----� L_ 1 \\.\ I `!\ \I j ti • ICAL IFLRNIA I I! MATCH LINE SEE.SHEET L -IA f ' I f 1 _ 1 :s1Pi 'Mk r ..» ... -.._--_- W ARREN - ROAD 1- CN2M HILL S HUTTON CENTRE DR...200 SANTA ANA . CA 52707 I in •-• 3 Ike ALTERNATIVE A LAYOUSoo. L -2A xx es OOOO O Mat OOO OOOOO 3. a PI G SE Ws NOTEa FOR COMPLETE RICHT OF RAY 1ND aCCLNarE ACCESS DATA. SEE RICNT or WAY RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT orrice . O CD cTh ti --- _ WARREN — -, 1 Rio 1 ROAD .44 '• ctt C 0 f1 CH2M HILL 3 MUTTON CENTRE OR..•200 SANTA ANA. CA 12707 ROAD ,_- 411114*. 1 r ALTERNATIVE A YOUT • I ••500 • L -3A 0 1 a x x 's Fo Id M M K 5 NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RIGHT OF RAT AND ACCWATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RIGHT OF RAT RECORD M APS AT DISTRICT OFFICE. HATCH LINE SEE SHEET L-1! • IA• • I • A • I nj 1 IJ1 11 !r - ,z I— i it 15 I _ r- —J: Il I ! 5�------i f 1 I�• 1 II i .� I ),I._... I it CALIF NIA l I I\ 11 ;._ 1 - __1i 1 li",I SAN DIEGO 1 CANAL - - JAOUEOUCT Rb -- - - ' ii ! — -,— - -•--; i R ...-..-_.-1..� I 79 mo.. SR .:: I. _- 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 X • I l I� II! I -i--1 �+ 11 • WARREN -�_ ROAD r_ • CHE M HILL 3 MUTTON CENTRE 00..•200 SANTA ANA. CA 32707 .1-7.L--11- I 1 i +rte----'1�-'_t .,.`� • i \ i (... ..i 1 gg sal AL f --°'• EC°. E/y k NATIVE 8 POUT .soo. L-28 " 1 s 0 3 0( K NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RICHT OF WAY AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RICHT OF VAT RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT OFFICE . MATCH LINE SEE SHEET L -IC ��I I'F , li i��i" _Ir- -  lI ' . " ` 13 ` I IWI II's\" 1 i! I! i -  . --1 W . " I li 18F - - I I ..-7.7.... 1I-- -- -��  ��;,`  -- - IN I J " I f& 1 i j C- i I i A ! CALIFpFiN1A -��a.,,, ' i - -- - .to" __ NUFj I I I ri 0 i , ..... ..__ , ,,.. ,.. ," i , , , :, ,__, , .1... .. . 1 1, .s. :, ,-,, ,, , \ ,, .., , , o; ; ii! "  . .,.___, .. . I_ -, \ 1'I SAN DIEGO' CANAL :_I" --,,11t -, '\ - - I  I 11417- li TAW 46.41, " $T EDICT, BO UT 001 RIv 7! li 1 WARREN ROAD CHIN HILL 3 MUTTON CENTRE DR., " 200 SANTA ANA. CA 1270T ALTERNATIVE C LAYOUT SCALE, ',sow T L -2C DC -1 OOS•. 1 •3 1noA� a 3Ai1yNd311r 4 r. 4 2 10126 53 •VNV VLN VS 002• ••tlO 311N33 NO11fH 5 111H MVO yy5.•x11lix• 115y ai1111• a le Ammo, aslll a nyneame 1 -I- I • 1• ri' dip., 'lll pis •, .I j ,,,......-----1 r avoa ,, ki <llim: All I. • N3aa1IM co Y I C, CD '331 .110 13151310 IV soo n 010335 A►/ A0 110111 335 'VIVO 553335 3lstlruar ONV AVM !O 1HOltl 31314103 501 •310H • i M Do ig 0 S " X x ;O VO O yY u sN 3 C ���� --- , " WARREN -- -��'. SAN DIEGO CANAL ill ICI III I II III ��II Wir Tu >14 .1I II II I I' II C.C.) li NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RICHT OF VAT AND AC'OFCM TTRECOORDSMAPSTAT SEE RIGHT I SANDERSON " SAN DIEGO CANAL I- " S4 0 U AVENUE \ " . TOAD m ,I 1 DIfT COUNTY I ROUTE T M$TI {T PIO;' aj OS RR' 79 I . IO X. x/X . x x I xxx CH2M HILL 3 HUTTON CENTRE DR. ." 200 SANTA ANA. CA S2707 1 _FUTLURE_1ROAO - - -. _ WI SI u. I 0 L SEE " ALTERNATIVE E LAYOUT SCALf. I '.S00" I _AC 1 f I WARREN SAN DIEGO CANAL O C) C) NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RICHT or RAY AND ACCURATE S DATA. SEE RICHT or RAY T PS AT DISTRICT OFFICE. MOND SANDERSON F-. • SAN DIEGO CANAL .1--- F U i \ AVENUE • "ROAD x. 9/9 . PLA NS AAM 4OYA1. CAM CH2N HILL 3 HUTTON CENTRE 0R.. •2OO SANTA ANA. CA 92707 9x) E F AYOIJTYOUT CALF, I' •yOO' L -4F " III NOTE. FOR COM PLETE RIGHT Or DAT AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RIGHT OF RA7 RECORD NAPS AT DISTRICT 07FICE. i! I j1 WA _ - J__ __ WARREN]  -- _  SAN DIEGO CANAL j N r�� l'. F SANDERSON 11 II II II SAN DIEGO CANAL 'I - I:I 1!! i _ , 1> �� i< I ��. 1 iI 1I- - `f1I TOAD AVENUE III 14 1 Ej 1---- 1 D.[7 C OUNT, I ..Dut[ TOTAI, 10111.41T 1.9.71 OS I MD 79 l 7 .7/7.7 X x CNN WILL 3 HUTTON CENTRE DR. ." 200 SANTA ANA . CA 92707 1 ALTERNATIVE O LAYOUT s ou. I" " SOO 1. -AA / :. •• 1 - . .2 Ji / i • .• :ki I!' Ek ah ilI •I‘\•0 iv 1 i / (.. ? • . \\•� 1S o: - \\' ' SANDESON _ _ _ AVENUE •\�.I — : f NOTE. FOR COMPLETE RICHT OF RAT AND ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RICHT Oi 9A7 RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT OtrICE. 1 • r• ' 1 ic y —t— --- I c+ 1 \l ot • i 1 .R • •I..t .• ••••.•.•.•,. ...... 1ST COJITT 091 RI nowt 17•13%41/, , p 79 I WIX/X.X I X CH2M HILL 3 MUTTON CENTRE OR..•200 SANTA ANA. CA 92707 ALTERNATIVE 0 •XQ.YSL. L-60 " foil COMLETE NICIIT Of NAT AND ACCIAATE ACCESS OATH . SEE RICHt Of RAY RECORD MAPS AT DISTRICT OfflcE. MATCH LINE SEE SHEET L-aS J l 11 ' i I u II j' 11) .4 'awe ore aye s " ? / 1 Taw. L ova .III SIN latic b a tm " �� " r 0. 4!. 1 " CANAL ROAD flesh w1.>C " a .I.i6.Tly ltr . allPah ' A�%c 9.044. 111 COiir1" OS MITE 79; MEIAipce Cwl--- T Cumm(CR Pt.", APPwp" Ai *AIR CROY RILL 3 MUTTON CENTSE OR...200 SANTA ANA. CA !2707 w1 X.31/71.71 I' TT - ALTERNATIVE B " LAE OUP fl Plo NOTE. TOR CONNATE RICNT Or MAT ANO ACCURATE ACCESS DATA. SEE RICNT or RAT RECORD NAPS AT DISTRICT OFFICE , 1'! is I = F tiltr _ _- aoao I <I I &I Iina 1. ' I 141 D: • 1.11I Ai W ' I1 W II 8 IyreRoNMAIS; I SIG .uat . I.. . flsMa I • J ! WI 1— • r i f haw[ AMIlan wr[ CNN RILL NOTION CENTRE' OR...2OO SANTA ANA. CA 12707 c ESwTaa/r4I- BR 'Dar 1. 2117 L. G•«mod P- S9y ALTTIVE, E • •. - ; _. h' . • r -.: • IXS ea " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Amendment No. 2 to F.R. Harris Agreement RO-9731. At the October 9, 1996 meeting, the Commission awarded a contract to F.R. Harris to perform design services related to the construct a new platform, station track, and pedestrian over crossing across the tracks from the existing Riverside Metrolink Downtown Station adjacent to the BN&SF south main line. The final bid documents have been completed, and the project was advertised for construction bids. The Commission awarded a construction contract to the lowest responsive bidder, Kiewit Pacific Co. The project is scheduled to be complete with construction by the middle of October, 1998. The design of this project was very time consuming because of the large amount of interagency coordination and approval requirements. The project design had to be reviewed and approved by BN&SF, SCRRA, and the City of Riverside Public Works, Electrical, and Water Departments. F.R. Harris had to spend an enormous amount of time and resources to gain approval of the final project plans from all agencies involved. On February 27, 1998, F.R. Harris informed staff, by letter, that it had overran its authorized budget by $31,246.24 (4.1% over the contract amount of $954,977) in the process of completing the final plan approval. Staff was aware that the effort to gain approval of the project plans was taking more effort than was previously assumed, but F.R. Harris did not notify staff of the amount of the additional cost overrun until F.R. Harris requested compensation after the extra work was completed. F.R. Harris is requesting partial compensation in the amount of $25,640.00 for the additional plan check services, provided for the project, and submitted to RCTC for payment. F.R. Harris is willing to absorb the additional $5,606.24, of the $31,246.24, that has not been submitted to RCTC for payment and F.R. Harris will also forgo its 10% fee on any additional work RCTC requests for the project. Staff has reviewed the scope of work involved with the overrun, and the respective costs involved, and concurs that F.R. Harris did the work and the cost for the overrun services are in line for the work involved. The first months of construction have been very busy and have required a greater construction support effort by F.R. Harris than previously anticipated. F.R. Harris is the designer of record and as such must be involved with the review and response 000067 of a majority of the construction submittals and requests for information that are submitted by the contractor. The original base budget for F.R. Harris to provide construction support services was set at $30,000.00 until the number of submittals and requests of information could be estimated. After the first three months of construction, approximately 23% of the work effort by F.R. Harris has been completed but it is clear that the remaining budget will not be adequate to handle the remaining tasks that must be addressed by the Engineer of Record. Staff and F.R. Harris are in agreement with the work effort and cost to date. Staff has worked with F.R. Harris and is in agreement with the remaining scope of construction support services and respective costs required of F.R. Harris to support the remaining work required to complete construction of the project. Staff is requesting that the current F.R. Harris construction support budget of $30,000 be increased by 550,000 for a total construction support budget not to exceed $80,000. Currently, construction inspection services for the project are being provided by Bechtel, the County of Riverside, and Ninyo & Moore. However, the construction of the project also requires speciality inspection of Electrical/Mechanical/Security Systems/CCTV installation. The F.R. Harris design team included subconsultants that could readily provide the special inspection services required. After a review of all of the available options, Staff believes that the most cost effective manner in which the speciality inspection can be provided is through F.R. Harris subconsultants. Staff requested that F.R. Harris estimate the cost involved in providing the additional construction inspection services identified above. F.R. Harris estimates that these services will not exceed $20,000. The total proposed increase to the F.R. Harris contract through Amendment 2 will be $95,640 ($25,640 + 550,000 + $20,000). Staff recommends that the existing extra work be increase by $10,000 by Amendment 2 to provide a total extra work budget of $26,291. The complete contract history is shown in Table 1(attached). Amendment 2 = $95,640 + $10,000 additional extra work. Program Budget Adjustment Required • • • 000068 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • • • That the Commission: (1) Authorize payment of $25,640.00 for the additional plan check services, provided for the project, and submitted to RCTC. F.R. Harris is willing to absorb the additional $5,606.24, of the $31,246.24 overrun, that has not been submitted to RCTC for payment and F.R. Harris will also forgo its 10% fee on any additional work RCTC requests for the project. (2) Increase the current F.R. Harris construction support budget of $30,000 by $50,000 for a total construction support budget not to exceed $80,000. (3) Amend the F.R. Harris contract to include Electrical/Mechanical/Security System/CCTV Construction Support Inspection Services. The cost to provide such services will not exceed $20,000.00. (4) Approve Amendment No. 2 with F.R. Harris to provide the above services for an additional amount of $95,640 ($25,640 + $50,000 + $20,000). The new authorized contract value will be increased to 5850,617. The amendment will utilize the standard contract amendment format. The remaining Extra Work Budget of $16,291 will be increased by $10,000 to $26,291 for a total not to exceed contract value of $876,908. ,fin �. ;00069 TABLE 1 IStatus of Contract R O-9731 with F.R. Harris for S outhside Platfo rm and Pedestrian Overcrossing 25 -Mar -98 1 New CI Date Descripti on Authorization Change in I Extra World Currently Auth orized Not to ( Exceed 1 10/09/96 riginal Agreement - Preliminary Design $258,732 $86,268 $258,732 $345,000 2 03/12/97 mendment 1 - Final Design $426,268 $0 $685,000 $771,268 3 06/09/97 xtra Work - Surveillance system Design of Downtown Station $23,867 ($23,867) $708,867 $771,268 4 08/26/97 ra Work - Inspection of Sante Fe Depot $4,800 ($4,800L $713,667 $771,268 5 08/29/97 ra Work - Design Station Restroom for guards $4,080 ($4,080) $717,747 $771,268 6 09/11/97 xtra Work - Make Initial Copies for advertisement $3,425 ($3,425) $721,172 $771,268 7 10/14/97 ra Work - Provide Bid Evaluation, and Construction Support $30,000 ($30,000) $751,172 $771,268 8 10/20/97 xtra Work - CM Engineering support for Joint Use Agreement ith City of Riv. $3,805 ($3,805) $754,977 $771,268 9 new mendment 2 - City of Riverside Plan check and Construction upport $95,640 $10,000 $850,617 $876,908 I 1 1 Current Status' $754,977 1 $26,291 $850,617 $876.908 _ • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Amtrak for Special Train Ticketing Ticket sales for this summer's Beach Trains will be conducted by the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department and the City of Rialto. In an effort to provide more flexibility for prospective passengers, staff has been negotiating with Amtrak to act as an additional ticketing outlet. By including Beach Trains on Amtrak's national computer, passengers who cannot go to city offices during business hours, or who neglect to mail ticket orders in a timely fashion, may still purchase remaining tickets from San Bernardino's Amtrak agent late at night or even the morning of travel. Those persons wishing to use credit cards may also order tickets by telephoning Amtrak's reservation center at 1 -800 -USA -RAIL. In exchange for this service, Amtrak will charge a service fee of 20% of the ticket price, so tickets available from Amtrak will cost the consumer 20% more with no costs borne by the Beach Train program or the Commission. The attached agreement reflects the established terms and is currently be reviewed by counsels to both parties. Financial Assessment Project Cost -0- Source of Funds s Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable Y 0000 71 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the attached agreement with the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), subject to legal counsel review. Attachment • • • 000072 " " NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TICKETING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of , 1998 by and between the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Amtrak") and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter referred to as "RCTC"), a member of the Southem California Regional Rail Authority. WHEREAS, RCTC is willing to accept Amtrak rail tickets for travel on SCRRA-operated RCTC charter trains operated on the dates and between points listed in Appendix One. WHEREAS, Amtrak agrees to reimburse RCTC for such Amtrak tickets sold by Amtrak. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe foregoing and ofthe mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. RCTC agrees to honor Amtrak rail tickets (except employee pass rider tickets) for travel on RCTC charter trains in either direction between all points listed on Appendix One, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. Amtrak agrees to reimburse RCTC for all Amtrak tickets (except employee pass rider tickets) sold for RCTC charter trains, according to the rates and conditions set forth and agreed to in Appendix One. 3. Amtrak will be responsible for compiling and totaling all Amtrak sales for travel on RCTC charter trains. Amtrak shall remit the proceeds of those sales, less 20% commission, along with supporting documentation (monthly Arrow Fare Plan Sales Report) to RCTC at the following address: Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 JL�07i 4. Passengers who present Amtrak tickets for travel on RCTC charter trains shall be deemed to be SCRRA passengers for purposes of passenger liability, which shall be allocated in accordance with Section 12 of the Agreement between SCRRA and Amtrak for Operation of Commuter Service dated March 1, 1997, regardless of whether that agreement is still in effect. 5. Amtrak may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice to RCTC. RCTC may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice to Amtrak. Tickets sold prior to the termination date shall be honored by RCTC and reimbursed by Amtrak in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 6 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all previous oral or written understandings, agreements, commitments, or representations concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may not be changed, amended, or modified in any way, except as may be agreed to in a writing executed by Amtrak and RCTC. 7. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the District of Columbia. 8. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party. 9. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity, legality or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement, and the remaining parts of this Agreement shall be enforced as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable part were not contained herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf as of the day and year first hereinabove set forth. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION BY: TITLE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BY: TITLE: 00 • 074 • 410 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Rail Program Update Attached for Commission review: 1. Metrolink operating and departmental reports. 2. Inland Empire High Speed Rail Task Force progress report and meeting summaries. 3. Intercity passenger rail activities update. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. Attachments 0J COM " " " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998 TO: Administrative Review FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement Between the State of California Department of Transportation and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies for Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for almost five years and provides roving tow truck service on four beats of SR -91 and I-215/SR-60 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating local agencies through a formula based on population, freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The attached amendment to the cooperative agreement identifies an additional $4,500 in State funding for fiscal year 1997-98. The total State funding is $ 500,100 and the Riverside County SAFE must provide matching funds of $125,025. There are sufficient unappropriated fund balance reserves to provide the additional $1,125 match to the $4,500 in State funds. Financial Assessment Project Cost $1,125 Source of Funds SAFE f r Y4 �� .P.. ." {. ��. .i " \ .,.}" .. .rr . .k;.:. " ti.. . " r::;:;k,'.; Li;.;ti " '" "' '3 " ��'Y.S Q M1C" i ��[ \ti.'r ��. }:,:." \��3.i" :" ::\ is i} . 'v\ Included in Fiscal Year Budget No Year Included in Program Budget No Year Programmed Approved Allocation No Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Yes Financial Impact Not Applicable 0000?F STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the SAFE Board approve the amendment to the cooperative agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to Legal Counsel review, for an additional $4,500 in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service program for FY 1997-98. • • • 000077 " " " (3) 08-Riv-Various In Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol 08303 - 936208 District Agreement No. 8-1033, A/1 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT to AGREEMENT, entered into on is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, a public entity, referred to herein as RC SAFE. RECITALS (1) The parties hereto entered into an Agreement (Document No. 8-13866), on June 11, 1997, said Agreement defining the terms and conditions of a program to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) in Riverside County, referred to herein as "FSP". (2) Said Agreement sets STATE's total PROJECT obligation at $495,500.00, and it has been determined that STATE's total PROJECT obligation will exceed that amount. Said Agreement set RC SAFE's contribution at no less than 25%, $123,875.00 of the amount provided by STATE. IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: (1) STATE's total obligation specified in Section I, Article (3) of the original Agreement shall now not exceed the amount of $500,100.00. A revised estimated Freeway Service Patrol Budget is attached and made a part of this Amendment to Agreement, and supersedes the estimated Freeway Service Patrol Budget shown in the original Agreement. (2) RC SAFE agrees to contribute no less than 25%, $125,025.00 of the amount provided by STATE. (3) The other terms and conditions of said Agreement (Document No. 8-13866) shall remain in full force and effect. 0000 , 8 (3) District Agreement No. 8-1033, A/1 This Amendment to Agreement is hereby deemed to be a part of • Document No. 8-13866. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS Director of Transportation By: S. LISIEWICZ District Director REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES By: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM By: AND PROCEDURE: ERIC HALEY Executive Director Attorney, REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: District Budget Manager CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: Accounting Administrator 2 By: Dean Martin Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven C. DeBaun Best, Best and Krieger Counsel to Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Estimated Freeway -Service Patrol Budget FIE June 30, 1998 • • AMOUNT SALARIES AND BENEFITS (See Attachment 1) $58,263 OFFICE LEASE $4,010 OVERHEAD (See Attachment 1) $11,312 OPERATIONS Tow Truck Agreements $533,493 COMMUNICATIONS L. A. Cellular Monthly Charges $2,700 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES General Legal Services $ 9,940 Audit Services 1,255 Other Professional Services $ 3.748 Total Professional Services $14,943 RADIO AIR TIlVIE ICC Monthly Fee at $216 per month $2,592 SUPPLIES Brochures and Forms $6,000 Patches, Signs, Hats, Etc. $4,000 Postage Si.= Total Supplies EQUIPMENT Radio Communications Equip. -Leased TOTAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS $641.771 $11,000 REVENUES State Funding - FY 97/98 $500,100 SAFE Fees - 25% Local Match $125.025 TOTAL REVENUES $3.458 $625.125 EXCESS REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ($16.646) Revised: 2/6/98 Attachment I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM F'YE June 30,1998 Personnel Assistant Directors ChiefFinancial Officer Program Managers II & I Cleric of the Commission Program Manager I Commission Support Staff Iltirizegd Acct. 73100 Office Expense Acct. 73200 Communications Acct. 73300 Equipment Maintenance Acct. 73400 Insurance Acct. 73500 Data Processing Acct. 73600 StaffRelated Expenses Acct. 73 700 Information/Publicity • • 000081 • •