Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 18, 2003 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION if 52,5 MEETING AGENDA ( b TIME: 11:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Ron Roberts 1' Vice Chairman: Roy Wilson 2nd Vice Chairman: Robin Lowe 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 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, /✓.cuoa. vviiINia. Lc and .auvi IaL u . cu Lill. vier CordCord t.. th., Clerk ..f tJ.., /".,..+....:....:.,., to auc vicin u. Li ia: Commission. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 18, 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. 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 June 18, 2003 Page 2 5. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-052 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY BETWEEN EAST JUNCTION OF STATE ROUTE 60/INTERSTATE 215 AND REDLANDS BOULEVARD Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley to the lowest responsive bidder; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 6. INTERAGENCY LOAN FOR STATE ROUTE 60/STATE ROUTE 91/ INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to institute an internal loan not to exceed $7.5 million from reserve dollars from the Measure "A" Western Riverside County Commuter Assistance and Specialized Transit Programs to ensure the timely commencement of construction on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate with the California Transportation Commission and the California Department of Transportation to finalize details for necessary STIP funding on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. 7. 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. 8. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 9, 2003, in the Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 18, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley Between East Junction of State Route 60/Interstate 215 and Redlands Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley to the lowest responsive bidder; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 12, 2003 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley. The Project consists of median widening for the construction of one (1) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction, the reconstruction of the Perris Boulevard Bridge under crossing, median widening of Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street under crossings and the construction of sound walls at various locations within the work limits. The work limits for the Project are from the East Junction of I-215/SR 60 to Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, in Riverside County, California. The estimated construction cost of the Project is between $32 million and $33 million. The project was advertised starting on May 12, 2003 with the bid opening scheduled for June 12, 2003. • The funding for the Project consists of 88% Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds and 12% Measure "A" Matching Funds. RCTC was able to secure available funding using FY 2001-02 funds for the Project. If these available FY 2001-02 funds are not encumbered by June 30, 2003, the funds will no longer be available to RCTC and RCTC would be forced to wait for any available FY 2003-04 Agenda Item 5 1 funds that will not be available until after the State Budget is adopted. Therefore, to assure that RCTC captures the currently available FY 2001-02 CMAQ Funds, staff has coordinated with Caltrans and both have concurred with the following schedule: Bid Opening Bid Evaluation Staff Recommendation to RCTC Award & Sign Contract Transmit Award Package to Caltrans Caltrans Process and Encumber Funds June 12, 2003 June 12 to June 17, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 19 to June 30, 2003 This schedule requires that the Commission hold a special Commission meeting on June 18, 2003. This will allow just enough time from the bid opening date of June 12, 2003, for staff and legal counsel to evaluate the bids and present their recommendation to award the Project at the June 18, 2003 special Commission meeting. After the Commission awards the construction contract, the contract must be immediately signed and sent by courier, along with the rest of the award package, to Caltrans. Caltrans will then have approximately 12 days to process the award package to assure that the CMAQ funds are encumber by June 30, 2003. • • • Agenda Item 5 2 ADDITION TO AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 18, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley Between East Junction of State Route 60/Interstate 215 and Redlands Boulevard STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-31-052 for the Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley to SEMA Construction, Inc., for the amount of $23,919,049, plus an approximate 10% contingency amount of $2,380,951, to cover known supplemental work and unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $26,300,000; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its February 12, 2003 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise to receive construction bids for the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley. The project consists of median widening for the construction of: 1) one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction; 2) reconstruction of the Perris Boulevard Bridge under crossing; 3) median widening of Pigeon Pass Road and Heacock Street under crossings; and, 4) construction of sound walls at various locations within the work limits. The work limits for the project are from the East Junction of I-215/SR 60 to Redlands Boulevard, in the City of Moreno Valley, in Riverside County. The updated estimated construction cost of the project is between $28.5 million and $29.5 million. 1 The project was advertised starting on May 12, 2003 with the bid opening on June 12, 2003. Four (4) bids were received and opened on June 12, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. A summary of the bids received are shown in Table A: TABLE A Construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley Between East Junction of State Route 60/Interstate 215 and Redlands Boulevard Bid Summary Firm Bid Amount Amount Over Low (in order from Low bid to High bid) Bid Engineers Estimate $ 29,379,610.00 1 SEMA Construction, Inc. $ 23,919,049.00 2 South Pointe Drive Suite 295, Lake Forest, Ca. 92630 2 Brutoco Eng. And Const. Inc. $ 24,187,428.30 $ 268,379.30 P.O. Box 429, Fontana, Ca. 92334 3 Yeager Skanska Inc. $ 24,194,61 1.40 $ 275,562.40 P.O. Box 87, Riverside, Ca. 92502-0087 4 FCI $ 25,474,198.00 $ 1,555,149.00 2585 Business Park Drive, Vista Ca. 92083-8831 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and all concur that SEMA Construction, Inc. was the lowest bidder whose bid was determined responsive to the bid documents. A summary of the review of the three (3) lowest bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: 2 TABLE B Check List Item SEMA Construction BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Yeager Skanska Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes 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 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 3 Bid Bond Yes Yes Yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Work - Subcontractor DBE - Where Certified - Prime DBE Yes Yes All Caltrans No Yes Yes All Caltrans No Yes Yes All Caltrans No 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes Yes Yes 6 Safety Record Yes Yes Yes 7 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes yes yes 8 Equal Opurtunity Certification Yes Yes Yes 9 Debarment Certification Yes Yes Yes 10 Certification for Federal Aid Projects Yes Yes Yes 11 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Yes No Yes 12 Evidence of Insurance Yes Yes Yes Table C (attached) summarizes the costs associated with the construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley Between East Junction of State Route 60/Interstate 215 and Redlands Boulevard for the three (3) lowest bids received. 3 The funding for the project consists of 88% Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds and 12% Measure "A" Matching Funds. RCTC was able to secure available funding using FY 2001-02 funds for the project. If these available FY 2001-02 funds are not encumbered by June 30, 2003, the funds will no longer be available to RCTC and RCTC would be forced to wait for any available FY 2003-04 funds that will not be available until after the State Budget is adopted. Therefore, to assure that RCTC captures the currently available FY 2001-02 CMAQ Funds, staff has coordinated with Caltrans and both have concurred with the following schedule: Bid Opening Bid Evaluation Staff Recommendation to RCTC Award & Sign Contract Transmit Award Package to Caltrans Caltrans Process and Encumber Funds June 12, 2003 June 12 to June 17, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 18, 2003 June 19 to June 30, 2003 The Special Commission Meeting on June 18, 2003 allows just enough time from the bid opening date of June 12, 2003, for staff and Legal Counsel to evaluate the bids and present their recommendation to award the project at the June 18, 2003 meeting. After the Commission awards the construction contract, the contract must be immediately signed and sent by courier, along with the rest of the award package, to Caltrans. Caltrans will then have approximately 12 days to process the award package to assure that the CMAQ funds are encumbered by June 30, 2003. Based on staff and Legal Counsel's review of the bids received, it is recommended that the Commission award Agreement No. 03-31-052, for the construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley between East Junction of State Route 60/Interstate 215 and Redlands Boulevard, to SEMA Construction, Inc., for the amount of $23,919,049 in addition to authorizing an approximate 10% contingency amount of $2,380,951, to cover known supplemental work and unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract amount of $26,300,000. The standard RCTC construction contract will be used, contingent upon RCTC Legal Counsel review. 4 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2003-04 Amount: $26,300,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ and Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 222-31-81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: c—__,4a � Date: 06/18/2003 Attachment: Table "C" 5 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 1 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH) LUMP SUM 315,000 $15,000 02,500 52,500.00 05,000 $5,000.00 $20,000 S20,000.00 2 TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE CL -1.8) 4,420 018.00 $79,560.00 020.00 $88,400.00 $20.00 088,400.00 $21.00 $92,820.00 3 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN LUMP SUM $5,000 $5,000 $10,100 $10,100.00 $4,500 $4,500.00 $10,000 $10,000.00 4 (S) WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LUMP SUM 8100,000 $100,000 $185,300 5185,300.00 $120,000 $120,000.00 $220,000 0220,000.00 5 (S) CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LUMP SUM $100,000.00 0100,000 046,200.00 $46,200.00 $49,000.00 $49,000.00 032,000.00 $32,000.00 6 (S) TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM LUMP SUM $100,000.00 5100,000 $252,600.00 $252,600.00 S240,000.00 $240,000.00 S400,000.00 S400,000.00 7 (S) TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING (PAINT) 90 $15.00 S1,350.00 $15.00 S1,350.00 $15.50 S1,395.00 516.00 $1,440.00 8 (S) CHANNELIZER (SURFACE MOUNTED) 140 $35.00 $4,900.00 028.00 53,920.00 $35.00 $4,900.00 S35.00 $4,900.00 9 (S) TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKER 24,900 $3.50 087,150.00 $2.80 $69,720.00 $2.80 $69,720.00 $2.50 $62,250.00 10 (S) PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 8 035,000.00 S280,000.00 82,600.00 020,800.00 $7,500.00 560,000.00 $10,000.00 $80,000.00 11 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K) 37,900 $30.00 $1,137,000.00 $24.00 3909,600.00 S20.00 $758,000.00 016.00 0606,400.00 12 (S) TEMPORARY CRASH CUSHION MODULE 370 0300.00 0111,000.00 5170.00 $62,900.00 $300.00 $111,000.00 0150.00 S55,500.00 13 (S) TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SCREEN 37,500 $4.00 $150,000.00 $5.50 $206,250.00 $5.80 $217,500.00 $6.00 0225,000.00 14 REMOVE WOOD FENCE 420 $30.00 $12,600.00 $10.00 04,200.00 $34.00 S14,280.00 S8.00 53,360.00 15 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE 580 $20.00 $11,600.00 $7.00 $4,060.00 826.00 $15,080.00 $17.00 59,860.00 16 REMOVE METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING 500 $25.00 012,500.00 $33.00 $16,500.00 $37.00 S18,500.00 $23.00 $11,500.00 17 (S) REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE (YELLOW) 22,700 $6.00 0136,200.00 01.10 $24,970.00 $1.15 $26,105.00 $1.10 $24,970.00 18 (S) REMOVE PAINTED TRAFFIC STRIPE 27,900 01.50 541,850.00 $1.10 $30,690.00 01.15 $32,085.00 $2.00 $55,800.00 19 (S) REMOVE PAINTED PAVEMENT MARKING 30 $28.00 0840.00 S15.00 $450.00 $16.00 $480.00 $16.00 $480.00 6 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 20 IS) REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKER 10,700 S1.00 510,700.00 50.65 $6,955.00 80.70 57,490.00 $0.70 57,490.00 21 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (WOOD POST) 1 880.00 $80.00 S100,00 $100.00 $280.00 S280.00 8100.00 S100.00 22 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN PANEL 4 S100.00 S400.00 5100.00 8400.00 575.00 5300.00 8100.00 5400.00 23 REMOVE SIGN STRUCTURE 4 $3,000.00 812,000.00 86,500.00 826,000.00 57,000.00 $28,000.00 84,000.00 S16,000.00 24 REMOVE SIGN FROM SIGN FRAME 1 S500.00 $500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 82,000.00 82,000.00 82,200.00 $2,200.00 26 RE -MOVE -DRAINAGE- FACILITIES 40 4-17000,00 58:00 $0:00 S0.00 40:00 80.00 $0:90 S0.00 26 REMOVE PIPE 110 $100.00 511,000.00 877.00 $8,470.00 S120.00 813,200.00 8210.00 823,100.00 27 REMOVE INLET 8 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 3520.00 S4,160.00 8740.00 $5,920.00 $900.00 57,200.00 28 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING 2503 814.00 835,042.00 832.00 $80,096.00 $2.45 $6,132.35 54.00 510,012.00 29 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERSIDE DRAIN 1 $500.00 S500.00 S560.00 8560.00 $900.00 5900.00 S500.00 S500.00 30 RECONSTRUCT WOOD FENCE 420 $100.00 S42,000.00 $190.00 879,800.00 5188.00 S18,960.00 5184.00 S77,280.00 31 RECONSTRUCT CHAIN LINK FENCE 70 850.00 S3,500.00 8160.00 811,200.00 $160.00 511,200.00 5157.00 810,990.00 32 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN -ONE POST 10 $175.00 $1,750.00 8190.00 31,900.00 S230.00 32,300.00 8190.00 81,900.00 33 IF) RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN - TWO POST 6 8350.00 52,100.00 5300.00 $1,800.00 81,000.00 56,000.00 S290.00 81,740.00 34 IS) RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN 1 8225.00 $225.00 S150.00 5150.00 5850.00 S850.00 8250.00 8250.00 35 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN (METAL POST) 6 5400.00 52,400.00 5200.00 $1,200.00 $375.00 82,250.00 $250.00 51,500.00 36 S COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 10,141 S10.00 5101,410.00 516.00 8162,256.00 S2.50 S25,352.50 85.00 S50,705.00 37 REMOVE CONCRETE 1410 8130.00 S183,300.00 324.00 833,840.00 865.00 $91,650.00 $100.00 S141,000.00 38 REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT MASONRY BLOCK WALL 2820 S125.00 $352,500.00 S151.00 5425,820.00 820.00 S56,400.00 850.00 5141,000.00 39 CLEAN BRIDGE DECK 2182 $3.80 S8,291.60 87.50 7 516,365.00 82.40 85,236.80 52.50 85,455.00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 40 REMOVE CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE K) 9463 815.00 S141,945.00 86.00 $56,778.00 829.00 8274,427.00 59.00 885,167.00 41 CAP INLET 13 8800.00 810,400.00 $590.00 S7,670.00 S2,500.00 $32,500.00 8750.00 89,750.00 42 BRIDGE REMOVAL LUMP SUM 8355,000.00 $355,000.00 $143,700.00 8143,700.00 3220,000.00 8220,000.00 8150,000.00 8150,000.00 43 BRIDGE REMOVAL (PORTION), LOCATION A LUMP SUM 814,000.00 814,000.00 811,100.00 511,100.00 829,000.00 829,000.00 830,000.00 830,000.00 44 BRIDGE REMOVAL (PORTION), LOCATION B LUMP SUM 514,000.00 814,000.00 S11,100.00 $11,100.00 830,000.00 830,000.00 830,000.00 830,000.00 45 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 8324,000.00 $324,000.00 $215,800.00 8215,800.00 8324,000.00 $324,000.00 8324,000.00 8324,000.00 46 (F -S) LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN LUMP SUM 5100,000.00 $100,000.00 811,700.00 $11,700.00 $1,500.00 31,500.00 810,000.00 810,000.00 47 ROADWAY EXCAVATION 53000 812.00 8636,000.00 $11.00 3583,000.00 814.00 8742,000.00 812.00 8636,000.00 48 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (TYPE Y) (AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD) 75 820.00 $1,500.00 8120.00 S9,000.00 820.00 $1,500.00 8100.00 $7,500.00 49 (F) STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) 13,534 824.00 8324,816.00 811.00 $148,874.00 S15.00 $203,010.00 $11.00 $148,874.00 50 (F) STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (SOUND WALL) 273 829.00 57,917.00 $110.00 S30,030.00 $180.00 849,140.00 844.00 $12,012.00 51 (F) STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) 4,648 S62.00 $288,176.00 821.00 897,608.00 533.00 8153,384.00 8150.00 8697,200.00 52 (F) STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE) 2,752 843.00 8118,336.00 $59.00 $162,368.00 $54.00 8148,608.00 890.00 8247,680.00 53 (F) STRUCTURE BACKFILL (RETAINING WALL) 7,224 828.00 3202,272.00 534.00 8245,616.00 838.00 $274,512.00 825.00 8180,600.00 54 (F) STRUCTURE BACKFILL (SOUND WALL) 190 836.00 86,840.00 $610.00 8115,900.00 8190.00 836,100.00 S60.00 $11,400.00 55 (F -S) PERVIOUS BACKFILL MATERIAL (RETAINING WALL) 50 855.00 82,750.00 8140.00 $7,000.00 8425.00 821,250.00 $10.00 $500.00 56 REMOVE ROCK BLANKET 277 845.00 812,465.00 815.00 84,155.00 545.00 812,465.00 810.00 82,770.00 57 (S) EROSION CONTROL (TYPE C) 41568 80.50 $20,784.00 83.00 5124,704.00 53.00 $124,704.00 $1.80 874,822.40 &8 POST LUMP 8660,000 40 40 40,00 40 40 40 40 - S CONSTRUCTION- BMP's (VEGETATED SUM SWAL-ES} 59 MAINTAIN EXISTING PLANTS LUMP SUM $48,000.00 S48,000 850,600.00 S50,600.00 850,000.00 850,000.00 825,000.00 $25,000.00 60 MAINTAIN EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES LUMP SUM S40,000.00 840,000 550,600.00 8 $50,600.00 $50,000.00 350,000.00 $25,000.00 525,000.00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 61 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE 41943 835.00 S1,468,005,00 S30.00 81,258,290.00 525.00 81,048,575.00 832.00 81,342,176.00 62 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) 75437 855.00 84,149,035.00 S44.00 83,319,228.00 846.00 83,470,102.00 S42.00 $3,168,354.00 63 LIQUID ASPHALT (PRIME COATI 900 8460.00 8414,000.00 5250.00 S225,000.00 8125.00 $112,500.00 $50.00 845,000.00 64 1067 mm CIDH CONCRETE PILING 56 8700.00 839,200,00 8339.00 $18,984.00 8350.00 819,600.00 $360.00 820,160,00 65 400 mm CIDH CONCRETE PILING 104 8304.00 831,616.00 8136.00 $14,144.00 8142.00 814,768.00 5130.00 S13,520.00 66 750 mm CIDH CONCRETE PILING 1540 $438.00 5674,520,00 8192.00 8295,680,00 5195.00 $300,300.00 $210.00 8323,400.00 67 (S) 350 MM CAST -IN- DRILLED -HOLE CONCRETE PILING (SOUND WALL( 1,240 8216.00 8267,840.00 867.00 883,080.00 880.00 899,200.00 885.00 S105,400.00 68 (SI 400 MM CAST -IN- DRILLED -HOLE CONCRETE PILING (SOUND WALL) 1,600 8118.00 $188,800.00 862.00 899,200.00 873.00 8116,800.00 $86.00 5137,600.00 69 (SI 450 MM CAST -IN- DRILLED -HOLE CONCRETE PILING (SOUND WALL► 122 S162,00 $19,764.00 8100.00 $12,200.00 8110.00 813,420.00 8100.00 812,200.00 70 (SI PRESTRESSING CAST -IN -PLACE CONCRETE LUMP SUM 812,800 812,800 825,000 825,000.00 832,000 532,000.00 828,000 528,000.00 71 (FI STRUCTURAL CONCRETE,BRIDGE FOOTING 667 5580.00 8386,860.00 S180.00 $120,060.00 8300.00 8200,100.00 8220.00 $146,740.00 72 (F) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE 1,696 8629.00 81,066,784.00 S550.00 8932,800.00 5490.00 8831,040.00 S700.00 81,187,200.00 73 (F-SI STRUCTURAL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 3,275 S350.00 81,146,250,00 8350.00 81,146,250.00 8340.00 81,113,500.00 8400.00 $1,310,000.00 74 (F) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB (TYPE N) 202 8790.00 8159,580.00 S370.00 874,740.00 8690.00 8139,380.00 8600.00 $121,200.00 75 IF) MINOR CONCRETE (MINOR STRUCTURE► 63 81,202.00 875,725.80 $750.00 847,250.00 81,300.00 S81,900.00 S1,600.00 8100,800.00 76 (F -S) MINOR CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 40 S778.00 531,120.00 8690.00 827,600.00 S500.00 820,000.00 8350.00 814,000.00 77 (S) ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT 4,021 $67.00 S269,407.00 830.00 $120,630.00 817.00 868,357.00 S26.00 8104,546.00 78 FRACTURE RIB TEXTURE 638 825.00 315,950.00 S120.00 $76,560.00 8110.00 870,180.00 S160,00 8102,080.00 79 DRILLL AND BOND DOWEL 257 887.00 322,359.00 840.00 810,280.00 865.00 316,705.00 855.00 $14,135.00 80 FURNISH PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER 38 810,900.00 8414,200.00 87,300.00 9 $277,400.00 86,700.00 8254,600.00 57,000.00 8266,000.00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 81 ERECT PRECAST PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER 38 $1,630.00 $61,940.00 $800.00 $30,400.00 $1,500.00 $57,000.00 $1,500.00 $57,000.00 82 R€TAMANG WALL 2400 $600:00 $8:Q9 $0:00 $0:99 $0:00 $0:90 $0-00 $8;80 83 (S) CORE CONCRETE (51MM-100MM) 13 $144.00 $1,872.00 $610.00 $7,930.00 $340.00 $4,420.00 $160.00 $2,080.00 84 (S) SOUNDWALL (BARRIER) (MASONRY BLOCK) 8,715 $119.00 $1,037,085.00 $111.00 $967,365.00 $132.00 $1,150,380.00 $120.00 $1,045,800.00 85 (S) SOUNDWALL (MASONRY BLOCK) 8,065 $194.00 $1,564,610.00 $182.00 $1,467,830.00 $205.00 $1,653,325.00 $200.00 $1,613,000.00 86 (F) BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) 439,585 $1.44 $633,002.40 $1.18 $518,710.30 $1.15 $505,522.75 $1.00 $439,585.00 87 (F -S) BAR REINFORCING STEEL (RETAINING WALL) 239,390 $1.35 $323,176.50 $0.96 $229,814.40 $1.35 $323,176.50 $1.10 $263,329.00 88 COLUMN CASING 8,601 $9.00 $77,409.00 $9.50 $81,709.50 $12.00 $103,212.00 $12.00 $103,212.00 89 (S) FURNISH SIGN STRUCTURE (TRUSS) 40,560 $5.50 $223,080.00 $5.50 $223,080.00 $6.25 $253,500.00 $5.00 $202,800.00 90 (S) INSTALL SIGN STRUCTURE (TRUSS) 40,560 $1.00 $40,560.00 $1.50 $60,840.00 $t50 $60,840.00 $1.00 $40,560.00 91 (S) FURNISH SIGN STRUCTURE (BRIDGE MOUNTED WITHOUT WALKWAY) 680 $9.50 $6,460.00 $8.00 $5,440.00 $13.65 $9,282.00 $7.00 $4,760.00 92 (S) INSTALL SIGN STRUCTURE (BRIDGE MOUNTED WITHOUT WALKWAY) 680 $7.50 $5,100.00 $58.00 $39,440.00 $55.00 $37,400.00 $8.00 $5,440.00 93 (S) 920 MM CAST -IN- DRILLED -HOLE CONCRETE PILE (SIGN FOUNDATION) 60 $1,550.00 $93,000.00 $680.00 $40,800.00 $1,100.00 $66,000.00 $1,200.00 $72,000.00 94 METAL (BARRIER MOUNTED SIGN) 1,500 $18.00 $27,000.00 $22.00 $33,000.00 $21.00 $31,500.00 $19.00 $28,500.00 95 ROADSIDE SIGN- ONE POST 29 $240.00 $6,960.00 $340.00 $9,860.00 $570.00 $16,530.00 $335.00 $9,715.00 96 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD) 6 $75.00 $450.00 $100.00 $600.00 $200.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $600.00 97 INSTALL SIGN PANEL ON EXISTING FRAME 45 $500.00 $22,500.00 $140.00 10 $6,300.00 $135.00 $6,075.00 $150.00 $6,750.00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 98 450 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 810 3240.00 6194,400.00 S100,00 881,000.00 $115.00 593,150.00 3190.00 $153,900.00 99 600 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 121 6250.00 630,250.00 S240.00 $29,040.00 8235.00 528,435,00 6525.00 663,525.00 99A 750 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 11 $250.00 82,750.00 8360.00 $3,960.00 8370.00 64,070.00 $470.00 $5,170.00 100 900 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 55 8400.00 622,000.00 8390.00 521,450.00 5230.00 $12,650.00 $400.00 522,000.00 101 1200 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 20 S500.00 610,000.00 S410.00 58,200.00 52,000.00 $40,000.00 6835.00 516,700.00 102 RESIDENT ENGINEER'S OFFICE LUMP SUM 5120,000.00 S120,000,00 $58,100.00 658,100.00 $60,000.00 560,000.00 S135,000.00 $135,000.00 103 REPAIR EXISTING UIMR SUM 420,000.00 4000 40,00 4040 44 GO -WA 40 6)0 4040 IS► iRIGATa0N-SYSTEM 104 80 MM SLOTTED PLASTIC PIPE 1,475 623.00 633,925.00 S28.00 641,300,00 623.00 $33,925.00 613.00 $19,175.00 105 80 MM PLASTIC PIPE (OUTLET) 30 653.00 61,590.00 690.00 $2,700.00 6285.00 58,550.00 313.00 6390.00 406 GEOCOMPOSITE BRAIN 2200 46,00 40,00 40;00 48,00 40,00 40-00 40.00 4A.A8 107 FILTER FABRIC (UNDERDRAIN) 1,366 62.00 32,732.00 54.10 $5,600.60 53.40 84,644.40 $2.50 $3,415.00 108 NPS 16 WELDED STEEL PIPE CASING (BRIDGE) 47 8332.00 815,604.00 5460.00 821,620.00 6240.00 611,280.00 3570.00 S26,790.00 109 DEBRIS RACK 2 87,108.00 $14,216.00 51,700.00 83,400.00 83,300.00 66,600.00 $1,300.00 62,600.00 110 (F) SEWER RELOCATION IVCP, MANHOLE, & MOBILIZATION/DEM OBILIZATION) LUMP SUM 8112,140.00 6112,140,00 541,200.00 $41,200.00 $55,000.00 855,000.00 845,000.00 S45,000,00 111 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (1/4 TONNE METHOD BI 28 3100.00 $2,800.00 887.00 62,436.00 6600.00 $16,800,00 S130,00 53,640,00 112 SLOPE PAVING (COBBLESTONE) 80 $150.00 512,000,00 $120,00 69,600.00 S385.00 530,800.00 6600.00 848,000.00 113 (F) MINOR CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION) 140 3410.00 $57,400.00 $820.00 8114,800.00 3450.00 863,000.00 8450.00 $63,000.00 114 (F) MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEEL 5456 63.16 517,237.69 34.10 622,369.60 $2.00 $10,912.00 82.00 S10,912.00 115 CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPE CL -1,8) 145 $36.00 $5,220.00 560.00 $8,700.00 660.00 $8,700.00 835.00 $5,075.00 116 DELINEATOR (CLASS 1) 20 631.00 $620.00 $36.00 $720.00 $35.00 8700.00 635.00 $700.00 117 INSTALL MEDIAN MILEAGE PANEL 5 655.00 5275.00 $300.00 51,500.00 5300.00 81,500.00 555.00 S275,00 118 (S) METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING (WOOD POST► 270 8100.00 $27,000.00 $160.00 1 1 643,200.00 S160,00 843,200.00 890.00 $24,300.00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 119 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 736A MODIFIED) 205 $202.00 841,410.00 5380.00 877,900.00 5210.00 843,050.00 5190.00 538,950.00 120 CONCRETE BARRIER (SOUND WALL) 1,570 8380.00 8596,600.00 8250.00 5392,500,00 5220.00 5345,400.00 5220.00 8345,400.00 121 (S) TERMINAL SYSTEM ISRT) 11 52,000.00 522,000.00 $2,300,00 525,300.00 82,300.00 525,300.00 52,300.00 525,300.00 122 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 600) 1300 $150.00 8195,000.00 5113.00 8146,900.00 3100.00 5130,000.00 5110.00 5143,000.00 123 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60GA) 310 8350.00 8108,500.00 5137.00 542,470.00 559.00 818,290.00 5130.00 840,300.00 124 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60GC) 8225 8200.00 51,645,000.00 8163.00 81,340,675,00 8143.00 61,176,175.00 $150.00 51,233,750.00 125 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60GE) 92 51,000.00 892,000.00 5372.00 534,224.00 8400.00 836,800.00 8375.00 534,500.00 126 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732) 170 8175.00 529,750.00 $169.00 828,730,00 849.00 68,330.00 5190.00 S32,300.00 127 (S) THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING 710 826.00 518,460.00 528.00 819,880.00 527.00 519,170.00 527.00 519,170.00 128 IS) 100 MM THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE 92,800 $0.80 874,240.00 50.50 $46,400.00 80.50 846,400.00 80.50 846,400.00 129 (5) 200 MM THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE 11,400 82.50 528,500.00 S1.50 817,100.00 81.50 $17,100.00 61,60 818,240.00 130 (S) PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE (2 -COAT) 115,400 80.40 S46,160.00 80.51 858,854.00 80.50 557,700.00 $0.50 557,700.00 131 (S) PAVEMENT MARKER (NON -REFLECTIVE) 8,550 81.20 810,260.00 81.00 S8,550.00 81.00 58,550.00 $1.00 58,550.00 132 (S) PAVEMENT MARKER (REFLECTIVE) 11,170 52.40 526,808.00 82.60 329,042.00 82.50 827,925.00 82.50 527,925.00 133 IS) SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (LOCATION 1) LUMP SUM 897,640,00 597,640.00 672,900,00 572,900.00 572,000.00 572,000.00 S45,000.00 345,000.00 134 (S) SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (LOCATION 2) LUMP SUM 864,400.00 564,400.00 $60,700.00 S60,700.00 860,000.00 560,000.00 635,000.00 835,000.00 135 (S) SIGNAL AND LIGHTING (LOCATION 3) LUMP SUM 833,500.00 533,500.00 831,400.00 831,400.00 533,000.00 533,000.00 817,000.00 817,000.00 136 (S) LIGHTING (LOCATION 1) Pigeon Pass LUMP SUM 550,350.00 550,350.00 819,200.00 519,200.00 88,000.00 88,000.00 87,000.00 57,000.00 137 (S) LIGHTING (LOCATION 2) Heacock Street LUMP SUM 826,450.00 S26,450.00 511,100.00 511,100.00 59,000.00 59,000.00 57,000.00 87,000.00 138 (S) LIGHTING (LOCATION 3) Perris Blvd LUMP SUM 540,250.00 840,250.00 814,700.00 814,700.00 515,000.00 515,000.00 510,000.00 810,000.00 139 (S) LIGHTING (WEST END) LUMP SUM 865,435.00 865,435.00 525,300.00 12 825,300.00 $19,500,00 519,500.00 515,000.00 315,000.00 Bid Estimated Item 8 Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const, Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 140 (S) SIGN ILLUMINATION LUMP SUM S20,000.00 820,000,00 S18,200.00 818,200.00 845,000.00 345,000.00 S30,000.00 830,000.00 141 (S) CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN SYSTEM LUMP SUM 8264,300.00 8264,300.00 524,800,00 324,800.00 828,000.00 528,000,00 $20,000.00 820,000,00 142 (S) SIZE 103 (4") CONDUIT - TRENCHED IN SOIL 4500 870.00 $315,000,00 544,00 S198,000.00 $44.00 $198,000.00 845,00 8202,500.00 143 (S) INTERCONNECTION SYSTEM (LOCATION 1) LUMP SUM 320,150.00 820,150.00 812,100.00 512,100.00 815,000.00 $15,000.00 810,000,00 $10,000.00 144 (S) SIZE 25 INNERDUCT 18000 81.70 $30,600.00 82.10 $37,800.00 32.20 839,600.00 83.00 354,000.00 145 (S) COMMUNICATION CONDUIT (BRIDGE) 162 5230.00 837,260,00 8100.00 $16,200.00 S105,00 817,010,00 840.00 $6,480,00 146 (S) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM (LOCATION 1) LUMP SUM 832,600.00 832,600.00 828,300,00 828,300.00 832,000.00 832,000.00 S20,000.00 520,000.00 147 (S) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM (LOCATION 2) LUMP SUM $65,600,00 865,600.00 339,500.00 839,500,00 837,000.00 337,000.00 822,000.00 822,000.00 148 (S) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM (LOCATION 3) LUMP SUM 856,000.00 856,000.00 537,500.00 $37,500.00 530,000.00 S30,000.00 518,000.00 S18,000,00 149 (S) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM (LOCATION 4) LUMP SUM 844,000.00 $44,000.00 325,300,00 825,300.00 S31,000.00 531,000.00 $19,000.00 819,000.00 150 (S) CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SYSTEM (LOCATION 5) LUMP SUM 835,600.00 835,600.00 528,300,00 528,300.00 838,000.00 538,000.00 521,000.00 821,000.00 151 ISI RAMP METERING SYSTEM (Perris Blvd EB Entrance) LUMP SUM 565,900.00 565,900.00 846,100.00 846,100.00 339,000.00 539,000.00 526,000.00 526,000.00 152 ISI RAMP METERING SYSTEM (Day St) LUMP SUM 83,500.00 53,500.00 58,100.00 58,100.00 $6,000.00 86,000.00 34,000.00 84,000.00 153 (S( RAMP METERING SYSTEM (Heacock WB Entrance) LUMP SUM 85,000.00 35,000.00 816,200.00 S16,200.00 825,000.00 525,000.00 814,000.00 814,000.00 154 ISI RAMP METERING SYSTEM (Heacock EB Entrance) LUMP SUM $5,000.00 S5,000.00 812,100.00 812,100.00 S15,000.00 815,000.00 88,000.00 38,000.00 155 (S) RAMP METERING SYSTEM (Perris Blvd WB Entrance) LUMP SUM 85,000.00 55,000.00 814,200.00 814,200.00 817,500.00 S17,500.00 810,000.00 810,000.00 156 (S) MODIFY CENSUS STATION LUMP SUM S2,000.00 S2,000.00 86,000.00 86,000,00 56,000,00 $6,000.00 8500.00 5500,00 157 (S) 12 SINGLEMODE FIBER OPTIC CABLE (12SMFO) 520 86.00 53,120.00 85.00 $2,600.00 $5.25 32,730.00 83.00 81,560.00 158 )S( 48 SINGLEMODE FIBER OPTIC CABLE (48SMFO) 4500 512.00 854,000.00 56.50 I $29,250.00 86.75 830,375.00 $6.00 S27,000,00 Bid Estimated Item # Opening date: Award date: Bid Item & Quantity Engineers Estimate Unit Price Cost SEMA Construction Unit Price Cost BRUTOCO Eng. & Const. Unit Price Cost Yeager Skanska Inc. Unit Price Cost 159 (S) FIBER OPTIC SPLICE CLOSURE 6 $1,800.00 810,800.00 $1,600.00 89,600.00 $1,700.00 $10,200,00 $1,500.00 $9,000,00 160 (S) INSTALL TOS CABINET NO. 1 LUMP SUM $76,600.00 376,600.00 S31,400.00 $31,400.00 550,000.00 $50,000.00 $30,000,00 S30,000.00 161 (S) MODIFY EXISTING COMMUNICATION HUB LUMP SUM $38,600.00 838,600.00 521,800.00 $21,800.00 S26,000,00 $26,000,00 $14,000,00 $14,000.00 162 MODIFY TMC LUMP SUM 518,400.00 $18,400.00 $10,400.00 810,400.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 163 (S) CONNECT RAMP METERS TO FIBER OPTIC BACK BONE 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 31,100.00 $1,100.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 164 (S) SPLICE VAULT 9 $2,500.00 $22,500,00 $3,000,00 $27,000.00 83,100.00 S27,900.00 $1,500.00 $13,500.00 165 (S) SYSTEM TESTING AND DOCUMENTATION LUMP SUM $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $35,900.00 835,900.00 S32,000.00 S32,000.0O S20,000.00 $20,000.00 166 (S) TRAINING FOR FIBER OPTIC OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE LUMP SUM $10,000.00 S10,000.00 $16,200.00 516,200.00 $21,000.00 321,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 167 T14EAT-BRIDG€-DECK 2182 4040 S0.00 59:00 $0.00 5090 S0.00 400 -1-68 R -BRIDGE- DECK TR NT 8 8 40,00 S0.00 59:00 80.00 4040 S0.00 50;00 AAAT€RIAID )LOW 880.14 RIIRTfTAI $260673 -.----•_..__..______ _ 72.99 SUBTOTAL ,804,878.30 SUBTOTAL 169 MOBILIZATION (10% OF SUBTOTAL) LUMP SUM S2,606,737.30 $2,606,737.30 S2,201,697.60 S2,201,697,60 32,300,000.00 $2,300,000,00 $2,200,000.00 170 A HIGHWAY PLANTING LUMP SUM S119,650.00 S119,650.00 $173,300.00 S173,300.00 S170,000.00 $170,000.00 $100,000.00 170 B PLANT ESTABLISHMENT (250 WORKING DAYS) LUMP SUM $80,000.00 S80,000.00 596,200.00 896,200.00 850,000.00 350,000.00 $70,000.00 170 C BIO SWALE COMPOSITE SEED REINFORCED MATTING LUMP SUM 5400,000.00 S400,000.00 $515,500.00 $515,500.00 $501,000.00 S501,000.00 $500,000.00 170 D IRRIGATION SYSTEM LUMP SUM $92,850.00 S92,850.00 $342,700.00 S342,700.0O $350,000.00 S350,000.00 $250,000.00 170 E 300 mm WELDED STEEL PIPE CONDUIT (6.35 mm THICK) 40 $300.00 $300.00 S250.00 $10,000.00 $225.00 $9,000.00 $200.00 170 F EXTEND 300 mm CONDUIT 10 3100 5100.00 $250 52,500.00 $255 32,550.00 S500 S21,061,611.40 $2,200,000.00 $100,000.00 S70,000.00 S500,000.00 $250,000.00 88,000.00 S5,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $29,367,010.29 GRAND TOTAL 523,919,049.00 GRAND TOTAL $24,187,428.30 GRAND TOTAL $24,194,611.40 14 • AGENDA ITEM 6 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 18, 2003 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interagency Loan for State Route 60/State Route 91 /Interstate 215 Interchange Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: • • 1) Authorize the Executive Director to institute an internal loan not to exceed $7.5 million from reserve dollars from the Measure "A" Western Riverside County Commuter Assistance and Specialized Transit Programs to ensure the timely commencement of construction on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project; and, 2) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate with the California Transportation Commission and the California Department of Transportation to finalize details for necessary STIP funding on the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On March 21, 2003, the Commission conducted a retreat in the City of Temecula and voted to establish the reconstruction of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange as its paramount priority. This action was needed in the face of an unprecedented state budget and transportation funding crisis that severely limits state funding for a number of years into the future. As part of its March 21 action the Commission directed staff to work closely with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to ensure maximum funding capability and flexibility in paying for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. Since that time, the Commission has been in constant contact with the CTC and Caltrans to develop a plan that will ensure necessary funding. Unfortunately the state funding situation has deteriorated to the point where any consideration of full state funding for the interchange has been replaced with a strategy that includes the issuance of grant revenue anticipation bonds (GARVEE) Agenda Item 6 3 to pay for the majority of the cost. This marks a significant change from previous years' assurances that state funding would provide the lion's share of the project's $295 million cost. Instead, we are now in a position where we need $35 million to keep the project on schedule. The $35 million would be used to mobilize contractors and ensure a timely project start. The state would then issue GARVEE bonds in January to finance the remainder of the project. The interest cost for the bonds is estimated to be $40 million and will be paid from future STIP dollars that are normally allocated to Riverside County. While this is spread over ten years, it represents a significant cost in unrealized or delayed projects that will not receive STIP funding. On May 21, a number of Commissioners traveled to Sacramento to plead our case with the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Chairman Roberts, Second Vice -Chair Lowe and Commissioners Tavaglione, Buster, and Ashley were part of a group that included UCR Assistant Chancellor Mike Webster. In addition, a number of cities sent letters or approved resolutions in support of the project and communicated their position with the CTC. The presentation was well -received and stressed the economic importance of the interchange to the entire region as well as its mobility benefits in an area choked by transportation congestion. Yet another salient point is that since construction and right-of-way acquisition has already started on parts of the project, it could cost the state more money to mothball the project than it would to start construction. Of particular concern are reverse condemnation claims that can be pursued by property owners who sold under the assumption that construction was imminent, and then learn that the project is delayed. Current Situation A decision on funding is expected at the CTC's next meeting on June 26, to be held at Santa Ana City Hall. What the members of the California Transportation Commission will face is an unsettled statewide fund estimate. While most are convinced of the need for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project, they will be considering a request that seeks $35 million in immediate funding from a statewide pool that could be less than $70 million. In ongoing dialogue with CTC staff, CTC Commissioner Tavaglione, and Caltrans, there is a growing expectation that RCTC will be required to consider defraying a portion of the $35 million figure by using local reserves that have yet to be allocated. While that sounds like an easy solution, RCTC is not flush with millions of dollars in reserves. During the last five years, the Commission has embarked on an aggressive project development schedule and continues to meet its debt obligations incurred from previous construction projects. State funding was • • • Agenda Item 6 4 • • • intended to provide a major portion of this project's needed investment and has been jeopardized due to the state budget crisis including a lack of commitment to the Transportation Congestion Relief Program, faulty federal gas tax revenue estimates, and legislation that severely reduced state truck weight fees. Unlike many other state services, finding a way to fund transportation projects becomes even more critical in a time of economic uncertainty. Transportation investment creates jobs, improves the business climate and is of lasting value to a widespread area. This is especially true given the location in the state's fastest growing region. When combined with a number of other positive circumstances in the area such as the March reuse effort and the expansion of UCR, the improvement of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange could serve as a positive economic catalyst for Riverside and San Bernardino County. It is for these reasons that RCTC can expect general support from the CTC in approving a funding allocation for the project, but with the statewide situation, it might be impossible for the CTC to allocate more than half of the available statewide dollars to this single project. This is why the issue of an additional RCTC contribution from reserves needs to be considered. With all highway and rail capital dollars already earmarked, the only available sources of internal funding are the Commission's Western Riverside County Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Program and the Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program. Both of these programs receive an annual allocation from Measure "A". In the first few years of Measure "A", the full allocation was not expended because the programs were under development. As a result, balances were created in early years and have continued to earn interest. In recent years, the Commuter Assistance Program has been able to use federal and state funding that lessened its reliance on Measure "A" dollars and enabled it to provide some services countywide in addition to the Western County area identified in Measure "A". Overall, staff has identified a total of $7.5 million which could be shifted from these programs without long-term harm to either program. Ideally, funding could be transferred from these programs directly to the interchange project, however restrictions in the 1988 Measure "A" Ordinance severely restrict the ability of the Commission to transfer funding from one program area to another. A simple transfer of funding is actually rather complicated requiring approval of the Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and a majority of the county's cities comprising a majority of the county's incorporated population. The alternative to seeking a transfer would be to consider a temporary loan from the Commuter Assistance and Specialized Transit Programs which would be paid back to those program areas with future state dollars. The repayment schedule Agenda Item 6 would have to be fashioned in a way that minimizes its impact on the Commission's overall program. It would also be the intent of the Commission to repay the programs by the expiration of the first Measure "A" Program in June 2009. Staff Recommendation The Commission has been clear and consistent in stating that the reconstruction of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project is the paramount near -term transportation priority in Riverside County. This was formally recognized in March and has been reinforced repeatedly. The state budget crisis is impacting governments at all levels, and in the case of RCTC, this problem will cost the Commission in future projects, and in GARVEE interest bond costs. The possibility of additional costs is unfortunate, but unavoidable. Long-term the financial situation for transportation progress in Riverside County is optimistic. Unlike many of our neighboring counties, Riverside County has a sales -tax program in place that lasts until 2039. The federal transportation bill is likely to include a funding increase when it is finally approved. Most importantly, the area continues to grow economically. Economic growth will result in an expanded sales tax base that assures a robust Measure "A" program in future years. Additionally, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) that are in place in the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County will add to overall transportation investment. Since the future is positive, it is staff's recommendation to ensure continued momentum by doing whatever is necessary to keep the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project on schedule. Staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and work with the CTC to assure funding for this project. This direction would include an authorization to sanction an internal loan not to exceed $7.5 million from the Western Riverside County Commuter Assistance and Specialized Transit Programs. A loan does not require an amendment of the Measure "A" Program which is needed for a transfer. Should the Commission at a future time wish to consider forgiving a portion of the loan, the amendment process would apply. The repayment of the loans is to take place by June 2009 and will be detailed in future staff reports to the Commission and in future Commission budgets. Every effort will be made to minimize impacts on the affected programs. Staff will also return to the Commission with a summary report on the actions of the California Transportation Commission and the next steps for the interchange project. • • • Agenda Item 6 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET June 18, 2003 NAME AGENCY TELEPHONE # �-, r �-- 7 c' .-, G✓,- 7(s-- 70.) z v �S PA eX Gti C 1'./* ©c 7nG/&'tia //,c fic- y/.3 3J' oO s--2( tvcr5 t i)(9? 8'26-5791 16, cr, ) (e C PPz I ae.s -e1^1— 7e- ./odd .Te 44,1/e, Lem o�- ?©? - 738 -8500 "ti /ti,c Gr/ ,,a/ ril p7- .3 -Yo55 -/_ /'e-- 7&-,.._____ R° (J�a \z \�c-t 1 _ P Po -RA" -- .� v �lJ ,..-,......,-.7 rI6 .1/;4 9 0 `� - V(LXULMrZ �- f - S--5-2. 41 ,;11 Pof 471 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL June 18, 2003 Present Absent 0 0 0 County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside 0 City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8