Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 08, 2003 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION le 511 le 5 MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1st Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2nd Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe RECORDS Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Art Welch / Sue Palmer / Bill Jenkins, City of Banning Placido L. Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory Schook / John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Greg Ruppert, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Robert L. Schiffner / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director I .3(7.00 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, pieaJe dllu JUIJIIIIL a ICJ LIIII LJIIy L.O/u L 1 u,e l.,e, A VI LIIC L..U1,l11IIJJIU1I. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, October 8, 2003 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 3, 2003 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. ORDINANCE 04-001, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION ADM/NISTRA TIVE CODE" Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Ordinance 04-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code". The proposed Ordinance pertains to public comments at Commission and Committee meetings. 6B. AGREEMENT NO. 04-19-029 WITH FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-19-029 with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to provide financial advisory services to the Commission; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6C. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 7 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending August 31, 2003. 6D. STATUS REPORT ON THE INTER -COUNTY CETAP CORRIDORS Page 11 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on the Inter -County CETAP Corridors as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 3 6E. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE — REQUEST TO REPROGRAM CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) PROGRAM FUNDS Page 13 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the County of Riverside's request reprogramming $1,510,863 of CMAQ funds to the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project and the State Route 60/Valley Way Eastbound Ramp Project. 6F. COMMUTER EXCHANGE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 18 1) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select the best qualified manufacturer to plan, design, and manufacture a new Commuter Exchange vehicle; 2) Authorize staff to negotiate the Best and Final Offer for the purchase of a new Commuter Exchange vehicle not to exceed $345,000; and, 3) Direct staff to bring back final recommendations and results of the review, selection, and contract negotiations process for consideration of contract award. 6G. RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES RELATED TO THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Page 21 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the results of the selection process for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and Property Management Support Services; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-33-009 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase I of the right-of-way support services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail for a not to exceed amount of $312,774; and, Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 4 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6H. AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-015 FOR REVEGETATION WORK ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT I Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 37 1) Approve the results of the selection process for revegetation services adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-31-015 to Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. to perform the revegetation scope of work, for the amount of $28,576.35, plus an contingency amount of $12,423.65, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $41,000.00; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 61. TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-2003 Page 42 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-62-033 with Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc., to conduct the triennial performance audit of the Commission and seven public transit operators; 2) Allocate up to $56,900 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to cover the cost of the audit; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 5 6J. TDA FUNDING FORMULA FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUS AND COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE Overview This item is for the Commission to approve: Page 44 1) A change in the Western County funding formula for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds for bus and commuter rail service to 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail effective in Fiscal Year 2004-05; and, 2) A timeline for the funding formula to be reviewed in Fiscal Year 2007-08 with proposed changes to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2009-10. 6K. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 04-45-027 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 50 1) Approve Fund Transfer Agreement No. 04-45-027 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program in the amount of $1,041,618 in State funding for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6L. TRANSFER FUNDING PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING M23-008 WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY Page 58 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Transfer Funding Partnership Memorandum of Understanding M23-008 with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 6 6M. AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 60 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-034 with the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) for the installation of a gas line at the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station. Approval of this agreement is contingent upon approval of the agreement with the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU); 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-035 with the RPU regarding the construction of a gas line at the La Sierra Station and the assumption of responsibilities under the SCGC Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 6N. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 80 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an intormation item. 7 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-004, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT" Page 100 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Winchester to Temecula Transportation Corridor and Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Approving the Project". Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 7 8. ALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDS AND APPROVAL OF CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 04-31-028 FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT FROM VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 Page 102 Overview This item is for the Commission to 1) Approve allocation of $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds on the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Project from Valley Way to Interstate 1 5; 2) Approve Agreement 04-31-028, Local Assistance Contribution Agreement with Caltrans District 08, allowing Caltrans to claim $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds for the SR 60 HOV Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 9. STATE ROUTE 111 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROJECT FUNDING Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 111 1) Approve Memorandums of Understanding M23-005 with the City of La Quinta and M23-006 with the City of Cathedral City for the funding reimbursement and joint development of SR 111 Improvements; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding M23-007 between RCTC, CVAG, and the City of Rancho Mirage for reimbursement to the City's completed SR 1 1 1 Project; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Memorandums of Understanding on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Authorize staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 8, 2003 Page 8 10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 148 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — SB 1055 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) as amended 9/9/03, SUPPORT — AB 487 (Frommer, D -Glendale) as amended 9/12/03; and, 2) Receive and file as an information item. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEM — Adjourn to RCTC Conference Room "A" Overview A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.9 Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) Number of Potential Cases: 1 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 12, 2003, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 3, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ron Roberts at 9:02 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Percy L. Byrd Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Paul Marchand Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Ron Roberts Robert L. Schiffner Gregory V. Schook Alan Seman John F. Tavaglione Placido L. Valdivia Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Anne Mayer Jack van Haaster Matt Weyuker Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Lowe/Miller) to approve of the July 28, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain — Pettis, Wamsley, M. Wilson 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Robert Schiffner requested that Agenda Item 6G, "Adoption of Resolution No. 04-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Making Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Approving the Western Riverside County MSHCP/NCCP, and Implementing Agreement and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations", be pulled from the Consent Calendar. M/S/C (Schook/Marchand) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 6A. INTERNAL AUDIT OF SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE SERVICES GROUP 1) Approve the selection of Macias Consulting Group, Inc. to perform the internal audit of SunLine Transit Agency and SunLine Services Group; 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute a contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $81,657 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to fund the audit; and, 4) Approve an increase in the expenditure budget to pay for this audit. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 3 6B. COACHELLA VALLEY REGIONAL ARTERIAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve an increase in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Budget to allow payment for invoices incurred as of June 30, 2003 in excess of the original budget. 6C. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending July 31, 2003. 6D. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the quarterly financial statements. 6E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending June 30, 2003. 6F. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending April, May, and June 2003. 6H. UPDATE ON EXCHANGE OF PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MONITORING FUNDS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) Receive and file an update regarding the exchange of funds with SCAG. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 4 61. AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY FOR AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-056, FOR THE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING OF STATE ROUTE 74, SEGMENT I, FROM DEXTER AVENUE TO 0.5 KM EAST OF WASSON CANYON ROAD Authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $249,354, from $538,546 to $787,900, to cover additional costs associated with Agreement No. 02-31-056 with Riverside Construction, for the realignment and widening of State Route 74, Segment I, from Dexter Avenue to 0.5 Km east of Wasson Canyon Road. The base amount will remain at $10,561,454, but the contingency will increase from $538,546 (5.0%) to $787,900 (7.5%), for a total contract amount not to exceed $11,350,000. 6J. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-013 FOR THE VEGETATION REMOVAL ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74 BETWEEN WASSON CANYON ROAD, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, AND 7TH STREET, IN THE CITY OF PERRIS 1) Award Agreement No. 04-31-013 for the Vegetation Removal adjacent to State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, and 7th Street, in the City of Perris, to TruGreen LandCare L.L.0 in the amount of $248,446.40, plus an approximate 8% contingency amount of $21,553.60, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $270,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 5 6K. AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY FOR THE RELOCATION OF PACIFIC BELL LINE REQUIRED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE JACKSON STREET OVER CROSSING FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT 1) Authorize additional contingency, in the amount of $13,060, from $26,940 to $40,000, to cover additional costs associated with the relocation of a Pacific Bell Line, required for the reconstruction of the Jackson Street Over Crossing, for the Route 91 Auxiliary Lane Project. The base amount will remain at $123,060, but the contingency will increase from $26,940 to $40,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $163,060; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6L. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-33-017, AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT NO. RO-2128, WITH STV INCORPORATED FOR EVALUATION AND INCORPORATION OF NEW SCAG TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL TO COMPLETE NEW STARTS APPLICATION FOR THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE PROJECT 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-017, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement No. RO-2128, with STV Incorporated for the evaluation and incorporation of the new SCAG travel demand model results to complete the New Starts Application for the San Jacinto Branch Line for an additional base amount of $314,616; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate $314,616 of STA Funds and increase the FY 2003-04 Rail Capital Budget to accommodate the allocation; and, 4) Amend the FY 2003-04 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 6 6M. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-019, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014, WITH GORDON H. CHONG & PARTNERS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES RELATED TO MASTER PARKING STRUCTURE DESIGN OF THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-019, Amendment No.1 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Gordon H. Chong & Partners for the additional studies to support two additional parking structures at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station for an amount of $77,390 for a new contract authorized amount of $394,188 and a new not to exceed amount of $477,390. The existing unused extra work amount of $83,202 shall remain available to the contract; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 6N. REPROGRAM STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATED TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY AS MATCH FUNDS FOR THE REGIONAL INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Reprogram $221,000 in State Transit Assistance Funds previously allocated to SunLine Transit Agency to be used as matching funds for the Regional Intelligent Transportation Project. 60. CITY OF BANNING TRANSIT PROGRAM'S REQUEST FOR FUNDING TO UPGRADE ITS CNG FUELING STATION Allocate up to $50,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to the City of Banning's Transit Program for upgrading their CNG fueling station. 6P. AMENDMENTS TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2004 Approve the amendments to the FYs 2003 and 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 7 6Q. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2002-03 SB 821 Funds. 6R. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON STATE ROUTE 60 IN MORENO VALLEY 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-023 with the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee for the operation of Freeway Service Patrol service on SR 60; 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-45-022, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to add two vehicles to Beat No. 18 along SR 60; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 6S. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 6T. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 8. ORAL PRESENTATION — OPERATION JUMPSTART Mark Pisano, Executive Director of Southern California Association of Governments provided an oral presentation on Operation Jumpstart, highlighting the following: • Objectives, strategy, and anticipated outcome of the program • The use of a Dedicated Truckways System • Proposed Rail Capacity Improvements • High Speed Maglev System • The impact on employment, income, and the State Budget • Exploration of legislative initiatives Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Bob Buster expressed concern about the impacts that the increased truck traffic, promoted by these improvements, will have on air quality and congestion. He recommended an analysis of having separate truck lanes for local truck trips and expanding rail corridors to move interstate cargo from trucks to rail and expand Metrolink service. Mark Pisano responded that an alternatives analysis has been performed and Operation Jumpstart represents the optimal combination between trucks and rail. Also, he indicated that the High Speed Maglev System will far exceed the maximum capacity of Metrolink and be able to move the volume of projected commuters. In response to Commissioner Buster question, Mark Pisano indicated that a workshop will be setup for the Commissioner to discuss the Operation Jumpstart Program in greater detail. Eric Haley, Executive Director, reviewed the Commission's positions on the following: • Maglev Deployment: Technology Neutral; support California High Speed Rail Authority Statewide Route; encourage Maglev System Base. • Truck Lane System: Sensitivity to Goods Movement as the SR 60/1-15 Interchange falls within Riverside County. • Rail Grade Separations: Adopted prioritized rail grade separation list that would be addressed by this program. 7. ACTION PLAN FOR THE CAJALCO-RAMONA CORRIDOR Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, presented the proposed Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor, including public outreach, engineering work, and environmental efforts. She stated that transportation modeling will be done to ensure the facility is properly sized. Staff is initially viewing this corridor as a 6 -lane parkway, which if required in the future, can be expanded to a freeway level facility. A full public participation process and new environmental document would be required should any major changes be desired after the initial corridor improvements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 9 At this time, Chairman Roberts opened this item for public comments. • Art Cassel, 18350 Harley John Road, Riverside, representing the Community Association of Lake Mathews (CALM), spoke on behalf of 14 residents, and proposed an alternative for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor, which is a parkway level facility varying in size from 4 to 6 lanes. Commissioner John Tavaglione asked if these alternative recommendations involved consultation with traffic engineers. Art Cassel responded that two traffic engineers provided consultation however he declined to disclose their identity per their request. The following speakers provided testimony to the Commission endorsing a parkway level facility and opposing a freeway level facility along the Cajalco- Ramona Corridor, including concerns regarding environmental impacts, community impacts, bringing quality jobs to the County, and funding for the facility. • Art Cassel, 18350 Harley John Road, Riverside, representing CALM • Leonard Brock, 21601 Nance Street, Perris • Debbie Walsh, 18315 Ellsworth Street, Perris, Mead Valley area resident • Dale Gilchrist, 19030 Birch Street, Perris, representing CALM • Eugene Jones, 17139 Chico Drive, Perris • R. Henson, 18098 Hickory Tree Lane, Riverside, representing CALM • Jay Schneider, 12477 Poinsettia Drive, Victoria Grove area resident • Elizabeth Fliege, 18650 Birch Street, Perris, Mockingbird Canyon area resident • Barbara Boxold, 12750 Tarragon Way, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident • Ruthie Sanino, 12581 Mango Lane, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident • Ann Grell, 19828 Smith Road, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Kathleen Jones, 17139 Chico Drive, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • John Byrns, 902 S. Agate Street, Perris, Mead Valley area resident • Jim Fliege, 18650 Birch Street, Perris, Mockingbird Canyon area resident • Julie Minten, 17961 Aloe Lane, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident • Serena Burnett, 17320 Kramer Way, Perris • Catherine Barrett -Fischer, 20768 Brana Road, Riverside Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 10 • Carol Hansen, 20129 Elderidge Drive, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Stephen Hansen, 20129 Elderidge Drive, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Leslie Osburn, 20824 Hillsdale Road, Riverside • Bob Pring, 13387 Cajalco Road, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Pamela Kolster, 12591 Bougainvillea Way, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident representing CALM • Barbara Mathews, 17700 Conestoga Road, Perris, representing CALM • Jeff Gaudio, 12533 Mango Lane, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident representing CALM • Don Haiker, 17150 Scottsdale Road, Riverside, Mockingbird Canyon area resident • Lee Cussins, 18870 Springwood Lane, Perris, representing Woodcrest Estates Community Homeowners Association • Cindy Ferry, 16115 Rocky Bluff Road, Perris, Greater Lake Mathews area resident • Ken Merrell, 17129 Singingbird Lane, Riverside • Jerry L. Green, 20638 Rider Street, Perris, Mead Valley area resident • Laurie Taylor, 14679 Descanso Drive, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Ralph Hillman, 14176 Grande Vista Avenue, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Gladys McAlister, 18019 Clark Street, Perris, Mead Valley area resident • Barney Poynor, 18053 Hickory Tree Lane, Riverside, Mockingbird Canyon area resident, representing CALM • Mariselle Avila, 19985 Lakeridge Drive, Perris, Lake Mathews area resident • Sandra Morrow, 14791 Wendell Park Drive, Perris • Melanie Stanbaugh, 14790 Wendell Park Drive, Perris • Tom Bevington, 21670 La Vista Court, Perris • John Roth, 21450 Juniper Road, Perris • Mike Snider, 17880 Palm Road, Riverside, Lake Mathews area resident • Derek Hamilton, 17881 Robusta Drive, Riverside, Victoria Grove area resident • Kathy Zettel, 21635 Hawthorne Avenue, Perris, Mead Valley area resident • Cosma Stamis, 19810 Gustin Lane, Perris, Mockingbird Canyon area resident • Barrington Daltrey, 925 Cannon Road, Riverside Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 11 • Ken Merrell, 17129 Singingbird Lane, Riverside, expressed concern that there is no representation on the Commission from the affected areas. Commissioner Buster spoke to inform those present that the cities and the County are actively seeking to attract quality jobs into the County. He then stated his belief that the staff recommendation encompasses the full consideration of a parkway facility as well as a freeway facility. He believes obtaining minimal right -of way will not foreclose a future decision to expand to a freeway facility and recommends obtaining sufficient right-of-way to buffer the community. Also, if future expansion is necessary, he suggested that the lanes are build from the center -median outward to achieve a visible impact for the community and future decision makers should any major changes be desired after the initial corridor improvements. It is his belief that due to funding constraints, there should be balanced improvements among County corridors. Commissioner Robert Schiffner expressed that a study needs to be done to determine where commuter trips initiate and terminate in order to determine where corridor improvements need to be made and that adequate right -of way for future planning should be protected now. Commissioner Ameal Moore said that sufficient right-of-way needs to be obtained in order to do responsible planning for the future. Commissioner Jack Wamsley assured the public that all Commissioners thoroughly evaluate actions brought before the Commission regardless of the area that is directly affected due to the potential impact on other areas of the County. He concurred with Commissioners Schiffner and Moore regarding obtaining sufficient right-of-way for future needs. In response to Commissioner Robin Lowe concern regarding the impact of the type of funding on the determination of the facility level, Cathy Bechtel responded that during the study process it is acceptable to utilize Measure "A" funds during the CETAP process and having the corridor identified with CETAP funds does not ultimately designate the corridor as a freeway level facility. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 12 Hearing comments from the public regarding efforts to attract employers to the County, economic development issues, and services, Commissioner William Kleindienst clarified for the public the composition and oversight responsibilities of the Commission. He also assured the public that each Commissioner addresses regional issues on a monthly basis regardless of the affected jurisdictions. He concurred with the idea of obtaining sufficient right-of-way for future needs. Commissioner Buster requested that building the facility from the center - median outward be included in the analysis to provide greater buffering of the community and a smaller imprint of the immediate parkway facility while securing the appropriate right-of-way for future needs. Commissioner Alan Seman stated that homeowners have the right to the enjoyment of the property and would like additional information as to why this alignment was selected as the preferred alignment for the east -west corridor. Commissioner Paul Marchand supported acquiring right-of-way to avoid incurring costs in the future that may not be supportable. He also noted that each Commissioner has the responsibility of virtual representation meaning each Commissioner represents every resident of the County, not just their individual cities. He also expressed his support for the staff recommendation because the data needs to be obtained in order to make a proper decision. Commissioner Percy Byrd said that does not support the staff recommendations as he believes that once right-of-way is obtain for the bandwidth of a freeway, a freeway will inevitably be built. Commissioner Gregory Schook concurred with Commissioner Byrd's statement. Commissioner Jim Venable asked if any other alternatives are being considered for improvement. Cathy Bechtel responded that through the Tier I process, 14 alternatives were reviewed and the determination was made that the greatest transportation benefit would come from improvements along the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 13 Commissioner Tavaglione noted that the Commission approved acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work, identifying the corridor as Cajalco/Ramona, south of Lake Mathews. He clarified that the proposed staff recommendation today is to allow a study to be done on the corridor to determine what improvements can be made, not what type of facility will be built. M/S/C (Ashley/Tavaglione) to: 1) Approve the proposed Action Plan for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor (CRC); 2) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a Project Study Report, Project Report and a project level environmental document for the proposed Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 3) Authorize staff to negotiate the scope, schedule and cost with the top ranked firm resulting from the selection process; and, 4) Direct staff to bring back the results of the selection process and contract negotiations for the Commission's consideration of a contract award. 9. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 6G. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-003, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP), APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP/NCCP, AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS" M/S/C (R. Wilson/Tavaglione) to adopt Resolution No. 04-003, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Making Responsible Agency Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), Approving the Western Riverside County MSHCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations". Abstain: Buydos, Lowe, Schiffner Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 Page 14 10. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Eric Haley noted: • The California Transportation Commission approved the Commission's request for funding of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project under AB 3090. • TUMF revenues have reached over $4 million. 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 54956.9(a) Names of Parties: Noel Christensen and Citizens Alliance of Loma Linda v. City of Loma Linda et al Case Number: SCVSS 106980 There were no announcements on the Closed Session items. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 3:14 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on October 8, 2003, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: FROM: Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Ordinance 04-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Ordinance 04-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code". The proposed Ordinance pertains to public comments at Commission and Committee meetings. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The current Ordinance provides five (5) continuous minutes for each speaker to address the Commission. However, the Ordinance does not give Chair discretion to change or reduce the time for speakers, if there appears to be a number of speakers in line wishing to address the Commission. The proposed Ordinance would: 1) Require submission of the speaker cards prior to the agenda item and acceptance of speaker cards after the start of the agenda item is at the discretion of the Chair; 2) Depending on the number of speaker cards received, the Chair may reduce the time to three (3) continuous minutes; 3) The maximum time for public comment for each agenda items be 90 minutes, unless extended by the Chair or a majority vote of the Commission; 4) Speakers would not yield their time to others, unless approved by the Chair; and, 5) The Commission has the discretion to terminate public comments if it appears that the comments are repetitious. It is expected that there will be a number of items that will be before the Commission drawing a number speakers and the proposed Ordinance would provide a more structured arrangement at the meetings. Attachment: Ordinance 04-001 Agenda Item 6A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 04-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, by Ordinance 93-003 the Riverside County Transportation Commission has enacted an Administrative Code; WHEREAS, by Ordinance Nos. 94-001, 94-002, 95-001, 95-002, 98- 002, 99-001, 99-002, 00-01, 00-02 and 01-001 the Riverside County Transportation Commission has amended its Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is now necessary to again amend its Administrative Code to reflect changes in its structure regarding public comments at Commission meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: Article IV, Section G of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "G. ADDRESSING COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS. No person shall address the Commission at any meeting until he or she has first been recognized by the Chair. The decision of the chair to recognize a person may be changed by vote of a majority of the members of the Commission present at the meeting. Any person wishing to address the Commission shall fill out a speaker card and provide it to the Clerk of the Commission prior to the start of the agenda item upon which he or she wishes to be heard. The Chair may, in his or her discretion, direct the Clerk to accept speaker cards filed after the start of the agenda item. Except as set forth below, when addressing the Commission, each individual speaker will be limited to five continuous minutes or less of public testimony. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by a majority vote of the Commission, waive this five minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speaker cards, the Chair Agenda Item 6A 2 may, in his or her discretion, reduce the time for each individual speaker to three continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is ninety (90) minutes, unless extended by the Chair or majority vote of the Board. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. The Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious." Section 2: This Ordinance shall be effective on , 2003. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda Item 6A 3 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 04-19-029 with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates for Financial Advisory Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-19-029 with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to provide financial advisory services to the Commission; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 12, 2003, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform financial advisory services for the Commission. Six proposals were received on July 16, 2003. Staff from RCTC, SANBAG, and Riverside County Executive Office reviewed the proposals and short-listed four consultants. The following six criteria were used to review the proposals: a) Qualification and experience of the firm; b) Qualification and experience of the individuals; c) Experience in revenue bonds and dealing with other similar organizations; d) Demonstration of an understanding of the needs; e) References; and, f) Fees. On August 28, 2003, the panel interviewed the four consultants and selected Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to provide financial advisory services. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates is a full -service consulting firm that offers financial and Agenda Item 6B 4 investment advice to state and local governments and non-profit institutions. They are well versed in the financial issues facing Riverside County as they provide similar services to several Riverside County cities, special districts, and the County of Riverside. Staff has sufficient budget to cover the costs for a financial advisor in the current budget and no budget adjustment is required. The Consultant's fees will vary based on the projects assigned to them. A copy of their fee schedule is attached. Staff is working with legal counsel and Fieldman, Rolapp to finalize the agreement for these services. The agreement will cover a three year period. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: Varies depending on Assignment Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: I N GLA No.: S-19-65302 Fiscal Procedures Approved: __ � Date: 9/12/03 Attachment: Cost Schedule Agenda Item 6B 5 Compensation We propose as compensation for the financings specified the following Commercial Paper Program (by definition this is sold by negotiated sale) Compensation would be on an hourly basis as described below, subject to a minimum compensation of $45,000 and a maximum compensation of $80,000 This assumes that we serve the Commission in the negotiation of the dealer agreement and the liquidity agreement We also include the activity of providing a performance benchmark of the dealer's performance on a basis not more often than quarterly for a two year penod Capital Appreciation Bonds If the entire issue is sold on a competitive sale basis our professional compensation would be $115,000 If sold on a negotiated basis, the compensation would be $97,750 This compensation level assumes that we have provided structunng, rating strategy, modeling and venfication of revenue and coverage performance General Financial Planning Compensation for general financial planning activities would be determined on an hourly basis The table below hsts the firm's hourly fee schedule effective January l , 2003 Personnel Managing PnncipaVExecutive Officers of the Firm Principals/Senior Vice Presidents Vice Presidents Assistant Vice Presidents/Senior Associates Associates of the Fu -m Administrative Assistants Clerical (Other) Hourly Rate $275 00 $240 00 $185 00 $17000 $135 00 $80 00 $35 00 We propose that the Commission will reimburse us for usual and customary out-of-pocket expenses, including conference calls, travel, lodging, couner, copying, and other expenses typical in an engagement such as this In addition to the above, we charge a reimbursement of 6% of the net fee amount to recover the costs of telephone, fax, copying and the like, which are impractical to monitor on an individual basis Other expenses will be billed at direct cost Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates 13 6 AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: ' Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending August 31, 2003. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, 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 August 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — August 2003 Agenda Item 6C 7 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/R, ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd $37,222,727 $33,722,727 90.6% $68,157 $7,750,510 23 0% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 $33,722,727 90 .6% $68,157 $7,750,510 23 .0 % ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (RO2041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55 .1% $1,653,576 $35,026,411 90.9 % (RO2142) (RO2141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55.1% $1,653,576 $35,026,411 90.9 % ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ. /ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5% $8,291 $1,016,158 36 .4% Realignment study & Right turn lanes (RO9961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5% $8,291 $1,016,158 36 .4 % ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87 .2% $414 $9,573,159 92.3% (RO9101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (RO3008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100.0 % $0 $2,109,519 71 4% Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3% $21,295 $532,467 50 .1 % Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100.0 % $0 $876,228 54 .6% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) I SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $17,733,980 $15,993,799 90.2% $21,709 $.13,091,373 81 .9% ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (RO9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $0 $15,678,997 92.5% 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $0 $15,678,997 92 .5 % Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COM MITMENTS AGAINST AUTH MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/03 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO D ATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95 .6% $3,412 $5,714,908 88 .9% Design Sequencing SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,.726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $3,412 1 $5,714,908 88.9% PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (03-31-070)) $2,036,698 $2,036,698 100.0% $153,541 $257,841 12 .7% SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $2,036,698 $2,036,698 100.0 % $153,541 $257,841 12 .7 % PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $2,923,177 $2,923,177 100 .0% $249,690 $2,837,366 97 .1 % 2127.2138,2139, 2178,2199 SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE $2,923,177 $2,923,177 100 ,0% $249,690 $2,837,366 97 .1% COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Enginee ring/Construc tion $26,685,414 S24,943,070 93 .5% $817,004 $23,646,824 94.8% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027. 2120 R020292128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $13,900,329 313,900,329 100.0% 355,497 $10,357,757 74 .5% SUBTOTAL CO MM UTER RAIL $40,585,743 $38,843,399 95.7% $872,501 $34,004,581 87 .5% TOTALS $196,917,837 $158,203,132 80.3% $3,030,877 $115,378,145 72.9% Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL .<EETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT 08/31/03 ADVANCES BALANCE CO MMIT MENT APPROVED COMMIT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $574,397 $0 35 .9 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $574,397 $0 35 .9% CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,624,250 $0 50 .3 % Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,624,250 $0 50 .3% CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,060,681 $0 54.8% CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $725,500 $0 54.8% CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,790,273 $0 54.8% CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,171,682 $0 54.8% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $507,862 $0 33.9% TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $8,946,783 $0 47.6% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of; 8/31/03 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission and Policy FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on the Inter -County CETAP Corridors PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the status report on the Inter -County CETAP Corridors as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in May 2003 to describe the proposed project and the probable environmental effects of the project to be evaluated in the EIR. The NOP was circulated to public agencies and other interested parties on May 9, and public scoping meetings were held on June 4 at the City of Loma Linda Senior Center and June 5 at the City of Moreno Valley City Hall. The scoping meetings allowed interested individuals, organizations, and public agencies to discuss issues or questions they may have about the project. A Scoping Summary Report was prepared in July 2003 to describe the details of the scoping process and summarize the issues and comments raised during the scoping period. The alignment of the core facility is currently being reevaluated and refined based on input from the public scoping meetings and requests from the City of Loma Linda City Council. The City of Loma Linda has requested time to have more meetings at the local level and plan on taking a city position on the core facility by the end of the year. At the August meeting of the Bi-County Policy Committee, members directed that preparation of the draft technical reports continue for the arterial improvements only, as defined in the NOP. The draft technical reports will be completed after the alignment of the core facility has been finalized and Agenda Item 6D 11 necessary data is collected and analyzed for that facility. The Draft EIR will be prepared pending completion of the technical reports in early 2004, leading to public review of the Draft EIR and additional public meetings. The Final EIR will be prepared with responses to comments received during the public review period, followed by certification of the Final EIR by RCTC and SANBAG (anticipated Fall 2004) . Orange County to Riverside County Corridor Staff is continuing to work with OCTA to finalize the Scope of Work for the Major Investment Study (MIS) which will study the location of a new corridor alignment between Orange and Riverside Counties as well as alternatives for improving inter - county travel. At the August 25, 2003 OCTA Board meeting, OCTA staff requested authorization for development of the cooperative agreement with RCTC for this study. Action on this item was postponed in order to allow time to consider a request from the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to be included in the coordination and funding process for the study. A meeting of the Executive Directors from RCTC, OCTA, and the TCA was held to discuss the MIS and the possible role and participation of the Transportation Corridor Agency. It was agreed that the TCA will contribute $300,000 toward the MIS and that the funds will be provided without regard to specific alignment alternatives or study components. A TCA representative will participate in selection of the consultant for the study effort and will participate on the various committees developed for this study. It is anticipated that the OCTA Board will reconsider the MIS at their September 22 meeting. Assuming approval by their Board, the MIS is scheduled to begin by the end of the year. Agenda Item 6D 12 AGENDA ITEM 6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: County of Riverside — Request to Reprogram Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Funds Congestion BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the County of Riverside's request reprogramming $1,510,863 of CMAQ funds to the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project and the State Route 60/Valley Way Eastbound Ramp Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The County of Riverside has submitted the attached letter requesting the reprogramming of $1,510,863 of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that are available through cost savings from previous County CMAQ funded projects and the deletion of four CMAQ projects previously approved by RCTC. The projects that are proposed to receive the additional funds are the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project (from Opal Street to Wallace Street) and the State Route 60/Valley Way East Ramp Project. Through the initial project planning, these projects were found to require additional work that resulted in significant increases to the projects. The Mission Boulevard Project was approved for $235,000 and the cost of the project is now $600,000. The cost of the SR 60/Valley Way Ramp Project increased from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000. Staff supports this request as the funds will target two of the County's higher priority projects with the SR 60 Valley Way East Ramp Project located on the Congestion Management System. This request is consistent with previous reprogramming approvals. The Commission's Technical Advisory Committee reviewed and approved this request at their September 15, 2003 meeting. Attachment: Letter from County of Riverside regarding CMAQ Program Agenda Item 6E 13 440 LANDM� ' July 30, 2003 COUNTY OF RIVERSJDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-12008 RE: Riverside County's CMAQ Program Dear Mr. Haley: 65'1U1 e13/SM/KLO 141-Q George A Johnson, PE. Director of Transportation r©EVEl° AUG 012003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION This letter is to request Commission,approval of changes to some County of Riverside CMAQ projects. This request is to formalize communications which have occurred between our respective staffs in the past regarding the County of Riverside's CMAQ.Program. A number of the County's ISTEA CMAQ funded projects have been -or are estimated to be completed under budget or are proposed to be dropped. Attached is a listing of the County's ISTEA CMAQ projects. The column titled, "PROGRAM RCTC $" shows the amount initially approved -by RCTC based on the project applications. The column titled, "EST. FED. REIMB." shows the amount of Federal funds the project is estimated to expend based on Riverside County's most recent cost estimates. Through the preparation of construction plans for the Mission Boulevard (Opal Street to Wallace Street) Traffic Monitoring project, a need has been identified to increase the programmed CMAQ funding amount from $235,000 to $600,000. Additionally, through the preparation of construction plans for the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project, a need has been identified to increase the funding amount from $3,507,000 to $4,599,000. The County proposes to fund the increase of $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project, and to partially fund the increase of $1,092,000 for the Route 60Nalley Way"Eastbound Ramp project, by dropping four of the County's'CMAQ projects and through savings incurred by eight of the County's CMAQ projects being delivered below budget, as.listed below: Projects that are being proposed to be dropped: 1. The Countywide Traffic Signal Coordination Strategy Study, programmed in the amount of $300,000. 2. Automated Traffic Counts at various locations, programmed in the amount of $257,500. 3. Electric Vehicle Purchase at the County Administrative Center, programmed in the amount of $64,500. 4. Isolated Traffic Signals —Timing Optimization Project, programmed in the amount of $75,000. The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above four projects being dropped is $697,000. 4080 Lcmon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 955-6740 PO. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (909) 955-6721 14 K.16.3 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director July 30, 2003 Page 2 Projects that have been delivered below budget: 5. Mission BoulevardNan Buren Boulevard Route 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite/Rutile project was delivered at a cost of $171,939. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $309,750, resulting in $137,811 being available for reprogramming. 6. Limonite Avenue, Pedley to Mission Boulevard project was delivered at a cost of $321,334. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $480,000, resulting in $158,666 being available for reprogramming. 7. Stetson Avenue, San Jacinto Street to Stanford Street project was delivered at a cost of $45,870. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $200,000, resulting in $154,130 being available for reprogramming. 8. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure, Lazy Creek Road, between Bradley and Winterhawk, was delivered at a cost of $72,505. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $120,200, resulting in $47,695 being available for reprogramming. 9. Limonite Avenue at Felspar Street signal project was delivered at $132,167. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $175,000, resulting in $42,833 being available for reprogramming. 10. Leon Road PM10 paving projects, Olive Road to Simpson Road, and Benton/Keller & Scott/Holland. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $1,680,680. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount $442,500 and $1,420,450, resulting in $182,270 being available for reprogramming. 11. Holland Road PM10 paving projects, Bradley Road to Haun Road, and Murrieta Road to Bradley Road. These two projects were jointly delivered at a cost of $753,699. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $420,000 and $423,907, resulting in $90,208 being available for reprogramming. 12. McCall Boulevard Traffic Monitoring and Signal Coordination project was delivered at a cost of $31,000. The CMAQ funds programmed were in the amount of $31,250, resulting in $250 being available for reprogramming. The total CMAQ funds available for reprogramming due to the above eight projects being delivered under budget is $813,863. The combined funds available for reprogramming from the above twelve projects is $1,510,863. Reprogramming $365,000 for the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project will leave a balance of $1,145,863, that can be reprogrammed to fund the current increase of $1,092,000 for the Route 60Nalley Way Eastbound Ramp project. The County of Riverside respectfully requests RCTC to approve the CMAQ funding reprogramming proposals, and to advise Caltrans of the project funding adjustments to enable us to continue with the delivery of these projects. 15 Eric Haley, Executive Director July 30, 2003 Page 3 If you have any questions, please contact me or Juan C. Perez, Deputy Director of Transportation, at (909) 955-6741. nce ly Gorge A. Johnson Director of Transportation RKN:sbw Attachment Juan C. Perez Deputy Director of Transportation cc: Supervisor Bob Buster, First District Supervisor John Tavaglione, Second District Supervisor Jim Venable, Third District Supervisor Roy Wilson , Fourth District Supervisor Marion Ashley, Fifth District Shirley Medina, RCTC Juan C. Perez Scott Staley Roy Null RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 7/24/03 LLY FUNDED PROJECT STATUS TRACKING LIST - ISTEA Proiecit PROGRAM EST. FED. (PROJECT RCTC $ REIMB. COMMENTS • LIMONITE AVE Pedley to Mission Blvd MISSION BOULEVARD Opal St to Wallace St /Tref. monitoring STETSON AVENUE San Jacinto St to Stanford St LIMONITE AVENUE fa Felspar St ISOLATED TRAFFIC SIGNALS Timing Optimization Project COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL Coordination Strategy Study MISSION BLVD AND VAN BUREN BLVD Rte 60/Bellegrave/Pyrite /Rutile ELECTRIC VEHICLE PURCHASE County Admin Ctr ELEC INF'STRUCTRJLazy Creek Bradley to Wmterhawk McCALL BLVD Traff monitor'g & signal coord. AUTOMATED TRAF COUNTS various locations 480,000 235,000 200,000 175,000 75,000 300,000 309,750 64,500 120,200 31,250 257,500 321,334 600,000 45,870 132,167 0 0 171,939 0 72,505 31,000 0 Completed in 94/95 / Final Bill Amt. Pending Advertisment Project Completed 11/6/01 / Final Bill Amt. Completed Dec. 1996 / Final Bill Amt. Drop Drop Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt Drop, Vehicles returned 12/99 Project Completed 2/29/99 /Final Bill Amt. Project Completed 2/7/00 / Final Bill Amt. Drop LEON ROAD PM10 442,500 Olive Rd to Simpson Rd 1,680,680 Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt LEON ROAD PM10 1,420,450 Benton/Keller & Scott/Holland HOLLAND ROAD PM10 420,000 Bradley Rd to Haun Rd 753,699 Project Completed 10/16/01 / Final Bill Amt HOLLAND ROAD 423,907 Murneta Rd to Bradley Rd Totals 4,955,057 1,145,864 = BALANCE 17 AGENDA ITEM 6F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Diana Kotler, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Exchange Request for Qualifications PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to select the best qualified manufacturer to plan, design, and manufacture a new Commuter Exchange vehicle; 2) Authorize staff to negotiate the Best and Final Offer for the purchase of a new Commuter Exchange vehicle not to exceed $345,000; and, 3) Direct staff to bring back final recommendations and results of the review, selection, and contract negotiations process for consideration of contract award. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since 1991, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has been operating the Commuter Exchange, a specialty vehicle designed to provide public outreach and student education opportunities relative to the relief of traffic congestion and air quality improvements. The Commuter Exchange, a 1991 40 -foot Fleetwood motor home, functions as a mobile classroom and public information center. In its dual role, the Commuter Exchange provides services to three specific markets: Education on the Road — A program designed to provide instruction to students attending elementary school grades K3 and K4 about the importance of continuing their ridesharing activities when they become drivers. Customized take-home newsletters help students share what they have learned with their parents. The program is presented to 45 elementary schools every year. Community Events — The Commuter Exchange represents the Commission's programs at numerous community events; i.e., Orange Blossom Festival, Thunder Over the Empire, Orange Empire Railway Museum, Tech Expo, etc. Agenda Item 6F 18 Through its interactive and stationary displays, and provision of a broad range of collateral materials, the public receives information about the importance of using alternate modes of transportation. Employer Outreach — The Commuter Exchange is available to attend local employer sponsored transportation functions throughout Western Riverside County and serves as a visible backdrop from which to promote the Commissions' commuter assistance incentive programs and the importance of ridesharing. Due to the vehicle's age, a myriad of technical difficulties have arisen over the past 12 months. Vehicle failures continue to interrupt staff's ability to make elementary school presentations and limit access to community and employer outreach events. As a result of breakdowns, various scheduled appearances have been cancelled at the last minute causing a public relations concern. Staff time is also being lost to deal with the increasing vehicle breakdowns. In addition, the 12 year -old vehicle is in need of significant refurbishment to replace exterior and interior graphics and information displays worn as a result of public and student use. Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission take steps to acquire a new specialty vehicle instead of investing limited resources in the repair and upgrade of the existing 1991 vehicle. Selection of a company to manufacture the new Commuter Exchange vehicle will entail a comprehensive process. Staff recommends a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) approach to select and award a contract through a three -step process: 1. Release of Request for Qualifications — submission of a written pre - qualifications proposal package will allow staff to evaluate manufacturers' interest in establishing a business relationship with the Commission and select a limited number of firms for further project definition and negotiation. 2. Negotiated Procurement — up to three (3) manufacturers will be pre - qualified and given an opportunity to enter into a negotiated procurement process. This step will allow further evaluation of the manufacturer's qualifications, assertion of manufacturing capacity, determination of feasibility to use compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling configuration, appraisal of vehicle internal floor layout, and negotiation of financial terms based on the defined and detail vehicle specifications and design standards. 3. Best and Final Offer — upon completion of the negotiated procurement process, manufacturers will be asked to submit their Best and Final offer based on the specifications developed in the task described above. Agenda Item 6F 19 To assure an equitable review process, a selection committee representing a broad range of expertise, will evaluate proposals based on a variety of criteria including, but not limited to, experience of the manufacturer, willingness to accommodate the Commission's needs, cost-effectiveness, dedicated personnel, and delivery schedule. This proposed RFQ process will allow both the Commission and the manufacturer to develop the full scope of the project and establish acceptable and technically feasible vehicle specifications that will determine the final and firm vehicle price. One of the considerations in the acquisition of a new Commuter Exchange vehicle will be the potential use of alternative fuels. The evaluation of feasibility to use compressed natural gas is consistent with the Commission's commitment to demonstrate applicable use of clean fuel vehicles. Given the availability of and access to CNG fueling infrastructure, a consideration of CNG versus conventional fuel usage will be conducted in consultation with the selected manufacturer and independent technical consultant. The new Commuter Exchange vehicle will have a number of improvements. In addition to the possibility of using CNG fuel, the vehicle will be designed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, provide computer work station(s) to support on-line ridematching access, increase internal and external storage capacity, and additional safety features to assure a safe, educational, and rewarding experience for all who step inside the Commuter Exchange. Funding in the amount of $345,000 was included in the FY 03-04 budget for the purchase of a new 40 -foot vehicle and design and installation of interior displays and equipment. The budget allocation includes up to $70,000 for CNG fuel configuration costs should it be determined to be a viable options for this type of vehicle and its operational needs. Upon completion of the RFQ process, staff will identify the preferred vehicle configuration and costs and present its recommendation to the Commission for its final discussion and consideration. The Plans and Programs Committee reviewed and recommended approval of issuing the Request for Qualifications and allocation not to exceed $345,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $345,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Budget Adjustment: I N GLA No.: 226-41-90202 Fiscal Procedures Approved: = a.w,,t1r�- -Y- Date: 09/22/03 3 Agenda Item 6F 20 AGENDA ITEM 6G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Services Related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and Property Management Support Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission: 1) Approve the results of the selection process for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and Property Management Support Services; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-33-009 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase 1 of the right-of-way support services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail for a not to exceed amount of $312,774; and 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project RCTC currently owns 38 miles of railroad known as the San Jacinto Branch Line. The Line originates in Highgrove and extends to San Jacinto. RCTC is in the process of studying alternatives to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to Perris using approximately one half of this rail facility. The new transit alternative that will be referred to as the "Perris Valley Line" is needed because the 1-215 Freeway is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the corridor providing the only existing option to the freeway for travelers between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. The new service would begin in the City of Perris where it would generally follow the 1-215 freeway along the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley to the City of Highgrove and then southwest towards Downtown Riverside. At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission Agenda Item 6G 21 adopted a locally preferred transit alternative for the proposed Perris Valley Line/I-215 Corridor ("Alternative E": Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue"). The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor is approximately 20 miles long. Right-of-way services will be needed to support certain track improvements, remove right-of-way encroachments, and the acquisition of real estate to construct the necessary rail stations along the San Jacinto Branch Line between Riverside and Perris. Property Management Support Services In addition to owning a railroad, RCTC also has possession of miscellaneous properties that are related to both highway and rail projects. By virtue of the fact the RCTC owns these properties, there are numerous duties that are required to be performed to manage and control access to these properties. The property management duties include but are not limited to: taking action to limit unlawful trespass; allowing access for necessary maintenance activities such as weed abatement; reviewing and negotiating proposals to use portions of the properties for utility crossings, road crossings and other municipal improvements; providing information to the Commission to assist them and future property disposition actions; coordinate agreements related to the use of the property; collection of fees related to agreed licenses and leases; and other activities that are required to either maintain or manage the property. Selection Process for Consultant Services to Perform Property Management Services In order to successfully manage all of the existing properties, as well as plan for the future Metrolink service to Perris Valley, staff is suggesting that a right-of-way services consultant be brought on board. Staff is recommending that a single consultant be awarded both of the above activities because both activities are closely related and will have significant overlap. For instance, one database could be created to address the entire San Jacinto Branchline collection of properties. This database could then be used to support both the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail project as well as the property management activities that will be related to the remainder of the line that will not be needed for the extension of Metrolink services to Perris Valley. Even though staff is suggesting that one consultant perform both sets of right-of-way duties, staff believes that it will be convenient to keep the billing of these two activities totally separate to assist in addressing future FTA audits that are anticipated for the use of federal funds on the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Project that will not be related to the other property management issues. At its July 7, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and to provide assistance to staff in managing property currently owned by the Commission. Agenda Item 6G 22 The calendar of events was as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms Interview top three (3) qualified firms Committee Recommendation to Commission July 13, 2003 August 14, 2003 August 28, 2003 September 15, 2003 October 8, 2003 A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC staff, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA), and Bechtel. Staff received proposals from seven (7) firms. The selection panel reviewed the seven (7) proposals and short listed three (3) of the five (5) firms. The three (3) firms each demonstrated that they would be capable of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Second Paragon Partners Ltd. Third Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. For both tasks discussed above, there are a great deal of unknowns that make it difficult to adequately define the scope of work in such a fashion that the consultant could reasonably be expected to provide a detailed scope of work up front without performing significant initial exploratory activities or without key engineering decisions being made relative to the future design of the Perris Valley Line. Some of this information will become available after FTA has given permission to begin engineering activities on the Perris Valley Line. Staff believes that it will be important to already have the right-of-way consultant on board to work with the engineering firm to minimize right-of-way impacts that could unnecessarily run up the costs of the project particularly in the area of the project near downtown Riverside. Other information such as encroachments along the San Jacinto Branchline will require detailed field reviews in order to determine the level of effort that will be required to address this issue to clear the right-of-way and protect this important Commission asset. Agenda Item 6G 23 Because of the large number of unknowns, staff believes that it will be beneficial to enter into the scope of services in phases. The first phase of each activity will be to review the general scope of services with staff and develop a detailed scope of services that will address the needs of both the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line and the Property Management services of the Commission. Several of these activities will be on -call types of services and will be based on a best estimate that will be derived from past historical activities. Other activities will study the options available to RCTC to establish a detailed data base and file storage system that can be used by staff and consultants to manage the properties in the Commission's inventory. The documents included in this storage system will include agreements, licensees, leases, photos, station design plans, correspondence and any other pertinent information that is used to manage the various properties. Staff has been working with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. and has come to an agreement with the respective costs for Phase I activities for the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project. The scope and proposed costs for these activities are shown in the attachments to this staff report. Because of insufficient time, staff will continue to negotiate with Epic Land Solutions to define the phase I scope of services related to the property management support services and will bring back the results of those negotiations at the November Commission meeting. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Agreement No. 04-33-009 be awarded to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. The contract will be to provide the desired right-of-way services that would support the acquisition of real estate for track improvements and rail stations along the Perris Valley Line between Riverside and Perris for a not to exceed amount of $312,774. The agreement for on -call Property Management Support Services with detailed scope of work and cost break down is in the process of negotiation and will be brought back to the Commission on November 2003. Agenda Item 6G 24 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget Y Year: FY 03-04 FY 04-05 Amount: $200,000 $112,774 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance (STA) Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81304 (P3800) Fiscal Procedures Approved: (.._.- �-C- Date: 9/22/03 Attachments: 1) Perris Valley Line Scope of Work 2) Perris Valley Line Fee Estimate Agenda Item 6G 25 PERRIS VALLEY LINE SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Overall Assumptions: • Scope of work is for 6 month period • Work will begin after Notice to Proceed (estimated November 1, 2003). A. Project Orientation Tasks: 1. Review project background information 2. Kick-off meeting 3. Full team site visit B. Database Structure and Initial Data Collection Assumptions: • The database itself will not be a deliverable, but used only as a tool for this project • The database will have shared use between Perris Valley project and Property Management with costs being split equally • Database scope will include information corresponding to: o Basic property o Title o Appraisal o Acquisition o Relocation o Encroachment resolution o Site Pictures o Issue tracking • The database will include predetermined reports for all of the above information to meet ROW team and RCTC needs • All computers that run the database will have MS Access version 2000 or later • The database will not be used by more than 30 people • The database will be in Access and will not include GIS functionality • The database will be hosted at Epic headquarters and uploaded at RCTC as read-only • RCTC will own all Epic work product, including the database, but excluding any 3`d party licensing, such as the MS Access application. • Training, implementation, and enhancements will be included in next phase, except for encroachments 26 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Tasks: 1. Plan and Design Database 2. Develop Database 3. Implement Database (encroachments only) C. Encroachments Assumptions: • Scope of work encompasses 18 mile extension Tasks: 1. Conduct preliminary review of existing aerial maps, acquisition documents and other documentation 2. Perform full line field review 3. Summarize initial findings and draft approach for identifying and resolving encroachments D. Railroad Acquisition Assumptions: • Hours estimated for on -call advisory services will be invoiced as incurred Tasks: 1. On -call services, as needed, for up to 125 hours E. Preliminary ROW Studies Assumptions: • 10 commercial business owners interviewed Tasks: 1. Interview impacted tenants 2. Assess and draft report of results/recommendations 3. Participate in route selection meetings 4. Assist with Preliminary Engineering considerations F. Project Management Assumptions: • Status reports are provided weekly • Status meetings are held on a monthly basis for 6 months • Key team members will participate in monthly meetings Tasks: 1 . Generate and review status reports 2. Prepare for and participate in status meetings 27 Epic Land Solutions, inc. G. Community Outreach Assumptions: • 3 public meetings • 1 full line mailing (1,000 recipients) • 3 private meetings • Recent ownership information is available electronically • Key team members will be present at meetings Tasks: 1. Draft and send mailing 2. Prepare/coordinate presentations 3. Attend meetings and respond to questions H. Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan Assumptions: • 1 RAMP required + 2 updates Tasks: 1. Gather required information 2. Draft Plan 3. Submit Plan and revise as necessary 4. Participate in 6 FTA application meetings Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 1 28 FEE SCHEDULE 10/1/2003 PERRIS VALLEY LINE Area Task Company Name Level Hours Rate Fee Estimate Expenses Expense Amount SubTotal 5% Mark-up Total GRAND TOTAL A. Project Orientation All Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 16 $ 147.00 $ 2,352.00 Mileage $270.00 $2,622.00 $2,622.00 Epic J. Overcamp Community Outreach Manager 16 $ 123.50 $ 1,976.00 $1,976.00 $1,976.00 - _ JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 16 $ 175.00 $ 2,800.00 ' Mileage $180.00 $2,980.00 $149.00 $3,129.00 JWA M. Murray App. Mgr 16 $ 100.00 $ 1,600.00 $1,600.00 $80.00 $1,680.00 JWA T. Lemm Acq. Mgr 16 _ $ 100.00 $ 1,600.00 _ $1,600.00 $80.00 . $1,680.00' Epic L. Overcamp Relo. Mgr 16 $ 123.50 $ 1,976.00 $1,976.00 $1,976.00' Epic C. Overcamp Database Mgr 16 $ 104.50 $ 1,672.00 $1,672.00 $1,672:00 Epic M. Kaiser Encroach Mgr 16 $ 100.00 $ 1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1;600:00 HWI L. Long RR Specialist 16 $ 179.58 $ 2,873.28 Mileage $90.00 $2,963.28 $148:16 $3,11.1._44 • •$.19,446:44 B. Database Structure and Initial Data Collection 1. Planning and Design Epic C. Overcamp Database Mgr 95 $ 104.50 $ 9,927.50 Mileage and misc. expenses $750.00 $10,677.50 - $10,677.50 -• Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 20 $ 147.00 $ 2,940.00 $2,940.00 $2,940.00 2. Develop Database Epic C. Overcamp Database Mgr 75 $ 104.50 $ 7,837.50 $7,837.50 $7,837.50 Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 3 $ 147.00 $ 441.00 $441.00 $441.00 Epic J. Damm Technician 54 _ $ 47.00 $ 2,538.00 $2,538.00 $2,538.00 3. Implement Database Epic C. Overcamp Database Mgr 10 $ 104.50 $ 1,045.00 $1,045.00' $1,045.00 E is H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 2 $ 147.00 $ 294.00 $294.00' $294.00 _ Epic J. Damm Technician 10 $ 47.00 i $ 470.00 $470.00 $470.00 $26,243.00 C. Encroachments - new line 1. Review documentation Epic M. Kaiser Encroach Mgr 40 $ 100.0.0 $ 4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00'.. • 2. Perform full line field review Epic M. Kaiser Encroach Mgr 40 $ 100.00 $ 4,000.00 Mileage $216.00 $4,216.00 $4216.00 3. Identify potential encroachments and draft report Epic M. Kaiser Encroach Mgr 40 $ 100.00 $ 4,000.00 $4,000.00 - • $4,0.00.00 •• Epic J. Damm Technician 40 $ 47.00 $ 1,880.00 $1,880.00 $1.,880..00 - Epic H. Rockwell Property Mgmnt Manager 60 $ 147.00 $ 8,820.00 $8,820.00 $8,.820.00 _ $22,9:16..00 D. Railroad Acquisition All JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 100 $ 175.00 $ 17,500.00 $17,500.00 $875_©0: "• $114.37a.00 - - HWI L. Long RR Specialist 25 $ 179.58 $ 4,489.50 $4,489.50 - $224.48 $4;713.98 - $23,088.98 E. Preliminary ROW Studies All JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 100 $ 175.00 $ 17,500.00 Mileage $216.00 $17,716.00 $885:-80 ' - - $18;601,80: • • _ Epic J. Overcamp Community Outreach Manager 100 $ 123.50 $ 12,350.00 Mileage $108.00 $12,458.00 • J $12,458.00 JWA T. Lemm Acq. Mgr 100 $ 100.00 $ 10,000.00 Mileage $720.00 $10,720.00 $536.00 $11,256.00 JWA M. Murray App. Mgr 100 $ 100.00 $ 10,000.00 Mileage $108.00 $10,108.00 - $505.40. $10,613.40 Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 40 $ 147.00 $ 5,880.00 Mileage $108.00 $5,988.00 $5,988.00 Epic L. Overcamp Relo. Mgr 125 $ 123.50 $ 15,437.50 Mileage $360.00 $15,797.50 $15,797.50 $74,714.70 F. Project Management All Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 120 $ 147.00 $ 17,640.00 Mileage $3,456.00 $21,096.00 . $21,096.00 Epic 1 J. Overcamp Community Outreach Manager 35 $ 123.50 $ 4,322.50 Mileage $3,456.00 $7,778.50 $7,778.50 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 1 of 8 29 FEE SCHEDULE 10/1/2003 Area Task Company Name Level Hours Rate Fee Estimate Expenses Expense Amount SubTotal 5% Mark-up Total GRAND TOTAL Epic L. Overcamp Relo. Mgr 15 $ 123.50 $ 1,852.50 Mileage $3,456.00 $3,456.00 $5,308.50 $5,023.50 $5,308.50 $5,023.50 Epic _ Epic C. Overcamp M. Kaiser Database Mgr 15 $ 104.50 $ 1,567.50 Mileage - Encroach Mgr 15 $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00 Mileage $3,456.00 $4,956.00 $4,956.00 Epic J. Damm Technician 60 $ 47.00 $ 2,820.00 $2,820.00 $2,820.00 JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 80 $ 175.00 $ 14,000.00 $14,000.00 $700.00 $14,700.00 JWA T. Lemm Acq. Mgr 15 $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00 $1,500.00 $75.00 _ $1,575.00 JWA M. Murray App. Mgr Principal In Charge Community Outreach Manager 15 $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00 _ $1,500.00 $75.00' $1,575.00 HWI B. Brewster 15 $ 204.78 $ 3,071.69 $3,071.69 $153.58 $3,225.27 $68,057.77 G. Community Outreach All Epic J. Overcamp 100 $ 123.50 $ 12,350.00 Mailings:Printing, Stationery, Postage, Handling (1,000 x 1 x $2.00) $2,000.00 $14,350.00 $14,350.00' Epic H. Rockwell Relationship Mgr 32 _ $ 147.00' $ 4,704.00 Mileage $1,200.00 $5,904.00 $5,904.0 Epic J. Damm Technician _ 30 $ 47.00 $ 1,410.00 Visual Preparation $5,000.00 $9.704.00 $9,704.00 JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 55 $ 175.00 $ 9,625.00 $9,625.00 $481.25 $10,106.25 HWI Mst. Planner 40 $ 141.77 $ 5,670.80 Misc. Expenses $300.00 $5,970.80 $298.54 $6,269.34, HWI Assoc. Planner 20 $ 57.97 $ 1,159.36 $1,159.36 $57.97 $1,217.33 $47,.550.92 H. Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan - All JWA J. Wiley ROW Manager 48 $ 175.00 $ 8,400.00 $8,400.00 $420.00 $8,820.00 JWA - - T. Lemm Acq. Mgr 48 $ 100.00 $ 4,800.00 $4,800.00 $240.00 $5,040.00 JWA M. Murray App. Mgr 48 $ 100.00 $ 4,800.00 $4,800.00 $240.00 $5,040.00 Epic L. Overcamp Relo. Mgr 48 $ 123.50 $ 5,928.00 $5,928.00 $5,928.00 Epic J. Overcamp Community Outreach Manager 48 $ 123.50 $ 5,928.00 - $5,928.00 $5,928.00 $30,756.00 2,225 $ 274,348.63 $ 28,906.00 $ 306,548.63 $ 6,225.18 $ 312,773.81 $312,773.81 30 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 2 of 8 FEE PROPOSAL SAN JACINTO LAND ACQUISTION PROJECT 10/1/2003 Area Sub -Area Task Company Level Hours Rate Fee Estimate Expenses Expense Amount SubTotal 10% Mark - up Grand Total B. Data Management Data Management Aerial Photography HWI CAD Op 13.5 $52.77 $ 712.40 Aerial Photography $4,370.00 $5,082.40 $508.24 $5,590.63 HWI Photogrammetrist 46.5 _ $61.04 $ 2,838.36 Photo Prints and Diapositives 5476.00 $3,314.36 $331.44 $3,645.79 HWI Project Manager 15 $94.51 $ 1,417.70 Computer 5776.00 $2,193.70 $219.371 $2,413.07 GIS Implementation and Conversions HWI GIS Specialist 80 $98.92 $ 7,913.93 GIS Expenses $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Eminent Domain Support JWA ROW Manager 120 $ 175.00 $ 21,000.00 Eminent Domain Support JWA Acq. Mgr 480 $ 100.00 $ 48,000.00 Eminent Domain Support JWA App. Mgr 120 $ 100.00 $ 12,000.00 1 GRAND TOTAL LABOR AND EXPENSES 875 $ 93,882.38 $ 6,822.00 $ 10,590.45 $ 1,059.05 $ 11,649.50 — * NOTE: Prevailing wage labor rates were used for Part Chief and lnstrumentman positions for purposes of the estimate 1 31 c.) u) d 0 N cu Z.3 Name Sec 2003 Straight Hourly rate 2003 Premium Hourly rate F ull y- Burdened Straight Hourly Rate Full Fully - Burdened Premium Hourly Rate Full -Time Construction Observer Bair, Jason S. • 3 $ 26.70 $ 40 .05 $ 84 .12 $ 98.17 Rodman Odenbaugh, Dennis George• 3 $ 14.40 $ 21.60 $ 45.37 $ 52 .94 Instrumentman Marquis, Walter P. 3 $ 13.80 $ 20.70 $ 43 .48 $ 50 .74 Instrumentman Sparrow, Coyote M. • 3 $ 15 .50 $ 23.25 $ 48.83 $ 56 .99 Instrumentman Van Zuiden, Mark Allen • 3 $ 11 .90 $ 17 .85 $ 37.49 $ 43.75 Party Chief Lucero, Ed R. 3 $ 18.00 $ 27 .00 $ 56.71 $ 66.18 Party Chief _ Ortiz, David L • 3 $ 17.10 $ 25.65 $ 53.87 $ 62.87 Party Chief Pasqual, Leon J. • 3 $ 17.63 $ 26.45 _ $ 55 .54 $ 64 .82 Party Chief Pasqual, Merrill L. • 3 $ 18.55 $ 27.83 $ 58.44 $ 68.20 Party Chief _ Stanhope, Stephen L. • 3 $ 18.50 $ 27 .75 $ 58 .28 $ 68.02 Party Chief Greenwood, Patrick K. • 3 $ 16.50 $ 24.75 $ 51.98 $ 60.67 Party Chief Vallo, Toney 3 $ 16.95 $ 25.43 $ 53.40 $ 62.32 Chief Surveyor, Field Supervisor Aragon, Benjamin M. • 3 $ 26.25 $ 39 .38 $ 82.70 $ 96 .51 Chief Surveyor, Field Supervisor Medina, Christopher A. • _ 1 $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 74.82 $ 74.82 Department Head Croshaw, Christopher S. • 1 $ 30 .75 $ 30 .75 $ 96.88 _ $ 96 .88 WP Operator, Clerk, Typist Aragon, Stephanie Lena • 3 $ 11 .75 $ 17 .63 $ 37 .02 $ 43.20 Sr Oper, Clerk, Sec, Librarian Henry, Janet Ann • _ 3 $ 16.00 $ 24.00 $ 50.41 $ 58 .83 Sr Oper, Clerk, Sec, Librarian Morales, JoAnn 3 $ 16 .75 $ 25.13 $ 52 .77 $ 61.58 Sr Oper, Clerk, Sec, Librarian Ortiz, Ajee C. • 3 $ 16.10 $ 24.15 $ 50.72 $ 59 .19 Sr Oper, Clerk, Sec, Librarian Rubio, Barbara E. • 3 $ 14 .90 $ 22 .35 $ 46 .94 $ 54.78 Assis Accountant, Sr Secretary Hodson, Kay F. 3 $ 20.25 _ $ 30 .38 $ 63.80 $ 74 .45 Assis Accountant, Sr Secretary Nichols, Terri A • 3 $ 21.35 $ 32.03 _ $ 67.26 _ $ 78.50 Assis Accountant, Sr Secretary Siu, Debra Ann • 3 $ 15.00 $ 22 .50 $ 47 .26 $ 55.15 Section Head Bartlett, Elaine M. • 1 $ 26.00 $ 26 .00 $ 81.91 $ 81 .91 CA DD Operator DeLuca, Dominick A • 3 $ 12.40 $ 18.60 _ $ 39.07 $ 45.59 Drafter, Detailer Le, Quy 3 $ 16.50 $ 24.75 $ 51 .98 $ 60.67 Drafter, Detailer Rangel, Juan S. 3 $ 16.75 $ 25.13 $ 52.77 $ 61 .58 Drafter, Detailer Tenorio, Alden M. • 3 $ 12.50 $ 18.75 $ 39.38 $ 45 .96 Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Jaramillo, Patrick A. • 3 $ 18. 40 $ 27.60 $ 57.97 $ 67.65 32 v co d 0 co U Name _ Sec 2003 Straight H ourly rate 2003 Premium H ourly rate Fully- B urdened Straight Hourly Rate Fully - Burdened Premium H ourly Rate Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Johnson, Nina Renee 3 $ 19.80 $ 29 .70 $ 62 .38 $ 72.80 Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Luna, Richard R. • 3 $ 18.50 $ 27.75 $ 58 .28 $ 68.02 Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Vasquez, Michael A. • 3 $ 19.65 $ 29.48 $ 61.91 $ 72.25 Sr Draft, Detail, Squad Leader Montoya, Garrett A. • 3 $ 29 .55 $ 44.33 $ 93 .10 $ 108.65 Grad Eng/Arch in Res (Unlic) Hwan, Khin Maung 1 $ 21 .80 $ 21.80 $ 68.68 $ 68.68 Grad Eng/Arch in Res (Unlic) Austin. Brian Thomas 1 $ 25.60 $ 25.60 $ 80 .65 $ 80.65 Staff Detail Designer (Unlic) Lim, Khy C. 1 $ 25 .00 $ 25 .00 $ 78 .76 $ 78.76 Staff Detail Designer (Unlic) Llosa, Julio E. • 3 $ 25.40 $ 38.10 $ 80 .02 $ 93 .39 Staff Detail Designer (Unlic) Wong, Larry • 1 $ 31 .45 $ 31.45 $ 99.08 $ 99.08 Project Designer (Licensed) Snyder, Grant R. • 1 $ 34 .25 $ 34.25 $ 107 90 $ 107 .90 Project Designer (Licensed) Peterson, Mark A. 1 $ 45.00 $ 45 .00 $ 141.77 $ 141.77 Department Head, Principals, (Lic) Steffensmeier, Charles J. 1 $ 50 .50 $ 50 .50 $ 159 10 $ 159 .10 Assoc Planner, Phys (Grad) Castaneda, Stephanie Mich 3 $ 17.35 $ 26 .03 $ 54.66 $ 63.79 Assoc Planner, Phys (Grad) Taack, M arcia Jean • 1 $ 20 .00 $ 20.00 $ 63.01 $ 63 .01 Senior Planner, Phys (Grad) Birney, Laura J. • 1 _ $ 26 .50 $ 26.50 $ 83.49 $ 83.49 Master Planner, Phys (Grad) Curran, Patricia Anne . 1 $ 45 .00 $ 45.00 $ 141.77 $ 141.77 GIS Specialist Reminiskey, Gerard N. L. • 3 $ 31.40 $ 47 .10 $ 98.92 $ 115 .45 Railroad Specialist DiGiacomo, John M. • 3 $ 35.75 $ 53.63 $ 112.63 $ 131.44 �3 V N 0 0 (r) u) 03 v Name Sec 2003 Straight Hourly rate 2003 Premium Hourly rate F ully- B urdened Straight Hourly Rate Fully - Burdened Premium Hourly Rate Railroad Specialist Freshman, Dennis H. • 3 $ 34.80 $ 52.20 $ 109.64 $ 12T95 Railroad Specialist Bishop, William Dean 1 $ 45 .00 $ 45.00 $ 141.77 $ 141 .77 1 Railroad Specialist DeFord, Don Gary • 1 $ 49.50 $ 49.50 $ 155.95 $ 155 .95 Railroad Specialist Long, Larry G. 1 $ 57.00 $ 57.00 $ 179.58 $ 179.58 Principal In Charge Brewster, William F. 1 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 I $ 204.78 $ 204.78 Part -Time Rodman _ R5 Acosta, David P• $ 10.50 $ 15 .75 $ 33.08 $ 38 .61 Rodman Solano, Samuel S. • 5 $ 9.00 $ 13.50 $ 28.35 $ 33.09 Master Planner, Phys (Grad) lslava, Diane Kwis 5 $ 39.00 $ 58 .50 $ 122.87 $ 143 .39 Railroad Specialist Armenta, Charles G - 5 $ 40.00 $ 60.00 $ 126 .02 $ 147.07 Railroad Specialist _ McBee, Frank E. 5 $ 49.00 $ 73 .50 $ 154.37 $ 180 .16 Railroad Specialist Munday, Dan Ray 5 $ 42 .00 $ 63.00 $ 132 .32 $ 154 .42 Staff Detail Designer (Licensed) Lai, Peter 5 $ 36.00 $ 54.00 $ 113.42 $ 132.36 Railroad Specialist Paddock, Charles G. • 5 $ 50.00 $ 75 .00 $ 157.52 $ 183.83 $ $ - Full -Time $ - Photogrammetrist, Supervisor Alexander, Wade A. • _ 1 $ 22.75 $ 22.75 $ 71 .67 $ 71 .67 Photogrammetrist, Supervisor Budke, Daniel J. • 1 $ 24.30 $ 24.30 $ 76.56 _ $ 76.56 Department Head Dedrick, Kenneth J • 1 $ 31.00 $ 31 .00 $ 97 .66 $ 97.66 Party Chief Burdette, Perry S 3 $ 14.38 $ 21.56 $ 45.29 _ $ 52 .85 Party Chief Dockins, Eric S 3 $ 14 .88 _ $ 22 .31 $ 46.86 $ 54 .69 Party Chief Prusik, Terrance C, 3 $ 19.13 $ 28 .69 $ 60.25 $ 70.32 Party Chief Rahorst, William F. 3 $ 15.20 $ 22 .80 $ 47 .89 $ 55.89 Party Chief Sykes, James E. 3 $ 15.23 $ 22 .85 $ 47 .98 $ 56.00 Chief Surveyor, Field Supervisor C1 Martin, Marji L• $ 23.75 $ 23.75 $ 74.82 $ 74.82 Chief Surveyor, Field Supervisor C3 Newton, David L• $ 22. 43 $ 33 .65 $ 70.66 $ 82 .47 Chief Surveyor, Field Supervisor Thompson, Gregory L. • 3 $ 23.50 $ 35.25 $ 74 .04 $ 86.41 Department Head Roberts, Steve E. - 1 $ 26.58 $ 26.58 $ 83.72 $ 83.72 34 0 N d 0 C.5 Name Sec 2003 Straight Hourly rate 2003 Premium Hourly rate F ully- B urdened Straight Ho urly Rat e Fully - Burdened Premium Hourly Rate Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Ehlers, Thomas J. 3 $ 16.88 $ 25 .32 $ 53.18 $ 62.06 Sr Draft, Detail, Cad Op, Typist Sloane, John W. 3 $ 16.75 $ 25 .13 $ 52.77 $ 61 .58 Sr Stereo Oper, Squad Leader McClintock, Denny D. - 3 $ 14 .00 $ 21 .00 $ 44 .11 $ 51.47 Sr Stereo Oper, Squad Leader Royko, Troy M. 1 $ 19.38 $ 19.38 $ 61.04 $ 61.04 Photogrammetrist, Supervisor Beck, Timothy W. • 3 $ 22.50 $ 33 .75 $ 70.89 $ 82 .73 Photogrammetrist, Supervisor Schmiedeler, John R. 1 $ 20.63 $ 20 .63 $ 64 .98 $ 64 .98 Chief Photogram, Department Head Hanson, Roger H. • 1 i $ 47.25 $ 47 .25 $ 148.86 $ 148.86 Chief Photogram, Department Head Lowe, Samuel E. _ 1 $ 30 .00 $ 30.00 $ 94.51 $ 94.51 Part -Time Rodman Eichholz, Neil A. • 5 $ 10 .00 $ 15 .00 $ 31 .50 $ 36 .77 Senior Planner, Phys (Grad) _Cochrane, Dennis J - 5 $ 20.00 $ 30.00 $ 63.01 $ 73.53 j5 Riverside to Perris Aerial Photography and Site Mapping LABOR Hours Cost CAD Technician 13.5 $742.50 Photogrammetrist 46.5 $3,255.00 Project Manager 15 $1,725.00 Labor Total 75 MATERIALS Cost Aerial Photography $4,370.00 Photo Prints and Diapositives $476.00 Computer $776.00 Plots $245.00 Miscellaneous $- $5,722.50 $5,867.00 Total Aerial Photography and Mapping $11,589.50 Project Info Black and white aerial photography only of 24 miles of RR - Riverside to Perris - 2000' AMT AutoCAD mapping of (7) three acre sites with orthophotography the full width of the imagery California office to provide all ground control No aerial triangulation at this time - models to be set with full ground control No corridor mapping at this time These are ballpark figures only Note: Future mapping will require photo identification of ground control along corridor AGENDA ITEM 6H rRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 04-31-015 for Revegetation Work Adjacent to State Route 74 Segment I BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the results of the selection process for revegetation services adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-31-015 to Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. to perform the revegetation scope of work, for the amount of $28,576.35, plus an contingency amount of $12,423.65, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $41,000.00; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 28, 2003 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the Revegetation Adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County. The overall objective of the Segment I revegetation work is the successful reestablishment of plant communities where they have been temporarily disturbed by construction of the portion of the roadway project in Segment I. This revegetation project addresses the on -site mitigation measures, per special conditions under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorization, under Nationwide Permit #14, the Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Agenda Item 6H 37 Quality Certification, and the California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code. The project was advertised starting on August 25, 2003 with the bid opening scheduled for September 16, 2003. Two (2) bids were received and opened on September 16, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. A summary of the bids received are shown in Table A: TABLE A Revegetation Adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 Between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road Bid Summary Firm (in order from Low bid to High bid) Bid Amount Amount Over Low Bid Engineers Estimate $35,795.00 n/a 1 Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. 15529 Arrow Highway Irwindale, Ca. 91706 $28,576.35 $0.00 2 Pacific Restoration Group Inc. 1280 Magnolia Ave. Corona, Ca. 92879 $188,661.00 $160,084.65 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and all concur that Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. was the lowest bidder whose bid was determined responsive to the bid documents. A summary of the review of the two (2) bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: Agenda Item 6H 38 TABLE B Check List Item Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. Pacific Restoration Group Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes Yes 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items Yes Yes Yes No Yes High High No 3 Bid Bond Yes Yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Work Yes Yes 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes Yes 6 Safety Record Yes Yes 7 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes yes 8 Evidence of Insurance Yes Yes Table C summarizes the costs associated with the Revegetation Adjacent To State Route 74 Segment 1 Between Dexter Avenue, In Lake Elsinore, And 0.5 KM East Of Wasson Canyon Road, In Riverside County, for the two (2) bids received. Staff contacted both bidders to discuss the cost difference between their bids. In the discussions with Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc. (Mariposa) Staff inquired into Mariposa's rational behind the values placed on each bid item. Mariposa did state that it was difficult to estimate the cost of the five year Plant Establishment period; Mariposa placed a value of $12,000 while the second bidder had $132,545 and the engineers estimate was at $9,000. Mariposa stated that based on the anticipated project schedule, the plant material would be placed in the wet. season and have a high potential to survive the plant establishment period with minimal assistance. Based on these discussion Mariposa, has a clear understanding of the project requirements and is confident that the can perform the work required. The estimator from Mariposa was present at the pre -bid meeting, which was held at the proposed job site. Mariposa is a medium size company with approximately 300 people and offices in the California and Arizona. Agenda Item 6H 39 Discussions were also held with the project estimator from Pacific Restoration Group (PRG). Staff and PRG discussed their rational behind their bid and the large difference between the two bids, specifically the five year plant establishment period. It was PRG's perception that it would take substantial work to maintain the project and meet the acceptance criteria of the plant establishment period and that is why their bid for the Plant Establishment portion of the work was $132,545. Staff believes that the Engineers Estimate of $9,000 is more representative of the work required to fulfill the Plant Establishment requirements. Based on staff and Legal Counsel's review of the bids received and the discussions with both bidders, it is recommended that the Commission award Agreement No. 04-31-015, for the Revegetation Adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County, to Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises Inc for the amount of $28,576.35 in addition to authorizing an contingency amount of $12,423.65, to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $41,000.00. The standard RCTC construction contract will be used, contingent upon Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: $41 ,000 Source of Funds: Bond Proceeds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: .;tiy, ; ... . _ Date: 09/22/03 Agenda Item 6H 40 TABLE C ITEM NO ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST . QUAN. Engineers Unit Price Estimate Item Total Mariposa Enterprises Unit Price Horticultural Inc. Item Total Pacific Restoration Unit Price Group Inc. Item Total 1 PREPARE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 $900.00 $900.00 $5,500.00 $5 .500.00 2 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 3 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LS 1 $1,000 .00 $1,000 .00 $750 .00 $750.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 4 REMOVE TREE STUMPS EA 10 $200.00 $2,000 .00 $280.00 $2,800.00 $1,200.00 $12,000 .00 5 GRASSLAND/EROSION CONTROL REVEGETATION m2 1,669 $5.00 $8.345 .00 $2 .85 $4,756.65 $9.00 $15,021.00 6 RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB REVEGETATION m2 7 $50.00 $350.00 $110.00 $770.00 $600.00 $4.200.00 7 RIPARIAN PLANTING REVEGETATION EA 63 $200 .00 $12,600 .00 $61 .90 $3,899 .70 $165.00 $10,395.00 8 PLANT ESTABLISHMENT WORK - YEARS 1 TO 5 (Years 4 and 5 conditional) LS 1 $9.000.00 $9,000.00 $12,000.00 _ $12,000.00 - $132,545.00 $132,545.00 SUBTOTAL $35,795 .00 Subtotal $28,576.35 _ Subtotal $188,661 .00 Agenda Item 6H 41 AGENDA ITEM 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Triennial Performance Audit for Fiscal Years 2001-2003 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-62-033 with Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc., to conduct the triennial performance audit of the Commission and seven public transit operators; 2) Allocate up to $56,900 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to cover the cost of the audit; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 28, 2003 Commission meeting, staff was directed to release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct the required triennial performance audits. The audits are required to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the Commission and the seven public transit operators: City of Banning, City of Beaumont, City of Corona, City of Riverside Special Services, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency. The RFP was distributed to approximately 100 agencies. Three proposals were received. The following table provides a summary of the hours and consulting fees associated with each of the firms: Firm Proposed Hours Proposed Costs Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc. 470 $56,900 Moore & Associates 991 $66,390 Mundle & Associates 832 $95,000 Agenda Item 61 42 The Commission's Audit Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Chris Buydos, Terry Henderson and Art Welch served as the review committee and used the following criteria to review the proposals: 1) Qualification and experience of the firm; 2) Qualification and experience of the individuals; 3) Organization of the work and management plan; 4) Demonstrating an understanding of the needs; 5) References; and, 6) Fees. Consultant interviews were conducted on September 3, 2003. While all three firms were qualified to conduct the audit, Arthur Bauer & Associates, Inc. (Bauer) is being recommended by the Audit Ad Hoc Committee to perform the triennial performance audit. Bauer has over 30 years of transportation experience and assisted in developing the language for the Transportation Development Act. If approved, Bauer anticipates it will take approximately 190 hours to conduct the RCTC audit and 280 hours for the audit of the transit operators. Triennial performance audits are required every three years and must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines set by the State Comptroller General's Office. As required by the "Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operations and Regional Transportation Planning Entities", a letter was faxed to the Riverside County Transit Operators requesting feedback on whether there were any conflicts of interest or comments regarding the three firms. At the time of writing this agenda item, no comments were received. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 03-04 Amount: Not to Exceed $56,900 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: j106-62-65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: r____ • rt - Date: 09/15/03 Agenda Item 61 43 AGENDA ITEM 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TDA Funding Formula for Western Riverside Commuter Rail Service County Bus and PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a change in the Western County funding formula for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds for bus and commuter rail service to 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail effective in Fiscal Year 2004-05; and, 2) Approve a timeline for the funding formula to be reviewed in Fiscal Year 2007-08 with proposed changes to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2009-10. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 1995, for Western County operators, the Commission adopted an 80% public bus and 20% commuter rail funding formula policy for Local Transportation Funds (LTF). Prior to the adoption of the policy, various meetings were held with Western County bus operators and commuter rail staff to determine the appropriate percentage split. In 1998, the 80%/20% formula was also approved to be applied to State Transit Assistance (STA) funding. Following are the highlights of the approved policy which established the funding formula: • Policy covered FY 1996-97 through FY 2001-02; • Timeline to review the formula would be every six years; • 20% formula for commuter rail was projected to be sufficient to fund up to Tier 2 rail service which was defined as "all rail services currently in operation plus the planned additional service from Riverside via Fullerton to Los Angeles;" and, • Commuter rail and bus operators agreed that they would need to adjust their service levels to operate within the available allocation of funding. Agenda Item 6J 44 Reauthorization of Measure "A" and Passage of TUMF Several meetings were held during FY 2001-02 to review the funding needs for Western County commuter rail and bus operators. In approximately January 2002, a management decision was made to place the review of the 80%/20% policy on hold until after the successful reauthorization of Measure "A". In November 2002, Measure "A" was reauthorized and as a result, it is projected that funding in the amount of $255,219,970 will be available for Western County bus and commuter rail service beginning in FY 2009-10. (Note: $85M and $50M for the Specialized Transit and Commuter Assistance Programs have been subtracted from this amount). Language contained in the reauthorized Measure "A" Ordinance states that: "Metrolink has provided a viable alternative to the automobile for thousands of daily commuters to Orange and Los Angeles counties and reduces the demand on our freeways. The current service level needs to double in the future and expansion of the system to Moreno Valley and Perris is needed to relieve congestion on I-215...." The planned service from Riverside to Perris is consistent with the current and future voter approved Measure "A" Expenditure Plan which identified commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line. In addition to the reauthorization of Measure "A", TUMF was also approved. It is estimated that approximately $107 million (3.8%) will be available for capital transit projects of a regional nature. TUMF funds will be available beginning with FY 2002-03 through FY 2024-25. Planned Commuter Rail Program Growth The following information is provided to highlight the commuter rail program's anticipated growth and associated station costs: 1) Service on the existing three lines - (Riverside — /EOC - 91 Line) — will increase from 35 to 65 weekday trains, an increase of 85%. Expanded service will be phased in beginning with FY 2003-04 and will be completed in FY 2008-09; 2) RCTC owns and operates five Metrolink stations in Riverside County with a current annual budget of $1.2 million. It is anticipated that station costs will increase an average of 3% per year; Agenda Item 6J 45 3) The planned extension of commuter rail service from Riverside to Perris by FY 2007-08 will increase the number of Metrolink operated route miles by 50% (from 37.5 to 56.5 route miles); a. The cost associated with the Perris extension will increase RCTC's train operating subsidy by a minimum of $2 million a year (a 50% increase in the current train subsidy); and b. The service to Perris will require approximately four new stations. As a result, it is projected that station operating expenses will increase by a minimum of $ 1 million a year. Planned Growth for the Public Transit Operators — Western Riverside County The major project planned for the public transit operators over the next several years is a potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Approximately two years ago, RTA hired a consultant team to study the potential of implementing a BRT system in western Riverside County. The consultant team consisting of staff from UC Berkeley, UCR and UCLA are currently working towards developing a strategic plan that phases in improvements over multiple years: near term — allowing strategies and improvements that could be introduced in 1 to 2 years; an immediate near term (4 to 5 years) deployment of key components of BRT along with a longer term p/an (10 years) that would represent a full-blown BRT system. Based on a conversation with RTA's Executive Director, the RTA Board has not approved the BRT Program nor determined what level of service it would operate at. No major expansion projects are planned by the city municipal operators. Proposed Change in Funding Formula Staff is recommending that the policies allocating LTF and STA funds at 80% to public bus and 20% to commuter rail service be changed to 78% for public bus and 22% for commuter rail effective FY 2004-05. The attached spreadsheet provides projected LTF revenue (based on 3% growth projection) for FY 2004-05 through FY 2009-10. Periodic Review of Funding Allocation Policy Over the next several fiscal years, various funding sources will be available to transit and commuter rail including: 1) Measure "A" which will be available for both operating and capital projects beginning with FY 2009-10; and 2) Proposition 42, a 20 -year funding stream available in FY 2008-09. Proposition 42 initially guarantees the funding allocations of the Traffic Congestion Relief Program Agenda Item 6J 46 included in AB 2928 and the FY 2001-02 State Budget and then, commencing with FY 2008-09, distributes an estimated $1.4 billion in revenues in the following fashion: • 20% to cities distributed by population; • 20% to counties distributed based on registered vehicles and road miles; 20% to the Public TransporlaLion Account to fund transit; and, • 40% to the STIP to fund regional and inter -regional projects. Based on the $1 .4 billion revenue estimate, using current RCTC apportionment areas and population based formulas, Riverside County transit apportionment areas are estimated to receive the following 20 -year revenues: Western Riverside County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley $70.5 million $19.4 million $ 1.1 million In addition, as stated earlier, approximately $107 million in TUMF fees will also be available for capital projects of a regional nature. Meeting with Transit Operators Staff discussed the proposed change to the Western County funding policy with the transit operators during the past month to determine potential service level issues should a shift in funding occur. In addition, a meeting was held on September 16, 2003, to discuss the proposed TDA funding formula change with all transit providers present either in person or via conference call. Following is a summary of the concerns and responses (if appropriate) made at the meeting: 1) Comment: The "transit/commuter rail" partnership is a "win - win" for everyone. 2) Comment: Concern was expressed that funding is needed for transit centers. Response: Current funding is available for transit centers including Section 5307; TUMF; Section 5309 Discretionary and L TF/STA funds. Agenda Item 6J 47 3) Comment: Concern was expressed that one operator has been reluctant to increase service frequency due to funding constraints. Response: Historically, Western County bus operators have not utilized all available LTF funding. Funding has been available to increase frequency and has been provided when requested. 4) Comment: Concern was expressed at the inequity of fare reimbursement available through Southern California Regional Rail Authority stating that the reimbursement policy is applied differently among the various transit operators. Example: one operator receives zero reimbursement while another operator receives approximately $2.00 for each one-way trip. Response: This issue was resolved immediately following the September 16t`1 meeting. All operators in Riverside County will receive up to $ 1.92 per trip provided. (Note: this item will be fully discussed in a subsequent agenda item). Staff Recommendations As a result of the additional revenue sources and the planned increase in commuter rail service, staff is recommending the following: 1) Funding formula policy be changed to 78% for Western County public bus operators and 22% for commuter rail. Policy to be implemented in FY 2004-05; and 2) Funding formula to be reviewed in FY 2007-08 with proposed changes to be implemented in FY 2009-10. Commuter rail and bus operators will need to plan service levels based on available funding levels; however, should either the public bus providers or commuter rail provider require additional funds over and above the 78%/22% funding level, requests will be considered and presented to the Commission for further consideration. Attachment: Projected LTF Allocations Agenda Item 6J 48 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROJECTED LTF ALLOCATIONS - NO CHANGE IN POLICY Rail: 20% Apportionment Fiscal Year Western County Apportionment Bus - 80% Apportionment 2004/05 $38,431,494 $30,745,195 $7,686,299 2005/06 $39,584,439 $31,667,551 $7,916,888 2006/07 $40,771,972 $32,617,578 $8,154,394 2007/08 $41,995,131 $33,596,105 $8,399,026 2008/09 $43,254,985 $34,603,9881 $8,650,997 2009/10 $44,552,635 $35,642,108 $8,910,527 Total: $248,590,656 $198,872,525 $49,718,131 PROJECTED Fiscal Year LTF ALLOCATIONS Western County Apportionment - CHANGE IN POLICY: 78/22% Bus - 78% Apportionment Rail: 22% Apportionment 1 2004/05 $38,431,494 $29,976,565 $8,454,929. 2005/06 $39,584,439 $30,875,862 $8,708,577 2006/07 $40,771,972 $31,802,138 $8,969,834 2007/08 $41,995,131 $32,756,202 $9,238,929'. 2008/09 $43,254,9851 $33,738,888 $9,516,097 2009/10 $44,552,635 $34,751,055 $9,801,580. Total: $248,590,656 $193,900,711 $54,689,944 Note: Growth in funds projected at 3%. $768,630 $791,689 $815,439 $839,903 $865,100 $891,053 $4,971,813 Potential increase to rail based on 78/22% Percentage Changes Between Bus and Rail Allocations 9/25/2003 49 AGENDA ITEM 6K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fund Transfer Agreement No. 04-45-027 with the State of California Department of Transportation BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Fund Transfer Agreement No. 04-45-027 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program in the amount of $1,041,618 in State funding for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program has been in operation for over ten years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats on SR 91, I-215/SR 60, and 1-15 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 agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for FY 2003-04 provides for continued State funding in the amount of $1,041,618 and requires a local match of $260,405. This is a decrease of $38,782 over the funding level for FY 2002-03. The Commission's FY 2003-04 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program includes $993,200 in State funding and $248,300 in local matching funds, less than actual funds now being allocated by the State. A budget adjustment is not being requested at this time. Staff, along with the CHP and Caltrans, will review the hours of operation and service level to determine if any additional service is warranted. Agenda Item6K 50 Annually, the program provides approximately 27,500 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside county freeways. The Commission contracts with three tow truck operators to provide thirteen tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The programs day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Attachment: Fund Transfer Agreement No. 04-45-027 Agenda Item6K 51 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) Agreement No. FSP04-6054(001) Location: 08-RIV-Var-RCTC Project No.: FSP04-6054(038) EA: 08-924800 THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2003, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq. authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrol FY 2003-2004, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost State Funds $1,302,023.00 $1,041,618.00 Local Funds $260,405.00 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached. For Caftans Use Only I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Original Signed By �bal Mahmoad Chapters u esj item Accounting Officer r11-1,3 1, i4 i 6/8i, 00 Fiscal Year! Program 1 BC !Category 'Fund Source 1 e 157 1 2003 1 2660-102-042 1 2003/2004 120.30.010.600 1 C 1 262040 1114-042-T 52 Page 1 of 6 Non -Fed FSP NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,041,618.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $166,658.88. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. in the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds totaling $260,405.00, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be uE for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 53 Page 2 of 6 Non -Fed FSP 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9. COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that 1. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2. those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the California Transportation Commission. 54 Page 3 of 6 Non -Fed FSP 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are require -- be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)] on the basis a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE on demand. 55 Page 4 of 6 Non -Fed FSP 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be JULY 1,2003. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 56 Page 5 of 6 Non -Fed FSP 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJECT equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTEP AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair ma...dt value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2005; However, the non -expendable equipment, and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation Riverside County Transportation Commission By: By: Office of Project lmplementation,South Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: 57 Page 6 of 6 Non -Fed FSP AGENDA ITEM 6L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION J DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transfer Funding Partnership Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-008 with Southern California Regional Rail Authority PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Transfer Funding Partnership Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-008 with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA); and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the memorandum on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Metrolink's fares are structured to include free transfers to connecting transit services. Approximately 50% of all Metrolink riders use their Metrolink ticket to complete their daily trips. To facilitate these connecting transfers, SCRRA has entered into agreements with public transit operators serving Metrolink stations in each county. In Riverside County, SCRRA has executed two separate Interagency Transfer Agreements with RTA and the City of Corona. Under the terms of the Transfer Agreements, SCRRA reimburses the transit operator for the Metrolink boardings at a negotiated rate per boarding. The majority of the transfer agreements restrict the bus routes, time of day and direction of travel, that are included in the agreement to routes that provide feeder/distribution service to Metrolink train stations. Effective bus transit connections at the Metrolink stations are a key component to the continued success of Metrolink in Riverside County. Currently, RTA, SunLine, and the Corona Cruiser/Dial-A-Ride provide connecting transit services at the RCTC stations. The introduction of the new RTA CommuterLink Express Bus services this month provides another choice for Metrolink riders as well as bus riders. Agenda Item 6L 58 These services are important to providing a seamless trip experience to the Metrolink rider and help reduce parking requirements at our five stations. As a result, staff recommends executing a Memorandum of Understanding with Metrolink to provide consistent transfer reimbursements to all three operators, RTA, SunLine, and Corona Cruiser/Dial-A-Ride. Execution of the agreement, coupled with the separate Interagency Transfer Agreements (between the transit operator and Metrolink), will ensure that Riverside County riders with a valid Metrolink ticket will be able to ride for free (in most cases) or at a reduced fare. The MOU will provide the maximum one-way trip transfer reimbursement: Currently, the maximum is $2.00, and will be consistently applied to all public bus operators providing service to RCTC owned Metrolink stations. Staff, in consultation with Metrolink staff, estimates the annual increase in RCTC's operating costs to be in the range of $12,000 - $15,000. Upon approval, the agreement will be retroactive to July 1, 2003. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: 1 FY 03-04 Amount: $15,000 Source of Funds: Operating Funds (LTF) Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 103-25-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ::..:_.:.., • Date: 09/22/03 Agenda Item 6L 59 AGENDA ITEM 6M r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements with Southern California Gas Company and City of Riverside Public Utilities BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-034 with the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) for the installation of a gas line at the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station. Approval of this agreement is contingent upon approval of the following agreement with the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU); 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-035 with the RPU regarding the construction of a gas line at the La Sierra Station and the assumption of responsibilities under the SCGC Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 12, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 02-33-089 with the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) for a joint solar panel project at the Riverside -La Sierra Station. The solar panel project is now complete and began generating renewable energy for RPU on the 15`h of this month. In exchange for the renewable energy, Metrolink riders receive covered parking and RCTC receives a reduction/elimination of electricity costs. The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) has rebates for the construction of large energy -generating systems for its customers if self -generation technologies are installed on customer sites. Currently, the Riverside -La Sierra Station does not have gas service because it is not required for station operations. RPU desires to install gas lighting fixtures and facilities at the Riverside -La Sierra Station in exchange for incentive payments under the SCGC Self -Generation Agenda Item 6M 60 Incentive Program. However, SCGC will only enter into agreements with the Host Customer/Property Owner. Since RCTC owns the property and RPU desires to receive the incentive, staff recommends execution of an agreement with RPU regarding the installation of the gas line, subsequent gas utility payments, and assumption of responsibilities prior to the execution of an agreement with the SCGC. Attachments: 1) Agreement No. 04-25-035 with RPU 2) Agreement No. 04-25-034 with SCGC Agenda Item 6M 61 Agreement No. 04-25-035 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF SELF -GENERATION TECHNOLOGY AND ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE SELF -GENERATING INCENTIVE PROGRAM CONTRACT This Agreement regarding the construction and design of self -generation technology and the assumption of certain duties and responsibilities ("Agreement") under the Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract, attached as Exhibit "A", is made by and between Riverside County Transportation Commission, a political subdivision of the State of California ("RCTC"), and the City of Riverside's Public Utility Department, organized and existing under California law ("RPU"), sometimes also referred to herein jointly as "Parties" or individually as "Party." WHEREAS, RPU has a specific goal to have one megawatt of local renewable resources in place by 2004; WHEREAS, in furtherance of this goal RPU and RCTC entered into an agreement on September 12, 2002, for the construction of a photovoltaic carport generation structure at RCTC's La Sierra Metrolink Station ("Photovoltaic Agreement," attached as Exhibit "B"); WHEREAS, Southern California Gas Company has rebates for the construction of large energy -generating systems for its customers if self -generation technologies are installed on customer sites; WHEREAS, the Self -Generation Incentive Program ("Program"), authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission in Decision 01-03-073, encourages the installation of self -generation technologies by offering monetary incentives; WHEREAS, RPU desires to install self -generation technology in the form of gas lighting fixtures and facilities ("Project") on RCTC's La Sierra Metrolink Station located at 10901 Indiana Ave, Riverside, California in exchange for incentive payments under the Program; WHEREAS, the use of self -generation technology at this location will be of sufficient use to qualify for incentives under the Program; WHEREAS, RCTC has agreed to allow RPU to install self -generation technology in the form of gas lighting fixtures and facilities at RCTC's La Sierra Metrolink Station for the sole purpose of benefiting RPU and the City of Riverside; 62 WHEREAS, RCTC has agreed to enter into a Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract ("Contract," attached as Exhibit "A" ) between RCTC, RPU and the Southern California Gas Company for the purpose of accommodating the City of Riverside's desire to install self -generation technology in exchange for incentives under the Program, and would not otherwise enter into the Contract; WHEREAS, RCTC is the Host Customer under the Contract and RPU is identified as the Applicant in the Contract; WHEREAS, certain sections of the Contract require either RCTC or RPU to perform certain duties that RCTC and RPU agree should be the sole responsibility of RPU; and WHEREAS, RCTC and RPU desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of clarifying their respective responsibilities and obligations in designing and constructing the gas lighting fixtures and facilities and identifying their respective responsibilities and obligations under the Contract. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals that are incorporated herein by reference and the mutual terms and conditions herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1.1 Description of Project Site. RCTC currently owns and operates the La Sierra Metrolink Station located at 10901 Indiana (the "Property"), as shown on Exhibit "C" and described in the legal description marked Exhibit "D," all as attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 1 .2. Description of Proposed Construction. The RPU will design and construct gas lighting features and facilities on the Property, as described in Exhibit "E." 2. TERMS AND COVENANTS. 2.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is duly executed by both Parties ("Commencement Date"), and shall terminate upon satisfactory completion of all duties and responsibilities identified under the Contract, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 12 of this Agreement, or unless modified by written agreement of the Parties. This Agreement shall bind any successor, heir or assign of RCTC or RPU, whether a change in interest occurs voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, with or without the approval of the other Party. RVPUB/MKS/658629 2 63 2.2 Covenants to Run with the Land. RCTC and RPU hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Agreement shall run with the land, and shall bind all successors in title to the Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall be held conclusively to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants or restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. 2.3 Annual Review. The Parties agree to biennial review the terms of the Agreement, to determine if any term of the Agreement should be modified to reflect any changes in the Program or Contract. Neither RCTC nor RPU shall unreasonably withhold consent to any such change. 3. CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN 3.1 Construction. RPU covenants and agrees to design and construct the gas lighting features and facilities necessary to participate in the Program in accordance with, without limitation, all approved plans, drawings, documents and permits issued by the City of Riverside and/or other governmental agency exercising jurisdiction over the Property. All design and/or construction contracts entered into for the gas lighting features and facilities shall be entered into with a duly licensed, insured and bonded contractor or contractors. All such contracts entered into shall contain reference to this Agreement. 3.2 Labor Standards. RPU shall comply with all applicable federal and state labor standards in the execution of this Agreement. 3.3 Compliance with Governmental Regulations. RPU shall carry out the design and construction of the gas lighting features and facilities in conformity with all applicable governmental regulations, including without limitation, all applicable state labor standards, the City zoning and development standards, building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, all other provisions of the City Municipal Code, and all other provisions of state and federal laws. 3.4. Project Manager. RPU will be the project manager for all aspects of the design and construction of the gas lighting features and facilities. 3.5. Bid Documents for PV Structure. RPU will coordinate all bid documentation required for the design and/or construction of the gas lighting features and facilities. RVPUB/MKS/658629 3 64 4. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND OWNERSHIP 4.1 Funding for Design and Construction of Gas Lighting Features and Facilities. RPU shall be solely responsible for all costs and expenses related to the design and/or construction of the gas lighting features and facilities. 4.2. Relation to Photovoltaic Agreement. Monies expended for the design and/or construction of the gas lighting features and facilities shall be in addition to the design and construction costs identified in the Photovoltaic Agreement, attached as Exhibit "B," and shall not be included in the calculation of the City of Riverside's reimbursement obligations under the Photovoltaic Agreement. 4.3 Ownership of Improvements. RCTC shall be the sole owner of all improvements made to RCTC property, including the gas lighting features and facilities. 5. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY 5.1 Operation. RPU shall operate and maintain, either directly or through a contractor, the gas lighting features and facilities and any interconnection facilities in a safe and prudent manner and in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations. RCTC will grant RPU reasonable access to the gas lighting features and facilities for such purposes, as well as reasonable access to all other areas necessary for RPU to complete its duties identified in this Agreement, including any duties identified in Exhibits "A" and "B," and incorporated herein by reference. 5.2 Replacement of Gas Lighting Features and Facilities. RPU shall be responsible for the purchase and replacement of the gas lighting features and facilities. RCTC will grant RPU reasonable access to the gas lighting features and facilities for such purposes, as well as reasonable access to all other areas necessary for RPU to complete its duties. 5.3 Maintenance and Operation Costs. RPU shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the gas lighting features and facilities, except for those costs related to beautification of the gas lighting features and facilities. "Beautification costs" shall include but not be limited to costs incurred for the painting, landscaping or other items not required for the maintenance of the gas lighting features and facilities. 5.4 Monthly Gas Costs. RPU shall be responsible for reimbursing to RCTC the payment of the monthly gas bill for the gas lighting features and facilities for the term of this Agreement. RCTC will provide RPU with a quarterly accounting RVPUB/MKS/658629 4 65 including copies of the monthly gas bills from the Southern California Gas Company and proofs of payment. 6. ASSUMPTION OF CONTRACT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1. The Contract, attached as Exhibit "A," states in Sections 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 that either RPU, as Applicant, or RCTC, as Host Customer, will be responsible for certain duties related to the Program. RPU shall assume sole responsibility for all duties and responsibilities identified in the Contract which obligate either RPU, as Applicant, or RCTC, as Host Customer, including, but not limited to, all duties and responsibilities identified in Sections 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4. 6.2. RCTC acknowledges that it will be responsible under the Contract where the Contract states that both RPU, as Applicant, and RCTC, as Host Customer, are responsible. 6.3. In the event the Southern California Gas Company seeks reimbursement of funds from RCTC under Section 7.1 of the Contract, RPU will reimburse RCTC the full amount paid by RCTC to RPU within thirty (30) days. 7. HOLD HARMLESS 7.1 Except as to RPU's negligence or willful misconduct, RCTC shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless RPU, its officers, employees, and agents against and from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, charge, demand, or expense (including without limitation any direct, indirect or consequential loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, charge, demand, expense, or attorneys' fees) for injury or death to any person, and damage to property, including without limitation property of either Party, arising out of or in connection with (a) any act or omission in the engineering, design, construction, destruction, maintenance, repair, operation, supervision, inspection, testing, protection or ownership of the gas lighting features and facilities, (b) any act or omission in the replacement, addition, betterment, reconstruction, removal, or destruction, of or to the gas lighting features and facilities, or (c) the gas lighting features and facilities. The provisions of this Section 10 shall not be construed to relieve any insurer of its obligations to pay any insurance claims in accordance with the provisions of any valid insurance policy. 7.2 Except as to RCTC's negligence or willful misconduct, RPU shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, and agents against and from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, charge, demand, or expense (including without limitation any direct, indirect or consequential loss, liability, damage, claim, cost, charge, demand, expense, or attorneys' fees) for RVPUB/MKS/658629 5 66 injury or death to any person, and damage to property, including without limitation property of either Party, arising out of or in connection with (a) any act or omission in the engineering, design, construction, destruction, maintenance, repair, operation, supervision, inspection, testing, protection or ownership of the gas lighting features and facilities, (b) any act or omission in the replacement, addition, betterment, reconstruction, removal, or destruction, of or to the gas lighting features and facilities, or (c) the gas lighting features and facilities. The provisions of this Section 7 shall not be construed to relieve any insurer of its obligations to pay any insurance claims in accordance with the provisions of any valid insurance policy. 8. INSURANCE 8.1 General Liability and Auto Insurance. Prior to execution of this Agreement, each Party shall secure, and shall thereafter maintain until completion of the Agreement, such commercial general and automobile liability insurance as shall protect each Party from claims for damages for personal injury, including accidental death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from or which may concern operations under the Agreement, whether such operations be by or on behalf of RPU or RCTC, any subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by, connected with or acting for or on behalf of any of them. 8.2 Rating. All liability insurance shall be issued by insurance companies authorized to transact liability insurance business in the State of California, with a policy holder's Rating of B+ or higher, and a Financial Class of VII or higher. 8.3. Commercial Liability Policy. Each Party shall obtain a commercial general liability policy that shall cover both bodily injury (including death) and property damage (including but not limited to premises -operations liability, products -completed operations liability, independent contractors liability, personal injury liability, and contractual liability), in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per -occurrence limit/$2,000,000 aggregate. 8.4. Automobile Liability Policy. Each Party shall obtain an automobile liability policy that shall cover both bodily injury and property damage in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per -occurrence limit. 8.5 Filing. Policies or original certificates of insurance evidencing the coverage required by this Agreement for both commercial general and automobile liability shall be filed with both RPU and RCTC and shall include the other Party as an additional insured. RVPUB/MKS/658629 6 67 8.6 Notice of Cancellation. The policies shall not be canceled unless thirty (30) days prior written notification of intended cancellation has been given to both Parties by certified or registered mail. 8.7 Workers Compensation. By executing this Agreement, both Parties certify that they are aware of and will comply with Section 3700 of the Labor Code of the State of California requiring every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance before commencing any of the Work. Both RPU and RCTC shall comply with Labor Code Section 1861 by signing and filing the workers' compensation certification with the City Attorney. Both RPU and RCTC shall carry the insurance or provide for self-insurance required by California law to protect both RPU and RCTC from claims under the Workers Compensation Act. 9. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE This Agreement shall be interpreted under, governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California as if executed and to be performed wholly within the State of California, without regard to conflicts of law rules thereof. Any action at law or equity brought by either Party for the purpose of -enforcing a right or rights provided in this Agreement shall be brought only in a court of proper jurisdiction in Riverside County, State of California, and the Parties hereby waive all other provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county. 10. MODIFICATIONS, WAIVER, INTERPRETATION 10.1 Amendments. No amendment or modification to this Agreement shall be effective unless made in a writing executed by both Parties. The failure of any Party at any time or times to require performance of any provision contained in this Agreement shall in no manner affect the right at a later time to enforce the same. No waiver by any Party of the breach of any term or covenant contained in this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, shall be deemed to be construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such breach or a waiver of the breach of any other term or covenant unless such waiver is in writing. 10.2Sole Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings or agreements of the Parties. Neither Party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by, and neither party is relying on, any representation or warranty outside those expressly set forth in this Agreement. RVPUB/MKS/658629 7 68 11. NOTICES 11.1 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses or at such other addresses as the Parties may provide in writing for the purpose of receiving notices: RPU: Riverside Public Utilities 3900 Main Street Riverside, California 92522 Attention: Dave Wright RCTC: Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Attn: Eric Haley, Executive Director Notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or mailed or forty- eight (48) hours after deposit in the US mail, first class postage pre -paid and addressed to the Party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. Changes in such designation may be made by notice similarly given. 1 1 .2 Emergency. In the event of an emergency, RCTC shall immediately notify RPU at its 24 -hour emergency number, 909-687-0791, of any emergency situation related to the PV Structure. 12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 12.1 occur of: Termination Date. This Agreement shall terminate on the earliest to 12.2.1 The date both Parties agree in writing to terminate this Agreement; or 12.2.2 The first day after RPU gives RCTC written notice of termination for cause, provided that RPU shall first have given RCTC written notice of RCTC's breach of this Agreement and within thirty (30) days of RPU sending notice of such breach, RCTC fails to cure such breach or, if such breach requires more than thirty (30) days to cure, RCTC fails to promptly commence cure of such breach and diligently prosecute such cure to completion; or RVPUB/MKS/658629 8 69 12.2.3 The completion of all responsibilities and obligations identified or required in the Contract attached as Exhibit "A." 12.2. Use of Facilities After Termination. After termination of this Agreement, RPU may remove the gas lighting features and facilities at its sole expense and return the property to its original condition or RPU and RCTC may enter into an agreement to transfer responsibilities for the gas lighting features and facilities to RCTC. 13. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RPU's Authorized Representative is the Director of the Public Utilities Department, or his designee. RPU may change its Authorized Representative by giving RCTC notice pursuant to Section 11. RCTC's Authorized Representative is its Executive Director, or his designee. RCTC may change its Authorized Representative by giving RPU notice pursuant to Section 1 1 . 14. SEVERABILITY If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provision or provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision(s) had never been contained herein. 15. CAPTION AND PRONOUNS The captions and headings of the various sections of this Agreement are for convenience only, and are not to be construed as confining or limiting in any way the scope or intent of the provisions hereof. Whenever the context requires or permits, the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and masculine, feminine and neuter shall be freely interchangeable. 16. ATTORNEYS' FEES In any action to interpret or enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. RVPUB/MKS/658629 9 70 17. SIGNATURES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused lwo originals of this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below. This Agreement is effective as of the latter of the two dates set forth below. RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Date: Date: Attest: Approved as to Form: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel, Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney RVPUB/MKS/658629 10 71 lne I;as Company Agreement No. U4 -25-U34 SELF -GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM CONTRACT A AjScmpra Energy'uwrly BETWEEN PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, HOST CUSTOMER, AND APPLICANT Self -Generation Incentive Progran Administrato Southern California Gas Compam 555 West Fifth St M L GT-22H, Los Angeles CA 90013 -101 - Fax (213) 244-82Z This Contract is made by and between [insert Applicant's name] Riverside Public Utilities, organized and existing under California law (Applicant), jointly and severally with [insert Host Customer's name] Riverside County Transportation Commission, (Host Customer), organized and existing under California law, and Southern California Gas Company, a California corporation (Program Administrator) 1 0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION - The Self -Generation Incentive Program (Program), authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in Decision 01-03-073, encourages the installation of several types of self -generation technologies, both renewable and non- renewable, at customer sites in California The Program offers differential incentives for self -generation technologies (SG Unit(s)) differentiated by their fuel type, air emissions characteristics, and system costs The Program, to be funded by California investor -owned utility customers, is administered by Program Administrator for customers within its service territory, under the auspices of the CPUC Customers who participate in the Program must be current electric or gas distribution customers of Program Administrator who pay the Public Goods Charge (PGC) or gas Demand Side Management (DSM) surcharge Customers can participate either by hiring a separate entity to act as Applicant, or by submitting their own Application Applicants acting on behalf of customers must include the Host Customer's signature on the Reservation Request Form, Appendix A 1 1 The Program provides four levels (Level 1, Level 2, Level 3-R and Level 3-N) of incentive payments, subject to the availability of Program funds The different levels of payments and other details are set forth in detail in D 01-03-073 and in Appendix C Installation and operation of the SG Unit(s) must be verified by Program Administrator or its designees in accordance with this Contract before incentive payments can be made Applicant and Host Customer, as defined in the Appendix C, Self -Generation Incentive Handbook, Section 6, must also agree to permit the Program's Measurement and Evaluation (M&E) consultant to measure and verify the amount of energy production in accordance with the M&E consultant's approved M&E Plan, as described in the Program Handbook, Appendix C, Section 5 3 Finally, Applicant and Host Customer must also agree to provide any additional cost information requested by Program Administrator in order to substantiate total qualifying project cost 1 2 The Program requires that the SG Unit(s) be covered by warranties of three, or in some cases five, years depending on the type of SG Unit(s) involved 1 3 This Contract is limited to Reservation No 2003-015, attached to this Contract as Appendix A If all Program and Contract terms and conditions are complied with, Program Administrator will pay Applicant incentives based on the incentive guidelines set in forth D 01-03-073 and in Appendix C Program Administrator reserves the right to modify or cancel the incentive offer if Applicant 's actual installation of SG Unit(s) differs from the proposed installation described in Appendix A SG Unit(s) must also be installed by the date shown on the Reservation Confirmation and Incentive Claim Form, Appendix B, issued by Program Administrator 2 0 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE - The following documents set forth additional terms, conditions and requirements of this Contract Appendix A — Self -Generation Incentive Program Reservation Request Form Appendix B — Self -Generation Incentive Program Reservation Confirmation and Incentive Claim Form Appendix C — Self -Generation Incentive Program Handbook, dated July 2, 2001, or as amended Appendix D — Insurance Requirements Appendix E — Renewable Fuel Affidavit Applicant, and Host Customer if different, each acknowledges having received, read, and agreed to be bound by Appendices A, B, C, D and E copies of which were previously provided to Applicant and Host Customer, as the case may be, and the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full Should a conflict exist between this Contract and these Appendices, this Contract shall control 2003-015 Contrnct_I-18-03 doc Page 1 of 8 Rev /anuary 18 2003 72 3 0 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PAYMENT As a condition of payment, the Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, shall submit to Program Administrator, within the deadlines established by Program Administrator, the documents listed below and described in detail in Appendix C, Section 4 0 Each document requires review and Program Administrator's written approval before Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, may move to the next stage of the application process 3 1 The Self -Generation Incentive Program Reservation Request Form (Appendix A or "Request Form") describes the Project, fists the SG Unit(s) that will be installed in the Project, and estimates its size (in projected kW which it will produce) and its costs (including interconnection fees and in some cases warranty costs) When Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, submit Request Form to Program Administrator, it shall include the items listed in Appendix C, Section 4 2 Program Administrator will review the Reservation Request Form and, if the Project appears to meet eligibility requirements, Program Administrator will make a conditional reservation of funds for the Project and will send Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, a Conditional Reservation Notice Letter, the description of which is in Appendix C, Section 4 3 Additionally, Level 3-R and Level 1 Fuel Cells running on renewable fuel must submit the following information • Host Customer or Applicant, as the case may be, must demonstrate the availability of an adequate average flow rate of renewable fuel to produce electricity at the SG Unit's full rated capacity, or an appropriate de -rated capacity if supplemented with fossil fuel 3 2 Proof of Project Advancement Within 90 calendar days of the date on the Conditional Reservation Notice Letter, Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit the following information to demonstrate to Program Administrator that the Project is progressing and that there is a substantial commitment to complete the Project • Air Pollution Permitting — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit copies of any required air pollution permitting applications, such as a Permit to Construct This must include proof of payment for any associated application or permit fees • Electrical Interconnection Application — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit a complete Application To Interconnect A Generating Facility to the local electric utility For more information on the utility interconnection process, see Appendix C, Section 5 1 • Purchase Order — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit purchase orders for the SG Unit(s) as soon as they are issued, and in no event later than 90 calendar days from the date of the conditional Reservation Notice Letter If any purchase orders are revised, copies of the revised purchase orders must be submitted as soon as they are issued • Project Cost Breakdown - Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit a breakdown of known and estimated project cost elements used to determine total project cost as submitted in the initial application Applicants or Host Customer, as the case may be, are encouraged to use a Project Cost Breakdown worksheet (spreadsheet), available from Program Administrator web site or by e-mail request • Revised Sizing or Efficiency Calculations — If anything has changed since the initial submittal of these calculations, they should be revised and resubmitted by Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, at this time • Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract, including proof of insurance in accordance with Section 11 0 below Additionally, Level 3-R and Level 1 Fuel Cells running on renewable fuel must submit the following information • Equipment Purchase Order that indicates the fuel cleanup equipment as a separate invoice item • Renewable Fuel Affidavit — For a [Level 3-R or Fuel Cells running on a renewable fuel] Project, Applicant and Host Customer must each execute and submit the Renewable Fuel Affidavit, a form of which is attached hereto as Appendix E 2003-015 Contract 1-18-03 doc Page 2 of 8 73 Rev Januaryl8 2003 3 3 After Program Administrator reviews the Proof of Project Advancement items and determines that the Project has met all the necessary criteria, Program Administrator will send Applicant or the Host Customer, as the case may be, the Reservation Confirmation and Incentive Claim Form ("Claim Form") This Claim Form will list the specific reservation amount and the reservation expiration date (nine months later or Program termination date, whichever first occurs) 3 4 Upon Project completion, and prior to the reservation expiration date, Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must complete and submit the Claim Form to request an incentive payment In addition to the completed Claim Form, Applicants must submit the following attachments when requesting incentive payment • Proof of System Interconnection — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit a copy of the signed letter from their utility granting the distributed energy system owner permission to operate in parallel with the electric utility transmission and distribution system For questions on the interconnection process, see Appendix C, Section 5 1 1 • Final Building Inspection Report — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit a copy of their final building inspection report demonstrating that the Project meets all codes and standards of the permitting jurisdiction Contact your local permitting jurisdiction to learn about permitting requirements • Final Air Permitting Documentation — For those technologies that require an air permit, Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit a copy of the final documentation indicating compliance with all applicable air pollution regulations • Final Equipment and Installation Invoice — Applicant or Host Customer, must submit a copy of invoices demonstrating final eligible Project costs For a list of eligible Project costs, see Appendix C, Section 3 4 1 • Proof of Warranty — Applicant or Host Customer, as the case may be, must submit proof of warranty for the distributed energy technology used in their Project This could include a manufacturers warranty statement or extended maintenance and service contract terms and conditions • Planned Maintenance Coordination Letter (Level 3-N only) — Applicants with facilities sized greater than 200 kW must submit a copy of a coordination letter to the administrator which shows they will schedule planned maintenance between October and March and, if necessary, only during off-peak hours and/or weekends during the months of Apnl to September 3 5 The Field Verification Visit by the Program Administrators or their contractors will verify that the SG Unit(s) have been installed and are operating in accordance with the Request Form, Claim Form and required accompanying information No incentive payment can be made until the Field Verification Visit has been satisfactonly completed The terms and conditions for the Field Verification Visit are set forth in Section 4 1 below 4 0 INSPECTIONS - As a condition of receiving incentive payments, Applicant and Host Customer must ensure that Program Administrator and the Program M&E consultant have access to the Project Site(s) for all Field Verification Visits summarized below and described in detail in Appendix C, Section 4 4 9 Incentive payments will not be made if the Field Verification Visit shows that the SG Unit(s) have not been installed or are not operational in accordance with the Request Form, Claim Form and required accompanying information 41 At the post -installation Field Verification Visit, Program Administrator or its authorized agent checks installed SG Unit(s) to verify that the SG Unit(s) described in Appendix A have been installed and are operating in accordance with the Request Form, Claim Form and accompanying information During the Field Verification Visit, Applicant and Host Customer must provide access to the SG Unit(s) and must demonstrate the operation of the SG Unit(s) During the Field Verification Visit, Applicant and Host Customer must ensure that someone is present who is knowledgeable about the SG Unit(s) and their operation 2003-015 Conrrnct_1-18-03 doc Page 3 of 8 Rev January 18 2003 74 4 2 Applicant and Host Customer must also agree to further Field Verification Visits and interviews, as necessary for Measurement and Evaluation under the M&E Plan submitted by the Program's M&E consultant and as discussed in Appendix C, Section 5 The same terms and conditions specified in Section 4 1 will apply to such further Field Verification Visits 5 0 PAYMENT - The total incentive payment shall not exceed the Total Incentive reserved in the Claim Form under CONFIRMATION OF INCENTIVE RESERVATION The Incentive Payment will be made payable to Applicant or Host Customer, as the Applicant and Host Customer shall designate in writing, only after the appropriate documents have been submitted (within the deadlines established by Program Administrator) and approved, and the first Field Verification Visit has been satisfactorily completed, in accordance with the Program rules set forth in Appendix C Program Administrator's determination of the incentive amount is final and Applicant and Host Customer each agree to accept this determination 6 0 REVIEW AND DISCLAIMER - Program Administrator's review of the design, construction, installation, operation or maintenance of the Project or the SG Unit(s) is not a representation as to their economic or technical feasibility, operational capability, or reliability Applicant and Host Customer each agrees that neither of them will make any such representation to any third party Applicant and Host Customer are solely responsible for the economic and technical feasibility, operational capability, and reliability of the Project and the SG Unit(s) 7 0 RENEWABLE FUEL LEVELS - For Level 3-R and Level 1 fuel cells running on renewable fuel, Applicant and Host Customer shall not, for the applicable period described below or the life of the applicable SG Unit, whichever is shorter, use fossil fuel for more than 25% of its total annual fuel requirements for such SG Unit in any calendar year • Five years for Level 1 fuel cell(s) • Three years for Level 3-R 7 1 In the event the Applicant or Host Customer fails to comply with Section 7 1 above, then Applicant and Host Customer shall, within 30 days of receipt of a written demand from Program Administrator, reimburse Program Administrator alt incentive payments paid by Program Administrator pursuant to the Program and this Contract Such reimbursement shall be in the form of a certified check or cash payable to Program Administrator 7 2 In order to ensure reimbursement in the event the Applicant or Host Customer fails to comply with Section 7 1 above, the Program Administrator may from time to time require a bond or other forms of security acceptable to Program Administrator Acceptable forms of security include cash deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, surety bond from an "A" rated company by A M Best, assignment of certificate of deposit, or corporate guarantee (guarantor subject to creditworthiness review) 8 0 TERM AND TERMINATION 8 1 The Term of this Contract shall begin on the last date that a party signs it, and shall terminate no later than the length of the required warranty, for Levels 1 & 2 is five years, for Level 3-R and 3-N is three years, unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Contract, or unless modified by order of the CPUC or by written agreement of the parties 8 2 The Contract may be terminated by Program Administrator in the event (a) Applicant or Host Customer fails to perform a material obligation under this Contract and Applicant or Host Customer fails to cure such default within 15 days of receipt of written notice from Program Administrator, or (b) any statement, representation or warranty made by Applicant or Host Customer in connection with the Program or this Contract is false, misleading or inaccurate on the date as of which it is made 8 3 The termination of this Contract shall not operate to discharge any liability which has been incurred by either party prior to the effective date of such termination 2003-015 Contract 1-]8-03doc Page 4 of 8 75 Rev January 18 2003 9 0 ASSIGNMENT- Applicant and Host Customer consent to Program Administrator's assignment of all of Program Administrator's rights, duties and obligations under this Contract to the CPUC and/or its designee Any such assignment shall relieve Program Administrator of all rights, duties and obligations arising under this Contract Other than Program Administrator's assignment to the CPUC or its designee, neither party shall assign its rights or delegate its duties without the prior written consent of the other party, except in connection with the sale or merger of a substantial portion of its assets Any such assignment or delegation without written consent shall be null and void Consent to assignment shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed Applicant and Host Customer must provide assurance of the success of a Project if assigned by providing any additional information requested by Program Administrator 10 0 PERMITS AND LICENSES — Applicant or Host Customer, at their own expense, shall obtain and maintain all licenses and permits needed to perform its work on the Project These costs may be included as eligible project costs for the purpose of determining the maximum incentive payment 11 0 INSURANCE - Applicant and Host Customer shall, at their own expense, maintain the insurance coverage set forth in Appendix D, or an equivalent amount of self -insured coverage satisfactory to Program Administrator, and shall submit proof of such insurance to Program Administrator as part of the Proof of Project Advancement described in Section 3 2 of this Contract 12 0 ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND USE OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR'S NAME - Applicant and Host Customer shall not use Program Administrator's corporate name, trademark, trade name, logo, identity or any affiliation for any reason, including to solicit customers to participate in the Project, without prior written consent of Program Administrator Applicant and Host Customer shall make no representations to its customers on behalf of Program Administrator 13 0 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR - In assuming and performing the obligations of this Contract, Applicant and Host Customer are each an independent contractor and neither shall be eligible for any benefits which Program Administrator may provide its employees All persons, if any, hired by Applicant or Host Customer shall be their respective employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors and shall not be considered employees or agents of Program Administrator 15 0 RIGHT TO AUDIT AND REPORT INFORMATION - Program Administrator shall be allowed to periodically audit Applicant's and Host Customer's records related to the work done under this Contract, and report the results of its audit to the CPUC or its designee Applicant and Host Customer must provide all requested Project documents to Program Administrator upon written request, and must, for 5 years following Contract termination, maintain copies of all Project documents, including, but not limited to, Contracts, invoices, purchase orders, reports, and all back-up documents, for Program Administrator's review 15 0 INDEMNIFICATION 15 1 To the greatest extent permitted by applicable law, Applicant and Host Customer shall each indemnify, defend and hold harmless Program Administrator, its affiliates, subsidiaries, current and future parent company, officers, directors, agents and employees, from and against all claims, demands, losses, damages, costs, expenses, and liability (legal, contractual, or otherwise), which arise from or are in any way connected with any (i) injury to or death of persons, including but not limited to employees of Program Administrator, Host Customer, or Applicant, (ii) injury to property or other interests of Program Administrator, Host Customer, Applicant, or any third party, (iii) violation of local, state or federal common law, statute, or regulation, including but not limited to environmental laws or regulations, or (iv) strict liability imposed by any law or regulation, so long as such injury, violation, or strict liability (as set forth in (i) - (iv) above) arises from or is in any way connected with this Contract or Applicant's or Host Customer's performance of, or failure to perform, this Contract, however caused, regardless of any strict liability or negligence of Program Administrator whether active or passive, excepting only such loss, damage, cost, expense, liability, stnct liability, or violation of law or regulation that is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Program Administrator, its officers, managers, or employees 2003-015 Contract_1-18-03 doc Page 5 of 8 Rev January 18 2003 76 SEP-30-2003 16'01 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 909 682 1832 P.02 15 2 Applicant and Host Customer each acknowledges that any claims. demands, losses, damages, costs, expenses. and legal liability thet arise out elf, result from. or are in any way connected with the release or spill of any hazardous material or waste as a result of the work performed under this Contract are expressly within the scope of des indemnity, and Chet the costs, expenses, and legal liability for environmental investigations, monitoring, containment, abatement, removal, repair, cleanup restoration, remedial work, penalties, and tines arising from strict liability. or violation of any local, state. or federal law or regulation, attomey's fees, disbursements. and other response costs incurred os a result of such releases or spills are expressly within the scope of the indemnity, 15.3 Applicant and Host Customer each shall, on Program Administrator's request, defend any action, claim or suit asserting a claim which might be covered by this indemnity Applicant and Host Customer shalt pay all costs and expenses treat may be incurred by Program Administrator in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable attorney's fees This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Contract for any reason 16.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - Program Administrator shall not be liable to Applicant, Host Customer er to any of their respective .subcontractors for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, bass of profits or commitments, whether in contract, warranty, indemnity, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise arising from Program Administrator's performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the Contract. 17.0 VENUE - This Contract shall be interpreted and enforced according to the laws cif the State of California Sole jurisdiction and venue shall be with the courts in [select County closest to Program Administrator, i e Los Angeles/ San Diego/San Francisco] County, California 113,0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION - The parties to this Contract shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Contract promptly by negotiations between a vice president of Program Administrator or his or her designated representative ano en executive of similar authority from Applicant and/or Host Customer Either party must give the other party or parties wntten notice of any dispute Within twenty (20) calendar days after delivery of the notice, the executives shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place, and shall attempt to resolve the dispute If the matter has not been resolved within thirty (30) calendar days of the first meeting, any party may pursue other remedies, including mediation. All negotiations and any mediation conducted pursuant to this clause are confidential and shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations, to which Section 1152 5 of the California Evidence Code shall apply, and Section 1152 5 is incorporated herein by reference Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, a party may seek, a preliminary injunction or other provisional judicial remedy if in its judgment such action is neceseary to avoid irreparable damage or to preserve the status quo Each party is required to continue to perform its obligations under this Contract pending final reselution of any dispute arising out of or relating to this Contract. 19 0 INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION - This Contract and its appendices constitute the entire Contract and understanding between the Parties as to its subject matter It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous contracts commitments, representations, writings, and discussions between Applicant, Hot Customer, and Program Administrator whether oral or written, and has been induced by no representations, statements or Contracts other than those expressed herein. NO AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE TO THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE BINDING OR EFFECTIVE UNLESS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR'S REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE CONTRACT Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Contract is subject to such changes or modifications by the CPUC as it may, from time to time, direct in the exercise of its jurisdiction ever Program Administrator. Furthermore, this Contract is subject to change or modification by the Program Working Group, as it may from time to time make lo the Program in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the implementation of the Program For purposes of this Contract, the 'Program Working Group" shall constitute certain staff of 2003-0J5 Conrrne _J -J8-03 doe Page 6of8 Rev January IR 2003 77 TnTn p fn7 each California investor -owned utility, the San Diego Regional Energy Office, California Energy Commission, the Energy Division of the CPUC, and the CPUC 20 0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Contract is not intended to confer any rights or remedies upon any other persons other than the undersigned parties hereto By execution of this Contract, Applicant and Host Customer each certifies the Project meets all Program eligibility requirements, and that the information supplied in Appendix A is true and correct Applicant and Host Customer further certify that Applicant and Host Customer have read and understand the Self - Generation Incentive Program documents described in Appendix C and agree to abide by the rules and requirements set forth in this Contract and in Appendices B, C & D Each of the Applicant and Host Customer declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 1) the information provided in the attached Self Generation Incentive Program Reservation Request Form is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge, 2) the above SG Units) described in the Self Generation Incentive Program Reservation Request Form are new and intended to offset part or all of the Host Customer's or Applicant's electrical needs at the site of installation, 3) the site of installation is located within the Program Administrator's service territory, 4) the SG Unit(s) are not intended to be used as a backup generator, and 5) the Host Customer and the Applicant each has received a copy of this Contract and the completed Reservation Request Form In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Contract as of the latest date below (PROGRAM ADMINSTRA TOR! (APPLICANT( Signature Signature Name Name Pnnted Panted Title Title Date Date (HOST CUSTOMER( Signature Name Pnnted Title Date All communications under this Contract shall be forwarded directly to Program Administrator Self -Generation Incentive Program Southern California Gas Company 555 West Fifth Street, M L GT-22H4 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1040 2003-015 Contract 1-18-03 doc Page 7 of 8 RevJanuarvl8 2003 78 APPENDIX D —INSURANCE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Worker's Compensation insurance or self- insurance indicating compliance with any applicable labor codes, acts, laws or statutes, state or federal, where Applicant per forms work Employers' Liability insurance shall not be less than $1,000,000 for injury or death each accident Commercial General Liability Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage "occurrence" form, with no coverage deletions The limit shall not be less than $1,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury If coverage is subject to a general aggregate limit, this aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit Coverage shall a) By "Additional Insured" endorsement add as insureds Program Administrator, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent company, and Program Administrator's directors, officers, agents and employees with respect to liability arising out of or connected with the work performed by or for the Applicant (ISO Form CG2010 or equivalent is preferred) In the event the Commercial General Liability policy includes a "blanket endorsement by contrast," the following language added to the certificate of insurance will satisfy this requirement "Program Administrator, its affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent company, and Program Administrator 's directors, officers, agents and employees with respect to liability arising out of the work performed by or for the Applicant are additional insureds under a blanket endorsement," and b) Be endorsed to specify that the Applicant 's insurance is primary and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by Program Administrator shall not contribute with it Business Auto Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage form covering Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto " The limit shall not be less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage Alternative coverage may be considered by the Program Administrator Additional Insurance Provisions As part of proof of project advancement documentation, Applicant shall furnish Program Administrator with certificates of insurance and endorsements of all required insurance for Applicant and Host Customer The documentation shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to Program Administrator The documentation must be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and shall be submitted to this address Program Administrator Self -Generation Incentive Program Southern California Gas Company 555 West Fifth Street, M L GT-22H4 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1040 A copy of all such insurance documents shall be sent to Program Administrator's Contract negotiator and Project Administrator Program Administrator may inspect the original policies or require complete certified copies at any time Upon request, Applicant shall furnish Program Administrator the same evidence of insurance for its Subcontractors, as Program Administrator requires of Applicant 2003-015 ContraciI-18-03doc Page 8 of 8 Rev January 18 2003 79 AGENDA ITEM 6N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager Karen Leland, Staff Analyst FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director Commuter Rail Program Update SUBJECT: PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of August averaged 4,008, a 2% decrease from the month of July. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 1% from a year ago August 2002. August on -time performance averaged 84% inbound (-3% from July) and 90% outbound (+ 10% from July). There were 32 delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of August, a 7% decrease from the month of July. The following were the primary causes: Cause # of Delays % of Total Signals/Detectors 7 22% Track/Switch 1 3% Dispatching 19 59% Mechanical 1 3% Metrolink Meet/Turn 1 3% *Other 3 9% TOTAL 32 100% 'UP Interference UP Delays: Metrolink staff has addressed delays in service with UP. Since bringing the matter to the attention of UP, substantial improvements were made. Additionally, a seat drop (attached) was provided to Riverside Line riders on September 8 and 9 explaining actions that have been taken to lessen or rectify train delays. Agenda Item 6N 80 Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IE0C) Line for the month of August averaged 3,245, a 4% decrease from the month of July. The line has averaged an overall increase of 5% from a year ago August 2002. August on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (-1 % from July) and 94% outbound (+ 14% from July). There were 18 delays greater than five minutes during the month of August, a 5% decrease from the month of July. The primary causes were: Cause #of Delays %of Total Dispatching 16 89% Metrolink Meet/Turn 1 6% *Other 1 6% TOTAL 18 100% *BNSF/Amtrak Interference, Trespasser Struck 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of August averaged 1,603, a 2% increase from the month of July. The Line has averaged an overall increase of 16% from a year ago August 2002. August on -time performance averaged 85% inbound (-5% from July) and 80% outbound (unchanged from July). During the month of August, there were 34 delays greater than five minutes, a 9% increase from the month of July. They primary causes were: Cause # of Delays % of , Total Signals/Detectors 2 6% Slow Orders/MOW 1 3% Dispatching 27 79% Freight Train 1 3% *Other 3 9% 34 100% *BNSF Signal Testing, Annulled Train BNSF Delays: In relation to the delays noted on the IE0C and 91 Lines, BNSF has placed management staff at the dispatch center in San Bernardino to evaluate their performance and Metrolink delays. Results of the evaluation will be included in a future agenda item. Agenda Item 6N 81 Rideshare Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program RAI1S Rideshare Incentives: As of August 31St, enrollment totaled 283 (Riverside -Downtown 93, Pedley 19, La Sierra 63, West Corona 42, North Main Corona 66), potentially freeing up 142 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shuttle (Route 99): Ridership for the month of August averaged 22 passengers per day, an increase of one passenger per day from the moth of July. Per the existing Rideshare2Rails grant, financial support from RCTC for Route 99 will end August 31, 2003. RTA staff has been informed, and any ongoing service provision will be at the discretion of RTA. Special Charter Train Beach Trains: The 8th Beach Train season continues to exceed last year's performance. As of September 11, a total 11,472 tickets were sold, which represents a 5% increase over last year this time. Also, a record breaking five train dates resulted in nine -car train sets. The season is nearing an end with three train dates left, September 20, 21, and October 5. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Seat Drop 2) Metrolink Performance Summaries (August 2003) 3) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (July -August 2003) Agenda Item 6N 82 METRO LINK COMMUTER September 8-9, 2003 Dear Riverside Line Passengers: We would like to update you on our discussions with the Union Pacific Railroad regarding the on -time performance of your trains. Metrolink continues to monitor on -time performance on a daily basis and we have noticed improvement in the past week. However, we want to ensure that you are aware of the issues that have affected the on -time arrival of your trains and the actions we have taken to resolve the situation. • Union Pacific is experiencing a shortage of train operating personnel in Southern California. This shortage has been caused by recent changes in federal law permitting railroad employees to take retirement at an earlier age. Union Pacific has responded by temporarily transferring additional personnel from surrounding territories to restore the level of staffing. Staffing shortages lead to trains "parked" in many areas affecting your train's performance. • Union Pacific has experienced some increase in train traffic as usually occurs during the summer months. This is usually due to increased shipments in anticipation of the holiday shopping season. • Metrolink has assigned members of our Train Operations Department to spend as much as time as possible at the Union Pacific dispatching center in San Bernardino observing the movement of train traffic on your line. Our hope is that our presence and assistance will encourage the Union Pacific to plan their operation so Metrolink trains are on time. These observations are summarized on a weekly basis and form the basis of a regular discussion with Union Pacific local management on how to improve the on time performance of your trains. • Metrolink and Union Pacific have also agreed to implement electronic file sharing of information on each Metrolink train that travels on the Riverside Line. This eliminates the federally required manual entering of information into the train dispatching system about each Metrolink train. This will hopefully relieve the Union Pacific dispatchers from this administrative burden and allow them to focus on keeping your trains operating on time. Our Board of Directors and executive staff is closely monitoring train service on this line and if any further deterioration in performance is observed, Metrolink will respond quickly. For Metrolink information, please call (800) 371 -LINK or visit www.metrolinktrains.com. 83 METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES August 2003 11[111 METROLINK re/7"// , ZA/7" W/I/MZ. FrAfgAr., JZZ/t/rZ,ZZMA r/WZ/ZZZ/ oi %wiz/ / A trWS777//MA N M O N M fepoW/// /, O) M IFZ//Z/7/77ZZZ/#f/d rffg/Zf "/ZIZ/ZA s/ t/./ZZ/ZZ, #/#7Z, "7" 4 wzyzyzzzilazzfezzA 0 0 O 0 0 O C3 0 ' O Q co co N co N N N N N co c7 N 0 N O R m PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TIME vs TRAINS ON -TIME * 100. 0% 95.0% --.____ 90.0% -- 85.0% — 80. 0% Aug 02 Sep ' Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weeke nd Service Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ❑ Pa ssenger OTP% 0 Train OTP% Jun Apr May 1 Jul Aug 03 86 3 METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 May 03 ®% A rriving Within 5 -M inutes Of Scheduled Time 87 4 PST Inn• - tl_ % of Train Delays By Resp onsibility August 2003 TRK-Contractor 1% SIG -Contractor 14% Includes We ekend Service Passenger 5% Vandalism Mechanical 2% 4% Other 7% OPIAtArinf Improv (SCRRA) o%1% 4% BNSF 38% TRK-Contractor 1% SIG -Contractor 11% SCRRA 8% Passenger 2% Includes Weekend Service 13% % of Trai n Delays By Resp onsibility 12 Month Peri od E nding August 2003 Vandalism UPRR 3% moray (SCRRA) 5% OP Agree Law -Ent 1% 3% Mechanical 8% BNSF 36% 38 PERFORMANCE CHARTS - B ACK-UP Ile, METROLINK t9 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKD AY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED elope Aug 02 Oct 02 5,437! 5,253 1 Mar 03 Apr 03 Jul 03 Aug 03 % Change Aug 03 vs Jul 03 San B u rban erne NI] n€ burns 10,141 10,328 10,411 10,112 10,248 10,546 10,652 10,206 10,378 10,278 10,169 4,393 553 4,377 0 ange'. ou;n y: 5,372 4,802 5,148 rn! Er p! R[ ril"ullf TOTAL % Chari e: [� SYSTEM Vs Pri or It r ; 3,140 3,139 2,730 2,997 1,546 1,584 1,617 1,596 -4% -2% 3% ,1;6,03 33,485 34,109 34,912 35,160 32,032 33,708 34,988 35,472 35,585 34,394 34,611 34,464 34,653 2% 4% -1% -4% 2% 1% % Change Aug 03 vs Aug 02 6% 1% 5% 1% -1% 1% 5% 16% 3% -1% 2% 2°k 1% -9% 5% 4% 1% 0% -3% 1% 0% 1% 90 7 AVERAGE DAILY METROLINK MONTHLY P ASSHOLDERS ON AMTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW Aug -02 Sep -02 Oct -02 Nov -02 Feb -03 May -03 Jun -03 Jul -03 Aug -03 Io l:nange Aug 03vsJul 03 % Change Aug 03 vs Aug 02 74 422 556 726 848 892 975 1,037 995 -4% 1245% sas (1) 99 102 159 284 150 155 181 326 80% , (1) (1) 33 137 121 134 145 194 34% (1) 8 48 89 85 108 100 102 2% 1175% (1) 23 26 71 23 15 22 47 24 18 10 82 470 620 806 765 885 936 951 1,059 31 13 1,137 42 47 1,097 35% (1) 262% (1) -4% 368 241 -4 % 74 % 1238% (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up progra m was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rall 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. S (1) 122 128 230 142 143 306 246 271 212 74 % (1) (1) 41 88 229 132 156 148 158 53 % (1) -14% 473% 32 % 30% 7% rior 1i' u U1. . (1) (1) 5% 80% 10 % -32% -3% 18% (1) (1) 115% 160% -40 % 18% -5 % 7% 53% 1101001.14*, 62 59 66 82 90 113 89 117 111 114 1 perf summ-Rail . 3/4/2003 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED INCEPTION TO DATE 40,000 38,000 36,000 FY 03/04 34,000 32,000 - so - 30,000 - 28,000 26,000 - 24,000 � ~x—_-- __ 22,000 X-----,x,____--r---------4'---X------_,__, x___,_----'4---X--- S ~� � �C * e 44 20,000 - 18,000 - 16,000 X—�1x x�rx x 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Jul Oct Nov Dec Aug Sep Jan Feb Mar Apr May FY 02/03 Y 01/02 FY 00/01 99/00 98/99 Y 97/98 FY 96/97 FY 95/96 XFY 94/95 FY 93/94 Jun 9 ADR_ MoNew .xls Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000- 2500- 2000- 1500- 10001 - San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Av erage Daily Passenger Trips Aug -02 Sep Oct Nov Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders` Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug -03 San Bernardino Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips A vg Daily Riders 3000 2500 2000. 1500 1000 Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25100` Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug -03 10 3 Avg Daily Ride rs 35001' 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Aug -02 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug -03 Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips 94 11 fl RG1AIl n.. .ltI. .... METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY Percentage of Train s Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS Route => Aug 02 Sep 02 O ct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 _Jan 03 Feb 03 Mar 03 Apr03 May 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 Aug 03 VfPptui- 100% 97% 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97% 98% 97% 99% 98% 97% 96% 97% 99% 98% 97% 99% 99% 98% 97% 98% 96% 98% 97% type Valltyy. In Out 99% 96% 95% 94 % 99% 99% 98% 97% 98% 97% _ 89% 89% 95% 92% 88% 92%. 96% 97% 92% 90% 91% 91% 91% 89% , 94% 94% an: Bernardino Tn Out 96 % 91% 94 % 91 %. 96% 95% 94% 84 % Burbank::Turns In Out' 100 % 99% 98 % 98 % 98 % 95% 100 % 99 % 97% 91 %. 99% 100% 95% 85% 95% 95% 94% 94% 97% 94% 92% 89% 93% 88% 91% 83% 95% 94% Peak Period Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time Peak Period Trains 100% 97% 97 % 100 % 96% 99% 97 % 99% 99% 99% 99 % 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% Rlverstde 97% 95% 96 % 98% 95% 97% 96% 98% 97% 97%, 93% 97% 95 % 91 % 97 % 81% 92 % 98% 98% 98% 85 % 81% 87 % 80% 84% 90% No adjustments have been made for relievable delays. Terminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation . Riverside route OTP represents on -time performance against schedules temporarily modified for the UPRR fie replacement program. Temporary schedules in effect 3/10/03 - 5/16/03. 94% 91% 99% 95% 100% 1'00% 84% Orang e Count" #n Out 89 % 91 % 85% 92 % 92% 96% 88 % 89% 96% 97% 94% 97 % 96% 93% 87 % 93% 76% 85% 95% 94% 93% 94 % 85 % 88% 91% 97%I 92 % 90% 94% 84% 93 % 93% 92% 95% 90 % 93 % 90% 89% 93 % 93%1 87% 90% 81% 86% 95 % 91 % 96% 88 % 93% 80% 92 % 94 % v/FuWL ut 91 % 90 % 89 % 92% 92% 96% 86% 94% 93 % 96% 92 % 98 % 91% 92 % 85% 90% 82 % 82 % 94% 90 % 95% 93% 90% 80%' 85 % 80% 'root $ystern In but 96% 94% 94% 93% 96 % 96 % 94% 93% 96% 95 % 94% 93 % 95% 94% 92 % 93% 91 % 93% 95 % 93% 94% 91% 92 % 87% 93 % 94% Total 95° 94° 96° 94° 96° 93°i 959 929 923 949 929 89°/ 94°/ rrra/ 7C Ro ma •i iv/FilKA Ts�t;lrlbd Try# Or�tti €ot Sy st 89 % 98% 88 % 86 % 94 % 95% 94°/ 12 J5 C AUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS AUGUST 2003 CA USE: Signals/Detectors Slow Orders/MOW Track/Switch Dispatching Mechanical Freight Train Amtrak Train Metrolink Meet/Turn Vandalism Passenger(s) SCRRA Hold Policy Other TOTAL PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INUOC R/F/L 2 7 19 0 7 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 19 20 16 27 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 10 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 3 2 1 3 11 30 36 0 32 25 18 34 TOTAL 38 2 3 85 3 7 1 17, 5 7 0 18 186 %ofTOT 20% 1% 2% 46% 2% 4% 1% 9% 3% 4% 0% 10% 100% Saturday SNB 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 13 Saturday AVL 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Sunday SNB 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1396 0308CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION AUGUST 2003 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOT AL % of TOT NO DELAY 346 382 448 222 184 328 190 138 2238 77.8% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 63 92 146 9 36 46 44 17 453 15.7% 6 MIN - 10 MIN 1 12 21 0 14 14 8 8 78 2.7% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 7 14 9 0 8 8 7 15 68 2.4% 21 MIN - 30 MIN 0 3 3 0 3 2 1 6 18 0.6% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 3 1 3 0 7 1 2 5 22 0.8% ANNULLED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 420 504 630 231 252 399 252 189 2877 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 74 122 182 9 68 71 62 51 639 22.2% ,TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 11 30 _ 36 0 32 25 18 34 186 6 .5 % J7 14 nanRF RFn f} Rrper-s{raP °minty uk H ;rrmnrissk n Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 7/1/2003 to 8/31/2003 Riverside Pedlev La Sierra W. Corona N Corona Total 1 - Standard Procedures 1A - RCTC Staff on Site 11 0 2 0 0 13 1B - Customer Assistance 62 60 60 62 62 306 1C - Ambassador on Site 69 6 14 9 17 115 Total 142 66 76 71 79 434 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandalism 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergencies 2 0 1 0 0 3 Total 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 3 Total 0 0 2 1 0 3 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4A - Lights 0 0 1 0 0 1 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 27 9 7 6 11 60 4C - Elevator 2 0 3 1 0 6 4D - Station Cleaning 27 21 16 20 1 85 4E - Landscaping 18 12 8 17 11 66 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 3 15 7 7 1 33 4G - Pepsi Vending 1 0 1 0 0 2 4H - Other 4 19 2 1 1 27 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity Total 82 76 45 52 25 280 18 11 70 6 10 115 Total 18 11 70 6 10 115 6 - Parked Overnight * 6A - Parked Overnight 23 3 18 7 9 60 Total 23 3 18 7 9 60 9 - Empty Spaces * 9A - Empty Spaces 213 0 186 307 0 706 Total 213 0 186 307 0 706 91 - R2R Vehicles * 91A - R2R Vehicles 92 - Vehicles Parked * 92A - Vehicles Parked 8 1 5 1 8 23 Total 8 1 5 1 8 23 Total 0 0 0 0 399 399 0 0 0 399 399 * Value is averaged over the data entry days Fridrar, September 12, 2003 98 Ri wPsla Croony /sork*th x (jami nly.rion Riverside - Downtown Activity Detail Report Metroli nk Stations Date Time Activity Log # Descriptio n Activity Type Activity S ubtype # Vehicles 8/13/2003 5:20 pm 71300 Car brken in- driv er dr, int, steer column damage 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vand ali 0 8/26/2003 1:20 pm 71670 RPD on site due to a break in of a vehicle . 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandali 0 La Sierra Date Time Activity Log # Description Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 7/18/2003 7:00 pm 70451 car break in both dr Icks brken dash torn 2 - Criminal Incidents 2A - Burglary / Theft / Vandali 0 8/4/2003 2:20 pm 71024 Fnd elderly man lying on elevator flr cant get up 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergenci 0 8/29/2003 6:00pm 71594 Man passed out, ambulance took him to Riv. 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergenci 0 Comm. West Corona Date Time Activity Log # Description Activity Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 8/12/2003 8:35 pm 71354 Disable Idy didn't no how she got 2 Corona station 3 - Crisis Situations 3A - Medical / Fire Emergenci 0 Friday, September 12, 2003 Page 1 of 1 99 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 04-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor and Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Approving the Project" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Winchester to Temecula Transportation Corridor and Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Approving the Project". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and responsible for approving the Final Tier 1 EIR for the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor. At the June 23, 2003 Plans and Programs Committee meeting, the Committee approved the staff recommendation to certify the Final Tier 1 EIR for the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor following approval of the Riverside County General Plan Update and the General Plan Final EIR. This item did not go forward to the Commission's July meeting since action on the County's General Plan was delayed. Staff anticipates action on the County General Plan on October 7, 2003, so we are now ready to request action by RCTC on the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Final Tier 1 EIR. The Federal Highway Administration is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is responsible for taking a separate NEPA action to approve the Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). On Agenda Item 7 100 September 17, 2003, FHWA selected Alternative H to preserve right-of-way for the Winchester to Temecula corridor and the Record of Decision was signed. Once the Commission certifies the EIR, the Tier 1 NEPA/CEQA processes for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor will be concluded. Next Steps Certification of the documents will provide the necessary authorization to allow early right-of-way acquisition/protection by RCTC, the County, and affected cities to preserve land for future freeway widening and the future French Valley Parkway. We will work with the cities of Murrieta and Temecula to make any necessary amendments to their General Plans to allow preservation of right-of-way (the County's new General Plan already identifies the Hybrid Alternative). Having the corridor identified in the County and two city's General Plans will allow them to seek land dedications within the designated bandwidth as development plans come forward for approval. Additionally, completion of the NEPA document makes the project eligible for federal funding for future phases of the project. There is capacity within our current CETAP contract with Jacobs to complete the required programming document (PSR/PSRE) which will allow us to seek federal funding for the project. Agenda Item 7 101 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of CMAQ Funds and Approval of Caltrans Local Assistance Contribution Agreement 04-31-028 for the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project From Valley Way to Interstate 15 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve allocation of $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds on the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15; 2) Approve Agreement 04-31-028, Local Assistance Contribution Agreement with Caltrans District 08, allowing Caltrans to claim $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds for the SR 60 HOV Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the March 21, 2003 Commission retreat, staff presented the challenges facing transportation agencies as a result of the State budget deficit. Staff also provided recommendations to establish funding priorities for major capacity enhancing projects in Riverside County including the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange, widening of State Route 60 between Valley Way and 1-15, selected 1-10 interchanges in the Coachella Valley, and improvements at Green River near SR 91. The priorities were divided into two tiers with the Commission giving Tier 1 priority status to the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange and the remaining projects included in Tier 2. Agenda Item 8 102 The SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange construction will be funded through a combination of GARVEE bonds in the amount of $300 million and an AB 3090 agreement for $34 million ($31 million reimbursement and $3 million local match). The AB 3090 agreement is scheduled for approval at the September 25, 2003 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting with reimbursement of $31 errilliuii expected in FY 2007. With the funding of the Tier 1 project in place, staff is turning towards the Tier 2 priority projects. At the Commission retreat, staff was directed to consider the use of federal funding programs such as the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program to backfill state funding that might be lost, and return to the Commission for approval of any funding shifts. The SR 60 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Project from Valley Way to 1-15 was slated for $25 million of the Governor's Transportation Congestion Relief (TCR) Program. Given the suspension of the TCR funds and the uncertainty of when the TCR program would have available funds, it is advantageous to the State and RCTC to look for other funds to continue the project schedule. The SR 60 Project has completed the environmental and design phases and is ready to be advertised. If the project is not delivered soon the project costs could increase and the environmental document would have to be updated. The total cost of the SR 60 Project is approximately $38 million and is proposed to be funded as follows: TCR (previously allocated) $ 3.8 M STIP (RIP/IIP) $13.0 M Future CMAQ $21 .0 M Total $37.8 M Staff is recommending programming $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization CMAQ funds that would be allocated to the South Coast Air Basin on this project. This action would accomplish the following: ■ Construct an HOV gap closure between the San Bernardino County Line and SR 60/Valley Way Interchange • Maintain the project schedule • Meet the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) requirements of financial constraint and timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) • SR 60 HOV Project would be 4th major project under construction on a state highway in Riverside County Agenda Item 8 103 RCTC will also pursue a "Letter of No Prejudice (LONP)" for the SR 60 HOV Project. The LONP process was developed by Caltrans and the CTC to allow agencies to proceed with TCR projects using local and/or federal funds with payback of funds provided by the State at such time the TCR program has available funds. The LONP does not guarantee repayment. Therefore, lead agencies would proceed with projects at their own risk. If the State reimburses RCTC for project expenditures for the SR 60 HOV Project, the state funds would be available for another project(s) determined by the Commission. Caltrans requires Commission approval of the attached Local Assistance Contribution Agreement in order to secure the Commission's contributions of future CMAQ funds towards the project and move the project another step closer to construction. Attachment: Local Assistance Contribution Agreement Agenda Item 8 104 08-Riv-60-KP R0.8/R12.1 (PM R0.5/R7.5) Widen SR60 from 6 lanes to 10 lanes, construct two HOV and two Mixed flow lanes in the median and construct sound walls 08303 - 354801 District Agreement No. 08-1219 LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE", and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, acting as the Riverside County Metropolitan Planning Organization, referred to herein as "RCTC". RECITALS 1. STATE and RCTC, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130, are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement to contribute funds for improvements to State highways within the County of Riverside. 2. STATE contemplates widening State Route 60 from 6 lanes to 10 lanes by constructing two HOV lanes and two mixed flow lanes in the median and constructing sound walls from the Route 15/60 Separation to Valley Way undercrossing [KP R0.8/R12.1 (PM R0.5/R7.5)] in the County of Riverside, referred to herein as "PROJECT". 3. RCTC desires to contribute CMAQ apportionments, of federal funds, referred to herein as "FUNDS", to be matched with non-federal STIP (ITIP and RIP) funds, referred to herein as "MATCH FUNDS", to be applied towards allowable PROJECT costs as shown on Exhibit "A" (Contribution Letter for State Administered Projects) and Exhibit "B" (Finance Letter for State Administrated Projects with Local Programs Funding) attached and made part of this Agreement. 4. The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be partially financed by this contribution of FUNDS from LOCAL AGENCY. 1 105 District Agreement No. 8-1219 SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. To undertake and complete PROJECT. 2. Upon completion of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, to furnish RCTC with a detailed statement of the total FUNDS and MATCH FUNDS expended to complete PROJECT. Any additional amount required to complete PROJECT pursuant to this Agreement will be born by STATE, unless otherwise agreed to by RCTC pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement. 3. To process all Federal authorizations, State allocations, and/or State application of funds on behalf of RCTC as applicable under Federal and State law for the contribution of FUNDS and MATCH FUNDS towards PROJECT. 4. To obtain RCTC approval in the form of an amendment to this Agreement, should additional available FUNDS and/or MATCH FUNDS be required for PROJECT. SECTION II RCTC AGREES: 1. STATE may encumber FUNDS and/or MATCH FUNDS as shown on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", towards PROJECT. 2. To program all PROJECT funding in the appropriate RTIP, FTIP and STIP documents", and process all amendments thereto for any funding changes to PROJECT. 3. In the event changes to the FUNDS or MATCH FUNDS are necessary, to promptly notify STATE to determine if an Amendment to this Agreement should be executed to reflect said changes. 4. To enter into a separate cooperative agreement or an amendment to this Agreement with STATE when funds other than FUNDS or MATCH FUNDS that are under the direct control of RCTC are to be contributed towards PROJECT or when any portion of the work on PROJECT is to be performed by RCTC. 2 106 District Agreement No. 8-1219 SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the ap- propriation of resources by the Legislature the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission, and the encumbrance of those FUNDS and MATCH FUNDS to PROJECT. 2. The expenditure of FUNDS or MATCH FUNDS under the sole control of RCTC by STATE is subject to the programming and appropriation of those funds by RCTC. 3. Exhibit "A" may be revised by mutual agreement of the parties in the absence of a formal Agreement amending this Agreement to reflect funding increases by the approval of PROJECT manager with the consent of RCTC. No amendment to this Agreement is necessary to reflect such increases in funding. Exhibit "A" and "B" revision shall be the responsibility of the STATE's District 08 Local Assistance Office. 4. This Agreement shall terminate following completion of PROJECT or on June 30, 2008, whichever is earlier in time. Signatures are on the following page. r 3 107 District Agreement No. 8-1219 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Department of Transportation COMMISSION By: ERIC HALEY JEFF MORALES Executive Director Director of Transportation By: Anne Mayer District 08 Director CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By: District Budget Manager Approved as to form and procedure: By: Attorney Department of Transportation Certified as to procedure: • By: Accounting Administrator, Local Assistance 4 108 District Agreeme nt N. ,-1219 "EXHIBIT A" Date 16 -May -03 Local Agency RCTC Agreement No . 08 -1219 State E. A. No. 08-RIV-354801 Amendment N o. Local - Federal Fund Type Reimburseme nt Ratio Match Fund Type Match Amount Current Total Previous Total Pr oposed Change CMAQ $21,000,000 80.95% TCRP $3,800,000 Comments: oo This information is based on RCTC's (RTIP LIST INFO.) _ 1 No tes: 1) Identify each Local Federal fund type and match on separate lines with current and previous contributor totals towards the State -Administered project. 2) A separate finance letter is required to identify the type and amount of funds to be authorized, allocated, and/or applied to each phase of the work by STATE. 3) An amendment to this contribution letter is required for any change to the type and/or amount of funds contributed towards the State Administered project or changes to the EA. 4) Local Agency is responsible for all programming changes to the RTIP, FTIP and/or STIP. Local Agency Signature Caltrans Project Manager Signature L FINANCE LETTER FOR STATE ADMINISTRATED PROJECTS WITH LOCAL PROGRAMS FUNDING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO RTATIO N DIVISION OF ACC OUNTING LOCAL PR OGRAM ACCOU NTI NG BRANCH ATTN: John Peterson Project sponsored by: 1) State ?_X_ 2) Local Agency ( Reimb urseme nt work) ? Date:_5/14/03 EA # (Current Phas 354801 Local Programs Project #: Contributor Agency RCTC *Agreement #: 8-1219 Overhead Rate (%) Project Location: On State Route 60 between I-15/SR60 interchange and the Valle Way undercrossing in the County of Riverside State Administrated Phases of Work ** ***Local Pro�am F unds *** Program Funds Local ***Other F unds ***Other Fu nds Totals Federal %: 84 Match%: 16 Federal %: Match%: 1"s, ' ,f •' Fund Type: CMAQ Fund Tvpe: TCRP Fund Tvpe: Fund Tvpe: 'Fund Tvpe: ITIP Fund Tvpe: RIP STATE SUPPO RT Phase Prgm Code: 400 .000 ' Prgm Code: 710 .870 Prgm Code: Prgm C ode: Prgm Code: 025.700 Prgm Code: 075.600 ''`1 _ PE/Environmental " 0" $0 $1,340 ,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 51,340,000 Design "1" $0 52,460,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,460,000 R/W Support ""2"' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction Engineering "3" $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 STATE CAPITAL Phase Prgm Code: Prgm Code: Prgm Code: Prgm Code: Prgm C ode: Prgm Code: R/W Capital " 9" $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction Capital 4" $21,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $13,046,000 $0 $34,046,000 TOTALS 521,000,000 $3,800,000 $0 $0 513,046,000 $0 $37,846,000 NO TES: Identify type of Local Program Fu nds such as R STP, DEMO, CMAQ, and type of match Funds s uch as STIP Match, TC RP, SHOPP, Local Sales Tax, O with reimbursemen t percentages. Also in clu de copy of allocation letter with STIP Match . > Identify other fun ds which include State -Federal Funds such as STIP R IP, STIP HP, State f unds such as SH OPP, TCRP a nd Local fu nds s uch as Sales Tax, Developer funds, etc. > Provide Program codes su ch as 20.10... (State Support), 20.20... .(State Capital), See: http://adsc.dot .ea g_ovtASC/Coding Manuals/chanter 07/index.htin * Identify Co-op Agreemen t # or Contribution Agreement # (in clude copy of the agreement if not already provided to Local Programs) ** Identify any Sub Jobs for each phase an d fun d source if applicable (identify in remarks) ***Include All the funds required for the rurren t phase and all the Lo ral Program Funds / Match identified in pre vious phases (include any cha nges) , (1) Project Manager Name: Haissam Yahya _ Caln et: 8-670-6288 Signature: (2) Program Coordin ator Name: Calnet: _ Signature: (3) OLP Area En gineer N ame: Calnet:: Signature:: REMARK S: ATTACHMENTS: RTIP/FTIP Listing / Amendments_ Federal Authorizaion (E76) Agreements Allocati on Letter: Environmental Clearance R/W Certification• EXHIBIT "B" AGENDA ITEM 9 r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 1 1 1 Memorandums of Understanding for Project Funding BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Memorandums of Understanding No. M23-005 with the City of La Quinta and No. M23-006 with the City of Cathedral City for the funding reimbursement and joint development of SR 1 1 1 Improvements; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M23-007 between RCTC, CVAG, and the City of Rancho Mirage for reimbursement to the City's completed SR 111 Project; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Memorandums of Understanding on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Authorize staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The 1988 Measure "A" Program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley Area's Measure "A" Funds to project improvements on State Routes 86 and 1 1 1 . At its July 2001 meeting, the Commission approved funding for SR 86 & 1 1 1 Projects, as recommended by CVAG totaling $15.42 million for funding. Subsequently, the Measure "A" revenue forecast was updated by Ernst & Young to support the development of the Measure "A" extension programs. The updated revenue forecast projected a reduced revenue expectation between FY 2004 and FY 2009 resulting in a need to realign the program of SR 86 & 1 1 1 Projects with the new revenue forecast. The new revenue forecast for the period is $12.0 million, a difference of $3.42 million in comparison to previously approved project costs. Through meetings with CVAG staff, the CVAG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and RCTC staff, project scope and cost estimates were refined reducing the projected costs for Tier II projects to $13.8 million. Agenda Item 9 111 Given the FY 2004-2009 revenue projection of $12.0 million, a shortfall of $1.8 million dollars is forecast, shown in Exhibit A. CVAG has committed to cover this shortfall in FY 2008-09 if necessary. The CVAG Executive Committee approved this commitment at their March 2003 meeting shown in Exhibit B. MOU's for the first three (3) of nine projects programmed for funding under the Measure "A" Tier II State Routes 86 & 1 1 1 Program are submitted for funding authorization by the Cities of La Quinta — Simon Drive to Adams Street, Cathedral City — West Cathedral Canyon Channel to East Palm Canyon Drive, and Rancho Mirage — Magnesia Falls Avenue to Fairway Drive. Each of the MOU's are consistent with the Coachella Valley Measure "A" State Highway Program of Projects and cash flow, which was approved by the Commission at its July 9, 2003 meeting. It is important to note that the cash flow table is based on a revenue forecast. Since economic conditions can impact Measure "A" receipts in either a positive or negative manner, RCTC staff will work closely with CVAG staff to monitor and address future program cash flow issues that may arise. Staff recommends approval of the Memorandums of Understanding for the Cities of La Quinta, Cathedral City, and the City of Rancho Mirage consistent with the approved list of Tier II State Routes 86 & 1 1 1 Project Improvements. Attachments: 1) MOU No. M23-005 for City of La Quinta 2) MOU No. M23-006 for City of Cathedral City 3) MOU No. M23-007 between RCTC, CVAG, and City of Rancho Mirage 4) Letter from CVAG re: State Highway Measure "A" Funds — Exhibit A 5) Coachella Valley Area Highway Revenues — Exhibit B Agenda Item 9 112 MOU No. M23-005 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this - day of , 2003, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of La Quinta. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. RVPUB/SCD/658412 1 113 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Simon Drive to Adams Street, within the City of La Quinla (the "Project'). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Three Hundred Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($3 1 1,644.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of ROTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Ternv'Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. RVPUB/SCD/658412 2 114 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Tom P. Genovese, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care: Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, RVPUB/SCD/658412 3 115 employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys❑ fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. RV PUB/SCD/658412 4 116 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RVPUB/SCD/658412 5 117 RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City' s Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RC1'C Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultantt and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. Payment requirements for the City shall include backup documents for all charges requested for reimbursement. 3.14.5 Funding, Amount/Adjustlnent. If the Project is completed before June 30, 2009, RCTC' s Project Coordinator shall meet with the City' s Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through June 30, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after June 30, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. RVPUB/SCD/658412 6 118 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. (SB 300 Reimbursement does not apply to this project) 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. RVPUB/SCD/658412 7 119 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of La Quinta Y.U. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 ATTN: City Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between RVPUB/SCD/658412 8 120 the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of As?ree,rnent. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Ron Roberts, Chairman Don Adolph, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUB/SCD/658412 9 Katherine Jenson, City Attorney 121 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Highway 111 Street Improvements, from Simon Drive to Adams Street, within the City of La Quinta. The segment is approximately 1,250 linear feet long. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' meandering sidewalk, and handicap ramps. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibits "D". RVPUB/SCD/658412 A-1 122 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project or in accordance with the phased reimbursement schedule approved by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"). CVAG's phased reimbursement schedule allocates $200,000 during Fiscal Year 2003/04 and $111,644 during Fiscal Year 2004/2005 for eligible project components. RCTC will contribute a maximum of $311,644 for the Project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City La Quinta prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. RVPUB/SCD/658412 B-1 123 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. The funding limits for individual improvements have been established by CVAG. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" IIighway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. RVPUB/SCD/658412 C-1 124 EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS Highway 111 Street Improvements, from Simon Drive to Adams Street, within the City of La Quinta. The segment is approximately 1,250 linear feet long. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' meandering sidewalk, and handicap ramps. The following project budget is anticipated: Project Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $197,563.00 Engineering: $19,756.00 Construction Management: $19,756.00 Construction Engineering (Inspection/Testing/Survey): $15,311.00 Right -of -Way: $0.00 Sub -Total: $266,267.00 Contingency: $59,258.00 Total Estimated Cost: $252,386.00 R VPU B/SCD/658412 D-1 125 MOU No. M23-006 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this __ day of , 2003, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of Cathedral City. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. RVPUB/SCD/659445 1 126 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned to widen the existing bridge and approaches on Highway 111 spanning the West Cathedral Canyon Channel (the "Piujecl"). The Piojeet is iiiuie fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of One Million Five Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Dollars ($1.584,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC' s Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. RVPUB/SCD/659445 2 127 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates its City Manager, or his or her designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation RVPUB/SCD/659445 3 128 attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials_ Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys El fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. R V PU B/SCD/659445 4 129 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates. by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RVPUB/SCD/659445 5 130 RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board' s determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. Payment requirements for the City shall include backup documents for all charges requested for reimbursement. 3.14.5 Fundinw Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through June 30, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after June 30, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. RVPUB/SCD/659445 6 131 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. (SB 300 Reimbursement does not apply to this project) 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. RVPUB/SCD/659445 7 132 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Cathedral City RCTC 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerro Riverside County Transportation Commission Cathedral City, CA 92234 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor ATTN: City Manager Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between RVPUB/SCD/659445 8 133 the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Ron Roberts, Chairman George Stettler, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _ By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUB/SCD/659445 9 Steven V. Quintanilla, City Attomey 134 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Highway 111 Street Improvements. - This project includes the widening of the bridge and approaches spanning the West Cathedral Canyon Channel. The project will also serve to complete the pedestrian sidewalk along East Palm Canyon Drive from the west city limit with Palm Springs and the east City limit with Rancho Mirage. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibits "D". RVPUB/SCD/659445 A-1 135 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project or in accordance with the phased reimbursement schedule approved by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"). CVAG's phased reimbursement schedule provides for the following: • Up to $100,000 during Fiscal Year 2003/2004; • Up to $100,000 during Fiscal Year 2004/2005; • Up to $200,000 during Fiscal Year 2005/2006; • Up to $300,000 during Fiscal Year 2006/2007; • Up to $400,000 during Fiscal Year 2007/2008; • Up to $484,000 during Fiscal Year 2008/2009; The combined reimbursement amount for eligible project components shall not exceed the sum of One Million Five Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Dollars ($1.584.000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City Cathedral City prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF CATH EDRAL CITY SHALL: Be responsible for plans, specifications and engineer's estimate (PS&/E), environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. RVPUB/SCD/659445 B-1 136 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. RVPUB/SCD/659445 C-1 137 EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS Highway 111 Street Improvements. - This project includes the widening of the bridge and approaches spanning the West Cathedral Canyon Channel. The project will also serve to complete the pedestrian sidewalk along East Palm Canyon Drive from the west city limit with Palm Springs and the east City limit with Rancho Mirage. The following project budget is anticipated: Project Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $1,560,000.00 Engineering: $235,000.00 Construction Engineering/Management: $155,000.00 Permits and Fees: $30,000.00 Right -of -Way: $0.00 Total Estimated Cost: $1,980,000.00 Estimated Funding Participation: Measure A Funds: $1,584,000.00 Local Funds: $396,000.00 Total Estimated Funding: $1,980,000.00 RVPUB/SCD/659445 D-1 138 MOU No. M23-007 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN RCTC, CVAG, AND THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE FOR MEASURE "A" IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT 1. Parties and Effective Date. 1.1 Parties. This Measure A Improvement Project Reimbursement Agreement ("Agreement"), dated this day of . 2003 for reference purposes only, is entered into by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5 ("RCTC"); the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, a joint powers agency ("CVAG") and the City of Rancho Mirage, a municipal corporation ("City"). RCTC, CVAG and City may be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" herein. 1.2 Effective Date. This Agreement will not become effective until the date ("Effective Date") on which this Agreement has been authorized and approved by the of each Parties. If any party fails to approve, execute or deliver this Agreement on or before . then this Agreement shall not become effective and any prior signatures and approvals of the Parties will be deemed void and of no force or effect. 2. Recitals. 2.1 In or about March 2003, the CVAG Executive Committee approved (i) a list of state highway projects, (ii) the amount of Coachella Valley State Highway Measure "A" funds authorized for each project, and (iii) the fiscal year in which the funds are eligible to be paid. 2.2. Prior to completing Measure "A" improvement projects, cities typically enter into a Measure "A" improvement reimbursement agreement with RCTC, pursuant to which RCTC will approve and reimburse expenditures incurred in the construction and completion of Measure "A" improvement projects. 2.2 On or about February 20, 2003, the City completed that certain Highway 111 improvement project more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Project"). The City desires reimbursement from Measure "A" funds for the expenses incurred in completing the Project in the amount of approximately Six Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,100,000). The Project was budgeted as an approved Measure "A" improvement project, however, City did not execute a reimbursement agreement with RCTC prior to commencing construction on the Project. RVPUB/SCD/658621 139 2.3 RCTC cannot reimburse City for the Project without exhausting all available Measure "A" funds, excluding other scheduled and approved Measure "A" improvements, and defaulting on contractual reimbursement obligations owed other cities. 2.4 CVAG desires to reimburse City up to Six Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,100,000) for costs expended on the Project, provided however that RCTC agrees to reimburse CVAG the same amount over a six (6) year period. 2.5 This Agreement is made in consideration of the terms, conditions and mutual covenants contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged. 3. Terms. 3.1 City Representations and Warranties. The City hereby represents and warrants as follows: 3.1.1 Construction on the Project was completed in a skillful and competent manner and was performed by persons or entities skilled in the callings necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required. 3.1.2 Construction and completion of the Project was done in accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and by persons or entities having all requisite licenses, permits and permission. 3.1.3 The Project qualifies for Measure "A" Highway 111 Funds. 3.1.4 The Project was completed in compliance with the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wages for a public work, as that term is defined therein. The representations and warranties included in this Section 3.1 are material consideration to RCTC and CVAG, and City acknowledges that RCTC and CVAG are relying upon the representations set forth above in undertaking the obligations set forth herein.. 3.2 CVAG Reimbursement. CVAG hereby agrees to pay City an amount that shall in no event exceed Six Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,100,000) as reimbursement for expenses incurred by City in completing the Project ("CVAG Reimbursement") in accordance with the schedule of payments set forth in Section 3.2.1 below. City shall submit to CVAG a statement listing the final and actual costs to complete the Project along with satisfactory documentation in support thereof. Said documentation shall include, but not be limited to, all receipts and invoices for materials purchased, subcontractor invoices, and payroll receipts and reports ("Supporting Documents"). CVAG shall not reimburse City for any unsupported Project costs. CVAG RVPUB/SCD/658621 140 in its reasonable discretion shall, in consultation with RCTC, determine what constitutes satisfactory Supporting Documents and the actual amount of cost to complete the Project. 3.2.1 CVAG Payments. The CVAG Reimbursement shall be paid to City over a four year period and in accordance with the below listed schedule: Fiscal Year Ending 03/04 $1,600,000 Fiscal Year Ending 04/05 $1,800,000 Fiscal Year Ending 05/06 $1,900,000 Fiscal Year Ending 06/07 $ 800,000 Total $6,100,000 The amounts listed in the above schedule are not to exceed amounts. In the event that the CVAG Reimbursement is less than $6,100,000, each of the annual payment amounts shall be decreased by one fourth of the difference between the CVAG Reimbursement and $6,100,000 and a revised schedule of payment shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to this Agreement. 3.3 RCTC Reimbursement. RCTC hereby agrees to refund CVAG with Measure A funds, the entire amount paid to City by CVAG in accordance with section 3.2 herein. The RCTC reimbursement to CVAG shall in no event exceed Six Million One Hundred Thousand ($6,100,000). RCTC shall make annual payments to CVAG in accordance with the below listed schedule Fiscal Year Ending 03/04 $1,000,000 Fiscal Year Ending 04/05 $1,000,000 Fiscal Year Ending 05/06 $1,000,000 Fiscal Year Ending 06/07 $1,000,000 Fiscal Year Ending 07/08 $1,000,000 Fiscal Year Ending 08/09 $1,100,000 Total $6,100,000 The amounts listed in the above schedule are not to exceed amounts. In the event that the CVAG Reimbursement is less than $6,100,000, each of the annual payment amounts shall be decreased by one sixth of the difference between the CVAG Reimbursement and $6,100,000 and a revised schedule of payment shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to this Agreement. Upon making the CVAG Reimbursement payment to City, CVAG shall send written notice to RCTC documenting the payment and specifying the total amount of the CVAG Reimbursement. 3.4 Indemnification. The Parties shall defend, indemnify and hold each other and each other's officers, directors, agents, servants, attorneys, employees and contractors harmless from and against all liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs) (all of the foregoing collectively, "Liabilities") arising from or as a result of the Project an/or this Agreement. No Party shall be RVPUB/SCD/658621 141 responsible for any Liabilities resulting from the negligence, errors, acts or omissions directly or indirectly caused by any other Party. 3.5 Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purpose of notice, the addresses of the Parties shall be as follows: RCTC: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Attn: Executive Director CVAG: COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, California 92260 Attn: Executive Director CITY: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE 69825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Attn: City Manager 3.6 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any legal action or proceeding concerning this Agreement shall be filed and prosecuted in the appropriate California State Court in the County of Riverside, California. Each Party hereto irrevocably consents to the personal jurisdiction of that court. 3.7 Choice of Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California. 3.8 Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the Parties hereto. 3.9 Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. 3.10 Severability. The invalidity and enforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. RVPUB/SCD/658621 142 3.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 3.12 Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 3.13 Further Assurances. The Parties shall execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as reasonably required in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement. [Signatures on Following Pages] RVPUB/SCD/658621 143 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEASURE A IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BY: RON ROBERTS, CHAIR REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: BY: ERIC HALEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Committee RVPUB/SCD/658621 144 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEASURE A IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS BY: JOHN W. WOHLMUTH ITS: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: RVPUB/SCD/658621 145 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEASURE A IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE: BY: PATRICK M. PRATT ITS: CITY MANAGER ATTEST: BY: ELENA KEENAN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: RVPUB/SCD/658621 146 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The scope of work is the construction and design of the intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and installation of raised median islands, hill -side removals, widening of two bridges, curbs and gutters and widening along Highway 111. The construction improvements will include modifications to the existing drainage facilities and installation of new drainage facilities in order to mitigate surface flows. The construction improvements will create three lanes in the westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction along Highway 111 from Magnesia Falls Drive to Fairway Drive. Approved Highway 111 Improvement Plans & Specifications are available for review by RCTC at the City of Rancho Mirage Public Works Department. RVPUB/SCD/658621 147 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Status Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT — SB 1055 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) as amended 9/9/03, SUPPORT — AB 487 (Frommer, D -Glendale) as amended 9/12/03; and, 2) Receive and file as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update The Senate Public Works and Infrastructure Committee has approved a new five -month extension of the Federal Transportation Act. It keeps federal transportation funding at current levels. A more comprehensive multi -year extension of the act similar to ISTEA and TEA -21 is expected in the future once there is a greater consensus and the political will to fund expanded investment in transportation. State Update Staff reports for the Commission are written in advance of the meeting which makes for interesting timing this month. The state recall election on Tuesday, October 7 takes place the day before the next meeting of RCTC. While we are on the subject of challenging deadlines, the last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills is October 12. While it would be easy to assume that the current Governor would act prior to the October 7 election, this is such an unprecedented situation that any assumption is fraught with some peril. Agenda Item 10 148 As a result, staff recommended that the Commission's Budget and Implementation Committee take positions on two important bills and that letters be sent to the Governor regarding the positions. This position was approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee during their meeting on September 22. The Commission can then ratify the Committee's position on October 8 although it would be reasonable to expect that the disposition of the bills will have been settled prior to that time. Given the importance of this legislation as part of the state's budget and financing of transportation, staff believes that it is advisable for the Commission to take formal positions. SB 1055 funds a CHP shortfall without drawing on the State Highway Account or Public Transportation Account, and addresses the truck weight fee shortfall by initially increasing the existing weight fee schedule by 20 percent. If the funding target is not achieved, then the fee schedule may be increased by a total of 33 percent. It is estimated that the 20 percent increase will generate $90-100 million annually while a 33 percent increase would generate $120 million annually. Thus at least $500 million will be available as the 2004 STIP Fund Estimate is prepared. This is in contrast to the Administration's January proposal, which would have called for a 42% across the board fee increase that would have generated more than $800 million for the 2004 STIP. This bill was passed on Wednesday evening and is supported by Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and the California Trucking Association. This bill is especially important because it will begin to address a major root cause of the STIP shortage that has jeopardized funding for transportation project. The widespread support from various levels of state government and the private sector bodes well for approval by the Governor. Assembly Bill 487 (Frommer, D -Glendale) requires car rental companies to collect from renters a vehicle transaction fee of 2.29 percent for each rental car transaction until January 1, 2009. The fees that are collected would then be deposited into the State Highway Account. It is believed that the fee would generate $60-65 million annually, and is intended to pay for some of the General Fund's indebtedness to the Highway Account. The bill was supported by the rental car industry as a means of passing through the increase in the Vehicle License Fee to their customers. Not surprisingly consumer organizations such as Consumers Union and the Center for Public Interest Law opposed previous versions of the bill. This created an interesting alliance between these historically liberal organizations and Legislative Republicans who opposed the bill because they saw it as a tax increase. Agenda Item 10 149 Regardless of the politics, the bill does mitigate the impact of the state's borrowing of restricted transportation funds in order to balance the General Fund budget. It should also provide for a healthier State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate as new projects are contemplated in future years. Proposition 53 The timing of the state election also impacts the ability of the Commission to take a position on Proposition 53. The proposal would establish the California 21St Century Infrastructure Investment Fund and would commit a percentage of the State's General Fund for infrastructure projects. The commitment would begin in Fiscal Year 2006-07 when one percent of the General Fund would be transferred into the Infrastructure Fund. The amount transferred would increase in future years although no transfers would take place when revenue declines and the top percentage to be transferred would be capped to three percent of General Fund revenues. Revenue from the Fund would be allocated by the Legislature with half being devoted to state-owned projects and the other half going to local projects. Eligible projects include transportation, water facilities, and public buildings. Schools would not be eligible for this funding. The Legislative Analyst has estimated that the Proposition would generate more than $650 million in its first year and that the amount raised would jump into the billions as the percentage transferred from the General Fund to the Infrastructure fund rises. The argument for Proposition 53 is that it will result in much needed investment for infrastructure projects. The argument in opposition is that the percentage of discretionary funding in the State Budget is already constricted by previous initiatives such as Proposition 98. Yet another requirement could exacerbate the challenge faced by the Legislature in approving a budget. Staff brought the item to the Budget and Implementation Committee and to the Commission as a whole as an information item since the Commission cannot act prior to Election Day on October 7. The overall impact of Proposition 53, if it passes, will be positive in that it will ensure added investment in infrastructure projects. Currently, the Legislature is spending less than one percent of the state's general fund revenue on infrastructure projects. The approval of Proposition 53 would require the state to spend one percent of the General Fund budget on infrastructure beginning in Fiscal Year 2006-07. The percentage amount would increase gradually on year-to-year basis and would eventually top out at three percent in Fiscal Year 2013-14. Agenda Item 10 150 Summary of Other Legislative Actions As is always the case, the last few days of a legislative year are fraught with long nights, political skullduggery and a flurry of last-minute activity in order to get bills passed (or killed) prior to deadlines. Bills can often be gutted and be entirely re- written and pass through the Legislature with very little committee scrutiny. In fact AB 487 was created during the last night of the session by taking language from two other bills and combining them into the new bill. Two other bills that the Commission took oppose positions on earlier this year, were unable to receive approval. Assembly Bill 496, (Correa, D -Santa Ana) would create a new Santa Ana River Conservancy to protect land near the River. The Commission took an oppose position due to the potential impact the legislation might have on transportation improvements near SR 71 and SR 91. Although AB 496 was approved by the Assembly, it never made it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee where concerns were raised about the fiscal impact on the State and whether or not there was a better method of protecting the river instead of creating a new state conservancy. The bill can be brought up again next year. Senate Bill 18 (Burton, D -San Francisco) would have strengthened state law regarding the protection of Traditional Tribal Cultural Sites. The Commission opposed this bill fearing its impact on the CEQA process for future transportation facilities throughout the county. This bill passed the State Senate but was unable to receive the necessary votes in the Assembly on the final night of the Legislative Session. Reconsideration can be granted and the issue will undoubtedly return next year. The state legislative matrix is attached and has been updated to reflect the final week's actions in the Legislature. Attachments: 1) State Legislative Matrix 2) Bill Analysis SB 1055 3) Bill Analysis AB 487 Agenda Item 10 151 RIVERS! .3OUNTY TR ANSPORT ATI ON COMMISSION - POSITION' 11 STATE LEGISL ATION — UPD ATED Sept. 15, 2003 Legislati.,,i/ Author Description Bill Status P osition Date of of Board Adoption AB 114 Nakano Permits hybrid -electric vehicles to use HOV Lanes regardless of the number of passengers in the car. Referred to Assembly Transportation AB 118 Frommer Imposes transaction fee on rental cars and allocated the revenue to the State Highway Account Approved by both Houses and sent to the Governor Staff Recommends SUPPORT AB 420 Longville Includes county welfare -to -work programs among alternative transportation methods in a county congestion management program. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee AB 427 Longville Changes enabling legislation that permits some counties (including San Bernardino and Orange but not Riverside) to impose half -cent transportation sales tax programs by eliminating the 20 -year time limit. Signed by the Governor Inland Empire Legislati ve Program Sponsored AB 467 Dutra Requires transit operators who have automated ticket machines with video instructions to also include an audio feature Signed by the Governor AB 496 Correa Creates the Santa Ana River Conserv ancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Passed Assembly 52- 24, passed Senate Natural Resources 5- 3. Referred to Senate Appropriations . OPPPOSE UNLESS A MENDED 6/10/03 AB 1289 Benoit Would allow additional franchises for privately owned toll roads and would prohibit the state from granting non -competition clauses in order to support the toll facility. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine n Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees ACA 11 Levine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees F:\users\preprin t\js\legmat.doc 152 Legislation/ Auth or Description Bill Status Position Date of B oard Adoption ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects . Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee _ SB 18 Burton Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Failed Passage in the Assembly OPPOSE 7/28/03 SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. Passed Senate 40-0 Passed Assembly Transportation Committee and referred to Appropriations Committee SUPPORT 6/10/03 SB 234 01ler Allows persons with disabilities driving a vehicle with a disabled placard or license plate to use an HOV lane regardless of the occupancy of the vehicle. Failed Assembly Transportation SB 380 McClintock and Murray Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File. SB 427 Dunn Spot bill regarding Caltrans procedure when acquiring homes for highway projects. The final text and intent of this bill has yet to be determined. THE BILL WAS GUTTED AND AMENDED AND NO LONGER HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO TRANSPORTATION AND WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE NEXT MATRIX No action taken SB 541 Torlakson Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation. Failed passage in Senate Transportation . Reconsideration has been granted . SB 585 Soto States need for statewide general obligation bond for impacts of freight movement. No dollar figure or details on eligible expenditures have been included. (Spot bill) No action taken F:\users\pr :\js\legmat. doc .53 Legislate ' Authk Descripti on Bill Status Positi on DY -f Board _nation SB 701 Florez Authorizes the sale of State General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $4.55 billion for air pollution reduction and control efforts which would include reducing emissions from farming, purchasing clean fuel vehicles, advancing propane technology, and biomass to energy programs. If approved, it would go to state voters in March 2004. Passed Senate Environmental Quality Committee, referred to Senate Appropriations Committee SB 708 'Makes Florez changes to the California Smog Check program which would expand the repair assistance program and increase the fine for unlawful motor vehicle exhaust. Passed Senate 26-13, and Passed Assembly 57-18 and sent to the Governor SB 795 Karnette Allows Service Authorities for Freeway Emergencies (SAFES) to use excess call box revenues to operate the Freeway Service Patrol Passed Senate 21-12, and passed Assembly 53-23 and sent to the Governor SB 957 M cClintock Authorizes the Governor to declare a "traffic congestion emergency" and requires Caltrans to prepare a report on transportation delay Failed Senate Transportation, reconsideration granted. WATCH 5/14/03 SB 981 Soto and Romero Imposes a 40 cent per barrel fee on oil refined in California to pay for air quality programs Passed Senate Environmental Quality Committee and referred to Senate Revenue and Taxation SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Passed both Houses and sent to the Governor Staff Recommends: SUPPORT SCA 2 Torlakson Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees . SEEK AMENDMENTS SCA 7 M urray Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT 5/14/03 F:\users\preprin t\j s\legmat. doc 154 BILL: SUBJECT: STATUS: SB 1055 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) Introduced February 27, 2003 Amended September 9, 2003 Revision of Truck Gross Vehicle Weight Fees Gutted Bill that Passed the Legislature on Sept. 11 and now on the Governor's desk. SUMMARY AS AMENDED September 9, 2003 This is one of many bills that were created during the marathon meetings that characterize the last week of the Legislative session. In this case, a spot bill, with almost no content was gutted of its original and amended with replacement language. Since this is a Committee bill, it addresses a number of items that are connected to the state budget. Some of those provisions such as increasing the fee on state identification cards and procedural changes on memorial license plates are not all that relevant to the Commission. What is relevant to the Commission is a provision in this bill that will increase truck weight fees that had been reduced by Senate Bill 2084 during the 1999- 2000 legislative session, and helped contribute to a shortfall in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Senate Bill 2084 was intended to be revenue neutral but it instead sharply reduced the amount of revenue that was collected by the state from truck weight fees. The fees that are collected are deposited in the State Highway Account. This bill will increase truck weight fees by 20 percent beginning next year. Yet another provision of the bill will increase truck weight fees by as much as 13 percent should revenues from the 20 percent increase fail to meet a proscribed target of $789 million during Fiscal Year 2003/04. The $789 million figure was derived from what would have actually been revenue neutral had Senate Bill 2084 turned out as originally planned. EFFECTS ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY: An increase in truck weight fees does not provide any benefits that are specific to Riverside County, but is certainly welcome in providing a needed boost to the State Highway Account. Riverside County, along with every other location in the state will be able to benefit from correcting this problem from three years ago. The approach is supported by the California Trucking Association and this bill will have widespread support from other groups including the Highway Patrol because of other provisions. It is probably not the best example of how government should work but the overall provisions regarding truck weight fees are important to transportation progress in Riverside County and the state and deserves the Commission's support. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: SUPPORT BILL: AB 487 (Frommer, D -Glendale) Introduced February 14, 2003 Amended June 2, 2003 Amended July 9, 2003 Amended August 19, 2003 Amended September 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Rental Car Assessment STATUS: Approved by the Legislature on Sept. 12, 2003 and on the Governor's Desk SUMMARY AS AMENDED September 12, 2003 This bill will require rental car companies to collect from renters a vehicle transaction fee of 2.29 percent. The transaction fee is being sought by the rental car industry in order to defray the impact of the increase in the Vehicle License Fee. This bill allows the rental car companies to pass on the cost of the higher fee to their customers and it also requires that the fee revenue be deposited in the State Highway Account. The bill would require that the deposits to the State Highway Account be used to defray future General Fund repayments for the loan from the Highway Account to balance the budget. As a result, it does not provide "new money" for transportation but it does help speed the repayment of the loan. It should also lead to a healthier STIP fund balance which will be helpful next year when the California Transportation Commission is faced with new funding decisions. The bill contains language that directs the CTC to allocate this money to projects that are located near airports or other tourist locations. This is not clearly defined but the intent is to invest in area where rental cars are often utilized since rental cars are the source of this funding. The bill passed on a party line vote with Republicans voting against the bill because it is perceived as a tax increase. In this case, it is a tax increase that further extends the impact of the unpopular increase in the VLF, which is often referred to as the "Car Tax." EFFECTS ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY: This bill is expected to raise $60-65 million annually. Obviously that's not enough to cover the entire debt that has been incurred to the State Highway Account by the General Fund, but it does represent a dedicated source of funding to pay at least a portion of the money owed to the Highway Account. The provision that directs the CTC to use the proceeds from this fee on projects near airports and other tourist locations with significant rental car traffic complicates matter because it hard to define. In Riverside County, the argument could certainly be made that the Coachella Valley area which includes the Palm Springs International Airport certainly meets the definition. While the genesis of this bill can be traced to a single industry's desire for tax relief, it seems appropriate given the unique impact a raise in the VLF has on the car rental industry. Since the rental car industry also significantly impacts state highways, the nexus between this fee and transportation projects a good fit. Staff Recommends: SUPPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL October 8, 2003 Present Absent J3( - D County of Riverside, District I CI County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City of Banning of Beaumont of Blythe of Calimesa of Canyon Lake of Cathedral City of Coachella of Corona of Desert Hot Springs of Hemet of Indian Wells of Indio of La Quinta of Lake Elsinore of Moreno Valley of Murrieta of Norco of Palm Desert of Palm Springs of Perris of Rancho Mirage of Riverside of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET October 8, 2003 NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # re/ _,T--- Z)//-9,0_,T--- Z)//-9,0 GI L-zc s 740 :34/. a Ykr.� ` ,/ A2je6 7 c h / tit( ,41 �..+ a /0, 4i/Yo, ,G9 -67s-0 G / - ie.4' ,t Gt r'e S o''r P 1,° ' V1 // e j 4//3 -_?ooL i '4 <rn 7`/A» -L NoRc-v ( `(a9) 735 -2-190 ----4 ,- C-737,41,41 �i4-,� -/Cie, /77' 7 - 3 4 1(— ((J'// -( 7--1/15144SW, ,(09Ztle4s 9:01-9Pd-6/� al te-v-a- 674° -e-- n' a/ levers -I iz_.) ?a,' gz 6 --,c,17 i R.tr,kz_ k ‘O-3lO'd6 11 Iv it.I4 - 17_,a../ -3e 3 Vo rr r kla L 7,5 Z. --Q Cowed (5o5 6Y6 d , QED x'77. �RLC — (9i*j gel -'1 ,u - ie4 � / -j -J- jog 7c --5a/r ,,---z37-\----- 11,6,1 _(---' C- .'Nx' 0 Cj '- 13-*--- 1o;0 (-- /7 5- xee- 5) _2,-7� =dam .4' `717_ 4, A) Z-7- b/G-tep 7, v x/6— 769---393 Lb(,) L. 7• . c.. D f en I) ar 76T- 1g Saa . .� k 0JL,,,5� 1615-9461 7cc (/Vi ©� irliV2c 4 14-x.- c_/ 4; ?67--) 3 C'r-►71-rE r)R,4 L C 1, , n4, .- 3s .9375 rr'' 6: asgi r ks V-31-7-6, th La - ,5-6i - 1- 724 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: i'\ PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: ADDRESS: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 e-tt, Li) DATE: TEL. X03 TEL. NO: