Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 27, 2004 Budget & Implementation• RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Monday, September 27, 2004 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Terry Henderson, Chair / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee Vice Chair / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Art Welch / John Machisic, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Kelly Seyarto / Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Anneal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two/ County of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission I I �lG • Ct0 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rotc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:00 a.m. Monday, September 27, 2004 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Pt Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 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 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee 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 Committee 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.) Budget and Implementation Committee September 27, 2004 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. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of June, July and August 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 5 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the months ending July 31, 2004 and August 31, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-514 (AMENDMENT NO.1 TO AGREEMENT RO 2041) WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE SR -74 PROJECT AND 1-215/60/91 PROJECT Pg. 7 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-514, Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-2041, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for real property services for the SR -74 Project for an amount of $173,000 and for the 1- 215/60/91 Project for an amount of $26,388 for a total not to exceed $199,388; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee September 27, 2004 Page 3 8. AWARD CONTRACT NO. 05-31-513 (AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 02-31-917) WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE SR -79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Pg. 14 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award contract No. 05-31-513, Amendment No. 1 to contract No. 02-31-917, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for the SR -79 Realignment Project for an amount not to exceed $163,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2003/04 BUDGET AMENDMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 18 1) Approve the budget amendment of $9,206,667 for Measure A Local Streets and Roads Expenditures, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. $15 MILLION SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 20 1) Approve the criteria for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects; 2) Authorize staff to release the call for rehabilitation projects in November 2004, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee September 27, 2004 Page 4 • 11. CONTRACT AWARD FOR DIGITAL CELLULAR SERVICE FOR CALL BOX PROGRAM Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 24 1) Award a Five year contract to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc., for digital cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program at an annual amount not to exceed $89,078; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND PALM DESERT Pg. 26 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley as submitted; 2) Approve the amendment to the FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert as submitted, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Budget and Implementation Committee September 27, 2004 Page 5 13. FY 2005-09 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, INDIAN WELLS AND MURRIETA Pg. 41 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells and Murrieta as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 05-14-515 TO AMEND THE RCTC/SANBAG CONTRACT FOR SHARED FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES Pg. 59 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve agreement No. 05-14-515, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-051 between RCTC and SANBAG, for a two-year period in a total amount not to exceed $ 144,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Pg. 61 Budget and Implementation Committee September 27, 2004 Page 6 • 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, October 25, 2004, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • • Minutes • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, August 23, 2004 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairperson Terry Henderson at 10:03 a.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Juan DeLara Terry Henderson Robin Lowe Bob Magee Ameal Moore Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Art Welch Robert Crain Gregory Pettis Alan Seman 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Buydos/Magee) to approve the May 24 and June 28, 2004 minutes as submitted. Abstain: May and June Minutes — Seyarto June Minutes — Henderson Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to approve the Consent Calendar. 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended June 30, 2004; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the year ended June 30, 2004; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS '1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2004; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ended June 30, 2004; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-511, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-042, WITH BERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager, RCTC Consultant, reviewed the scope of the amendment. The amended agreement is with Berg & Associates for additional construction management and inspection services for the SR 60 HOV median widening project in Moreno Valley. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 3 • • • M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-511, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 02-31-042, with Berg & Associates, Inc. to provide additional Construction Management/Inspection Services for the construction of the State Route 60 HOV Median Widening Project in Moreno Valley, for a not to exceed agreement amount of $510,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and approve the expenditure of contingency funds up to the remaining $200,000; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the TUMF regional arterial priority project recommendations including the evaluation process and the need for the development of a model agreement with terms and conditions for receiving TUMF regional funds. Commissioner Robin Lowe requested staff to provide a list of all the project submissions, county funding contributions for all segment on SR 79, and a schedule for the Newport Road to 1-215 project. Commissioner Kelly Seyarto asked for an update on the Clinton Keith Road arterial widening project. George Johnson, County of Riverside Director of Transportation, indicated that the project was not submitted for TUMF. City and County staffs are working with local land owners to form a Community Facilities District to fund the project. At Commissioner Jim Venable's request, George Johnson provided the brief status report on the Newport Road extension project. In response to Commissioner Roger Berg concern regarding right-of-way, Hideo Sugita responded that the Committee can direct staff to inform and work with local jurisdiction to the extent feasible to ensure development does not impede the right-of-way for these projects. At Chairman Henderson's request, Hideo Sugita explained the purpose and need of the TUMF model agreement. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Lowe's concern regarding the Sanderson Bridge, Eric Haley outlined various approaches to fund the project. At the request of Commissioner Chris Buydos, Hideo Sugita explained the project schedule and funding requirements specifically related to the right-of- way and construction costs not recommended for funding at this time. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Establish a five-year TUMF Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009 pursuant to the Commission's first Call for Projects solicitation and direct staff to administratively update the approved project status, cost and revenue figures pursuant to any future actions taken by WRCOG to amend its TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan and Nexus Study; 2) Approve the list of 23 projects as eligible for TUMF Regional funding; 3) Program an estimated $71.3 million in TUMF Regional funds which represents either the amount requested by the local agency or the maximum TUMF Funding identified in the Nexus Study: a) $08.7 M - Project Development (PA&ED) FY 05 thru 09 b) $09.5 M - Design (PS&E) FY 05 thru 09 c) $19.0 M - Right of Way FY 05 thru 06 d) $09.1 M - Construction FY 05 thru 06 e) $25.0 M - Mid County Parkway & SR 79 Realignment Projects 4) Direct staff to develop and seek approval of a model TUMF Regional Funding Agreement between local agencies and RCTC for the selected TUMF projects and phase(s) that assures the Commission work will be completed as detailed in the project proposals and requires local agencies to commit to funding these and future phases of work on the project for which TUMF Regional funds cannot fund or are insufficient to cover all costs of the project/phase; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. APPROVAL OF EASEMENT DEED AND AERIAL EASEMENT DEED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BOX SPRINGS OVERPASS Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed Caltrans' request for the Commission to execute an easement deed and an aerial easement deed to support the 60/91/215 Interchange project. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 5 M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Easement Deed and Aerial Easement Deed on behalf of the Commission to assist Caltrans in the construction of the Box Springs Overpass; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. SURPLUS OLD 1-215 RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY (PHASE 1) APN NOS. 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, AND A PORTION OF 263-070-004 M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Declare the property identified as the "Old 1-215" Rail Right -of -Way (Phase 1), APN Nos. 263-080-011, 263-080-010, 263-091-011, 263-100-010, and a portion of 263-070-004 as surplus; 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcels for sale; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 04-014, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005" Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager, briefly reviewed the resolution establishing the Commission's appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2004- 2005. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005"; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 6 12. APPROVE SELECTION OF BOND COUNSEL M/S/C (Buydos/Venable) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-19-510 with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to perform the services of bond counsel to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) ; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT M/S/C (Buydos/Tavaglione) to: 1) Approve the City of Palm Desert's request to change the scope of its approved SB 821 sidewalk project; 2) Grant the City of Palm Desert a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2006 to complete the Portola Avenue sidewalk project; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA AND LAKE ELSINORE M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa and Lake Elsinore; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT John Standiford, Director of Public Information, provided an overview of the 2004 Budget Act and the California Performance Review (CPR). At Commissioner Lowe's request, John Standiford reviewed the state agencies recommended for consolidation under the CPR. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting August 23, 2004 Page 7 • • • Commissioner Lowe expressed concern regarding the potential impacts the CPR could have on transportation and recommended additional lobbying efforts. Eric Haley updated the Committee on recent lobbying efforts. Commissioner Tavaglione expressed his belief that a strong concerted effort needs to be made to insist that the Governor meet with the local tribes to reach an agreement regarding gaming compacts. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Direct staff to work with the California Performance Review Commissioner to influence state government reform efforts that provide greater funding for transportation and overall infrastructure investment; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 17. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1 1 :19 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ( \r„:„..3epz.. \-\ as:L.0%Q,— Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board ADDITION TO AGENDA ITEM 4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 22* and August 23, 2004 Because of lack of a quorum at the Budget and Implementation Committee's June 28, 2004 meeting, an action to approve the minutes of March 22, 2004 was not taken and was inadvertently left off of the agenda for the Committee's August 23, 2004 meeting. Therefore, an action to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2004 meeting is requested at this time. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, March 22, 2004 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairperson Terry Henderson at 2:34 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Bob Magee Ameal Moore Robin Lowe Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Robert Crain Juan DeLara Gregory Pettis Alan Seman 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 23, 2004 M/S/C (Lowe/Seyarto) to approve the February 23, 2004 minutes as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR In response to Commissioner Bob Magee's question, Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, responded that Caltrans has not accepted maintenance of State Route 74 Segment I as of this time. M/S/C (Lowe/Seyarto) to approve the Consent Calendar. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month of February 2004; 2) Direct staff to submit future reports on a quarterly basis and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. APPROVE SURVEY AND MATERIAL TESTING/ENVIRONMENTAL ON -CALL SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR FUTURE MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY AND RAIL PROJECTS Karl Sauer, RCTC's Consultant - Bechtel Construction Manager, reviewed the agreements for on -call material testing and surveying services in support of future Measure "A" Highway and Rail Projects. He noted that these agreements will be on a task order basis. M/S/C (Buydos/Venable) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-051 with Ninyo & Moore to provide on -call geotechnical, material testing and environmental assessment, evaluation, and remediation services in support of future Measure "A" Highway and Rail Projects, for the next four (4) fiscal years, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $300,000; 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-052 with David Evans and Associates, Inc. to provide on -call surveying services in support of future Measure "A" Highway and Rail Projects, for the next four (4) fiscal years, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $200,000; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 3 4) Authorize the Executive Director to issue Notices to Proceed for surveying services or material testing and environmental services required to support development or construction of Measure "A" Highway and Rail Projects, for individual amounts not to exceed $50,000; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF CCTV SECURITY SYSTEMS AT THE RCTC METROLINK STATIONS Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed the background information for security service at the RCTC owned Metrolink Stations. Karl Sauer provided an update of the installation of the CCTV Security System at the Metrolink Stations and reviewed the recommended changes in guard service. At Commissioner Roger Berg's request, Karl Sauer provided a detailed description of the monitoring system. Commissioner Robin Lowe expressed her belief that 24 -hour guard service should be maintained. Commissioner Chris Buydos concurred with Commissioner Lowe's concern and suggested the option of a roving guard service to continue the established security presence. Commissioner Magee recommended a pilot program with results, including cost savings and the number and types of incidents, to be brought back to the Commission for review. He then requested an explanation of the recommendation to fence -off and secure access up and over the pedestrian overcrossings. Karl Sauer stated that this is one of the options under consideration with the type and operation of fencing is currently being reviewed to determine the best solution. In response to Commissioner Buydos' question regarding coordination with the local authorities, Karl Sauer responded that coordination has not occurred though staff has met with CHP officers. He noted that the officers are utilizing the stations to write reports and establishing presence. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Kelly Seyarto expressed his concern regarding a change in security guard service as the CCTV security system would not be as effective as 24 -hour guard service. He also concurred with the recommendation for a pilot program. Commissioner John Tavaglione stated that he is unsure as to the priority that local authority places in responding to calls from the stations and is concerned that fencing the stations may pose problems as it relates to opening and closing the gates. In response to Chairperson Henderson's question regarding funding sources, Stephanie Wiggins responded that security costs are funded by Rail Western Riverside County Transportation funds and fencing costs would be funded by Measure "A" funds. Chairperson Henderson then asked if there was additional funding source for security and Stephanie Wiggins indicated that the Department of Homeland Security has a grant program for which the Commission may be eligible. Commissioner Moore expressed support for a 6 -month pilot program as he believes the guard monitoring the CCTV security system would provide a similar level of service as is currently in place should an incident occur. Chairperson Henderson recommended that pilot program begin after the installation of the fencing and procedures have been developed. It was determined that staff bring back a report to the Commission the fencing proposal as well status of meetings with local authorities as it relates to measures for response. M/S/C (Moore/Berg) to: 1) Approve the RCTC Metrolink Stations CCTV Security System Guidelines; 2) Authorize staff to develop and implement CCTV Security System operational procedures, pursuant to Legal Counsel review; 3) Authorize the expansion of the station security guard forces to provide for 24 hour/7 day a week monitoring of the Riverside station CCTV systems; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. No — Buydos, Lowe Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 5 9. INTERFUND LOAN POLICY Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented the proposed internal Interfund Loan Policy. Commissioner Jim Venable expressed concern for the threshold amounts for Commission approval. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, indicated that the policy thresholds were developed to allow projects to move forward, with the ability to do so being impacted by the need to expedite reimbursements, the Commission's slim operating margin and the unstable nature of state and federal funding. Commissioner Barbara Hanna requested that the policy include reports, including the purpose and the amounts, to the Commission on interfund loans that have transpired. Commissioner Lowe added that the interfund loan activity report of all loans be submitted to the Committee on a monthly basis. Commissioner Seyarto expressed his belief that there are sufficient checks and balances in the policy and also allows staff the flexibility to ensure projects move forward. He was comfortable with the proposed thresholds as they relate to transportation projects. In response to Chairman Henderson's question regarding a change order policy, Hideo Sugita responded that an extra work amount is included in the contract awards and explained the approval process for a change order should extra work be necessary. M/S/C (Lowe/Kelly) to: 1) Approve the Interfund Loan Policy as amended; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the Call for Projects for FY 2003-04 SB 821 Program. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Buydos requested that all Riverside County public schools be included in the notification process. M/S/C (Buydos/Venable) to: 1) Release a Call for Projects for the FY 2004-05 SB 821 Program and notify the cities, the County, and Riverside County public schools of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the reauthorization of the federal transportation act, SB 87, ACA 29, ACA 29, and AB 2372 and reviewed the staff recommended bill positions. He also reviewed the Transportation Project Federal Funding List, noting the addition of two projects that have lost TCRP funding. M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) to: 1) Adopt the following bill positions and associated policy positions: SUPPORT ACA 24, ACA 29, and AB 2372; 2) Approve Transportation Project Federal Funding List; 3) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 13. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF A. Eric Haley reported: • The Commission will by hosting the California Transportation Commission meeting on December 8 -9th • Successful meetings with the Federal Transit Administration in Washington D.C. advocating the Perris Valley Line. • Transportation Unified Mitigation Fund revenues have increased to over $38 million. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting March 22, 2004 Page 7 B. At this time, Chairperson Henderson proposed a change in the Committee's meeting time from 2:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. It was determined that the ordinance be amended to reflect the time change and to place this item at the Commission's next meeting. It was understood that if the Plans and Programs Committee's meeting go beyond the 2:00 p.m. time period that the meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee will commence immediately following their meeting. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:52 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 26, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the months of June, July and August 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • • The attached material depicts the current Highway and Rail construction summary status and cost 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 Quarter June, July and August, 2004. Attachment: Quarterly Report — August 2004 1 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RAWOJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/04 TO DATE COM MIT MNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94.1 % $3,977,413 $21,622,141 61.7 % (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 $35,019,954 94,1% $3,977,413 '' $21,622,141- 61.7%' ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100.0 % $1,934,325 $42,754,621 61.2% (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $69,847,655 100.0% $1,934,325 $42,754,621' 61 .2 % ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ. /ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96.5% $113,640 $1,267,516 45 .4% Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) Cajalco/Ramona Corridor (2302) $5,030,065 $2,220,011 44.1 % $832,114 $850,730 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $7,924,562 $5,013,946 63:3% $945,754 $2,118,246' 42.2%'. ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $10,902,100 $10,374,324 95.2% $0 $9,580,664 92.3 % (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (R03008) $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% $51,976 $939,443 88.5% Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100.0% $0 $899,155 56.1% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $16,733,980 $15,993,799 95.6% $51,976 $13,528,7$1 84 .6% ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $32,375,356 $20,179,755 62. 3% $0 $18,579,535 92 .1% 3410,9743,9849-9851(3411-3413) (3400-3405) SUBTOTA L ROUTE 111 $32,375,356 $20,179,755 62.3% $0 $18;579,535 92 .1 % 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 -D ATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 08/31/04 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $0 $6,324,731 98 .4% 1-215 PSR RCTC/SANBAG (3012) $2,000,000 $2,000,000 100 .0 % $124,728 $433,282 21 .7 % SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6 % $0 $6,324,731, 98 .4% PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (04-31-502) $1,892,126 $1,892,126 100 .0% $41,969 $1,384,977 73 .2 % SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $1,892,126 $1,892,126'' 100.0 °10 $41,969 $t384,977 73 .2% PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $547,163 $4,594,177 63 .5 % 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199,2181 SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE $7,231,714 $7,231,714 100.0% $547,163 $4,594,177' 63.5% COM MUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $31,610,414 $27,643,070 87.4% $610,770 $26,487,389 95 .8% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Perris Multimodal Facility (3816) $2,000,000 $503,000 25.2% $125,026 $384,227 76 .4 % Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $18,771,429 $18,771,429 100.0% $365,823 $12,149,502 64 .7 % SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL $52,381,843 $46,917,499 89.6% $1,101,619 $39,021,118 s 83.2% TOTALS $232,336,467 $208,524,621 89.8% $8,600,219 $149,928,327' 71 .9 % Page 2of3 • • Mir RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCALWETS & 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 08/31/04 ADVANCES BALANCE COMMITMENT APPROVED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $423,534 $0 26 .5 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $423,534 $Oa 26.5 % CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,274,229 $0 43.6% Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,274,229 $0 43.6%' CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $909,364 $0 47.0% CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $622,000 $0 47 .0 % CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,392,212 $0 47 .0% CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,004,530 $0 47.0% CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $139,166 $0 9.3% TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $7,625,869 $0 40.5% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Stat us as of; 8/31/04 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the months ending July 31, 2004 and August 31, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through August 31, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of August 31, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report 5 Date of Loan April 2, 2003 March 4, 2004 Total Cn • Amount of Loan Maturity Date Lending Fund $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) $ 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Assistance (226) $ 575,000 Riverside County jtsportation Commission Interfund ctivity Report For peri od ended August 31, 2004 Borrowing Fund Measure A - WC LSR (227) Purp ose of L oan Advance to make r epairs/improvements to Railroad Canyon Road Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project Date C ommissioned Appr oved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 V:\USERS\P REPRINT\2004N0 October\Budget 8 Imp'\Cisneros - Interfund Loan Activity Rpt • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-31-514 (Amendment No.1 to Agreement RO 2041) with the County of Riverside for Real Property Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-514, Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-2041, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for real property services for the SR -74 Project for an amount of $173,000 and for the 1-215/60/91 Project for an amount of $26,388 for a total not to exceed $199,388; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Route 74 Project: At the December 8, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved Contract No. RO-2041 with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division. Contract No. RO-2041 was to cover acquisition of nearly 400 parcels estimated to cost $2,494,000. Contract No. RO-2041 covers all of the County of Riverside acquisition activities necessary for the RCTC Measure "A" project on SR -74 between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris, and also includes the Greenwald realignment project. At this time, staff needs to acquire mitigation land, continue acquisition activities to close out the remaining parcels for the project, and provide legal support for those cases that will be subject to litigation. The proposed contract amendment with the County of Riverside for the State Route 74 Project will include all necessary labor to obtain right-of-way costs, litigation guarantee costs, relocation 7 expenses, and escrow fees. The attached cost and scope of work for all right-of- way services to be performed by the County of Riverside for the SR -74 Project is for an amount not to exceed of $173,000. 1-215/60/91 Project: In addition and in accordance with State Statute provisions (AB 283 signed by the Governor on 9/28/1999) which allow a local County Board of Supervisors to be the hearing board for resolutions of necessity in place of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for Caltrans project land acquisitions, approximately 2 years ago, Caltrans requested that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (RCBOS) be the hearing board for resolutions of necessity for the 60/91/215 interchange design sequencing project. There were two basic reasons for Caltrans making this request of the RCBOS: • The CTC meets approximately 10 times a year to conduct business and their meeting locations, while primarily in Sacramento, are conducted in other locations throughout the State. Having the RCBOS act as the hearing board would be convenient for the majority of the property owners impacted by the project. • The 60/91/215 design sequencing project had very tight time frames to accomplish to get the project ready to advertise for bid. In retrospect, the coordination by Caltrans with the RCBOS and the County's Real Property Division not only provided the convenience of a local forum for the Resolutions of Necessity to be heard and acted upon, but the generally weekly RCBOS meeting schedule assisted in maintaining the project delivery schedule. Additionally, we could not have predicted the extent of the financial catastrophe which would eventually engulf the State and lap over to impact all aspects of State and local government programs including transportation. This coordination effort between Riverside County and Caltrans District 08 contributed to the 60/91/215 project being ready for consideration when the CTC made its last major project votes before closing the cupboard. The 60/91/215 project is a 1988 Measure "A" project and the County services provided in support of the project is $26,388. Staff recommends that the Commission approve payment from Measure "A" Western County Highway funds. The total cost for the County services for the 1-215/60/91 Project is $26,388. These additional funds of $199,388 ($173,000 + $26,388) will bring the total County of Riverside not to exceed amount for the specified services to $2,693,388 • 8 . ($2,494,000 + $199,388). The agreement will be subject to RCTC legal counsel review using an RCTC standard contract agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $199,388 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81304 P3001 MT 74_ P3006 (1215/60/91 $173,000 $ 26,388 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \-)" 1-- Date: 9/27/04 Attachment: County of Riverside Cost Estimate • • 9 • GOUN • September 8, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite No. 100 Riverside, California 92501 Re: Highway 74 Project Dear Mr. Quintero: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL Pursuant to our telephone conversation I have reviewed the existing contract between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division for real estate related services for the Highway 74 Project. Since we were unsure of the amount of parcels necessary for this project at the time of figuring the contract amount, we are near the end of the contract dollar amount and still have work that must be completed over the next couple of years. My proposal to complete the work necessary for the project is as follows: County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management Real Estate Division services to acquire mitigation land, and to acquire and close out the remainder parcels within Highway 74: 2295 Hours at $60 hour = $137,700 Appraisal Work = $ 65,497 Total = $203,197 Less Remainder Original Contract = ($ 30,000) Estimated New Contract Total Cost = $173,197 This estimate does not include any rights -of -way costs, litigation guarantee costs, relocation expenses, costs of title policies or escrow fees. Should you have any9,uestions, please feel free to contact me at (951) 955-9275. ery truly yours, Janet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE,lj 92507 • (909) 955.4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 HIGHWAY 74 REMAINING REAL ESTATE WORK 32 UNSETTLED PROPERTY OWNERS X 35 HOURS X $60/HOUR $ 67,200 5 Escrows x 5 Hours x $60/Hour $ 1,500 10 Mitigation Parcels x 85 Hours x $60/Hour $ 51,000 300 Hours Miscellaneous x $60/Hour $ 18,000 Appraisals $ 65,497 SUBTOTAL $ 203,197 Less Remainder Original Contract ($30,000)* TOTAL $ 173,197 *Denotes Approximate Amount JMP:db 09/08/04 • • • 11 • G ouN • July 12, 2004 Mr. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Department County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Interstate 215/60/91 Inter -Charge — Cal Trans Dear Hideo: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL As requested, I have included copies of all bills owed by Cal Trans to the County for work that we completed on the Interstate 215/60/91 project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 955-9275. truly yours, net M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:db Enclosures Cc: File Copy 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, 92507 • (909) 955-4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Caltrans) INTERSTATE 215/60/91 INTERCHANGE OUTSTANDING INVOICES Invoice Number Amount 6045 $ 2,310.00 6390 $ 10,578.00 6428 6450 6471 6494 6535 Total $ 2,760.00 $ 2,550.00 $ 1,830.00 $ 4,830.00 $ 1,530.00 $ 26,388.00 13 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Contract No. 05-31-513 (Amendment No. 1 to contract No. 02-31-917) with County of Riverside for Real Property Services for the SR -79 Realignment Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award contract No. 05-31-513, Amendment No. 1 to contract No. 02-31-917, with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division for the SR -79 Realignment Project for an amount not to exceed $163,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the October 14, 1998 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved an amount of $425,000 from the SB 45 2% planning funds to provide partial match for the $4.5 million of TEA21 Demonstration Project funding. This funding was designated to provide engineering and environmental clearance to realign State Route 79 near the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto between Ramona Expressway and Domenigoni Parkway. The cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and the County of Riverside all desire to proceed with the project at the earliest possible time. RCTC is the lead agency for this project. The realignment, over a distance of approximately 15 miles, is necessary to increase capacity, enhance operation, restrict access, and improve safety. The project will require right-of-way acquisition for the new alignment. At the January 28, 2002 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the award of a preliminary engineering contract to CH2M Hill for the preparation of a Project Report and Environmental Document. At this time, the project team needs to proceed with the necessary environmental studies that are required to be performed in order to determine the final alignment that will be carried forward through the Project Approval/Environmental Document phase of the project. 14 However, the upcoming environmental studies will require the right to enter parcels along and adjacent to the different realignments currently being studied. Currently CH2M Hill has identified 1,448 parcels that they will be required to access starting in December of this year in order to perform the necessary studies to environmentally clear the Project. At the December 12, 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission approved Contract No. 02-31-917 with the County of Riverside Facilities Management/Real Estate Division to obtain the right -of -entry necessary to complete the required field studies for the first phases of this project. Staff is recommending that the current contract agreement with the County be amended to allow the County to perform the additional necessary acquisition support services so that right -of -entry can be obtained in time to allow for the environmental investigations to move forward on schedule. Contract No. 02-31-917 was originally awarded for a total amount of $21,800. The additional funds requested in order to continue with the rights -of -entry for the current phase of field studies will be for the amount of $163,000. Included in the Fiscal Year 2004/05 budget is $30,000 for right of way support services. A budget amendment for $133,000 is requested related to the contract amendment. This amendment will bring the total County of Riverside not to exceed amount to $184,800 to complete the attached services. The agreement will be subject to RCTC legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y N Year: FY 04/05 FY 04/05 Amount: $ 30,000 $ 133,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81403 P 3003 $ 163,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \;"' Date: 9/27/04 Attachment: County of Riverside Cost Estimate • 15 • G ouiv • • September 3, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite No. 100 Riverside, California 92501 Re: Highway 79 Project Dear Mr. Quintero: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT MICHAEL J. SYLVESTER DIRECTOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAL Pursuant to our telephone conservation, we submit the following proposal for acquiring rights of entry which are needed for the Highway 79 Project Environmental Study. 1. County of Riverside, Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division services to acquire Rights of Entry for Biological Assessment Purposes. 1,400 Total Parcels (Right of Entry only) as defined in attachment at 2,800 hours at $60 per hour = $168,000 2. Less Remaining Original Contract = ($5,000) $163,000 Estimated Total Cost This estimate does not include any right of way services for the acquisition of permanent or temporary rights, rights -of -way costs, litigation guarantee costs, appraisal costs, relocation expenses, condemnation fees, costs of title policies or escrow fees. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (951) 955-9275. truly yours, anet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:db cc: Bill Hughes 3133 MISSION INN AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, t 92507 • (909) 955-4820 • FAX (909) 955-4837 HIGHWAY 79 REAL ESTATE PRELIMINARY SERVICES 1,400 Parcels x 2 hours x $60/hour $ 168,000 Less Original Contract 5,000* Total $ 163,000 *Approximate amount • • • 17 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003/04 Budget Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the budget amendment of $9,206,667 for Measure A Local Streets and Roads Expenditures, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION • • During Fiscal Year 2003/04, the Riverside County Transportation Commission observed that monthly Measure A sales tax receipts were significantly higher than the previous year. Recently, the Commission received the September Measure A sales tax allocation, which included the final allocation adjustment through June 2004. On an accrual basis, the Fiscal Year 2003/04 Measure A sales tax revenue was approximately $121,070,000 or 14% higher than the Fiscal Year 2002/03 amount of approximately $105,783,000. The increased sales tax revenue directly affected the amount of Local Streets and Roads expenditures that are required to be disbursed under Measure A to the local jurisdictions. The Fiscal Year 2003/04 budgeted expenditures for Local Streets and Roads was $36,999,600 compared to actual expenditures of $46,206,267, resulting in excess expenditures over budget of $9,206,667, or 24%, as follows: Measure A Local Streets and Roads FY 2003/04 FY 2003/04 Excess Budget Actual Expenditures Western County $ 26,827,600 $ 34,669,306 $ 7,841,706 Coachella Valley 9,114,000 10,422,949 1,308,949 Palo Verde Valley 1,058,000 1,1 14,012 56,012 Total $ 36,999,600 $ 46,206,267 $ 9,206,667 18 Staff is seeking Commission approval to amend the Fiscal 2003/04 budget for the Measure A Local Streets and Roads expenditures based on the final Measure A sales tax revenue for Fiscal 2003/04. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 03/04 Amount: $9,206,667 Source of Funds: Measure Roads "A" Local Streets and Budget Ad ustment: Y Western County 227-71-86104 - $7,841,706 GLA No.: Coachella Valley 254-71-86104 - $1,308,949 Palo Verde Valley 233-71-86104 - $ 56,012 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \-14142.1'"ImAl Date: 9/27/04 • 19 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: $15 Million Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call For Rehabilitation Projects TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the criteria for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Call for Rehabilitation Projects; 2) Authorize staff to release the call for rehabilitation projects in November 2004, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 14, 2004 the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved the use of TEA 21 Reauthorization Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to replace approximately $40 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP). This action was in response to the Commissions' direction to backfill the STIP projects that were impacted by the state funding crisis. The recommendation also consisted of earmarking $15 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization STP funds specifically for rehabilitation projects. Previous STP programming (from ISTEA and TEA 21) consisted of funding rehabilitation projects for local agencies. This was discontinued as a result of the state funding crisis and the Commissions priority to backfill previously committed STIP projects. However, given the suspension of Proposition 42 funding, the local agencies' reliance on funding rehabilitation projects with STP funds was even greater. The RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established a sub -committee that met in July and September to define the parameters and develop evaluation criteria for the upcoming call for projects. The TAC subcommittee recommended 20 establishing two levels of criteria. Local agencies will be required to submit projects to RCTC that meet Tier I criteria as noted below. Projects meeting Tier 1 criteria will be reviewed by RCTC for concurrence and then Tier 11 criteria will be applied, which is the distribution of the STP funds based on a combination of road miles and population for each local agency. STP Rehabilitation Criteria TIER I Criteria • Projects must be on the Federal -aid highway system (i.e. on any highways, including NHS and Interstate Highways that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors) or on bridges (including bridges on public roads of all functional classifications). • Projects must be rehabilitation and/or consist of other maintenance needs within the roadway right-of-way (e.g. curb, gutter, loop detector replacement as a result of rehabilitation work, and sidewalk improvements including ADA requirements). • Funds must be programmed for construction. • Projects must be evaluated at the local level and only high priority rehabilitation projects are to be submitted (PMS score/factor or other qualified ranking system must be identified in submittal). • Local match (minimum of 11.47% programmed in construction) must be committed by local agency and a copy of the city council/county board minute action must be included in the submittal. TIER 11 Criteria Projects meeting the Tier 1 criteria will receive funding based on a combination of road miles and population. Target allocations for each agency are included in Attachment A. The criteria recommended for this call for projects meets the federal requirements for sub -allocating STP funds. Tier I criteria is based on a competitive evaluation of projects at the local level, which ensures high priority projects are funded throughout the County. Tier 11 criteria distributes the funds relative to the demand on the arterial system and ensures road rehabilitation/maintenance improvements are implemented throughout the countywide arterial system. RCTC encourages local agencies to spread the programming of rehabilitation funds over a three-year time period starting with fiscal year 2005/06. Given the project schedules provided by the local agencies, RCTC will use its discretion in project programming. Close monitoring of the status of projects will need to occur so that projects can be delivered as scheduled and programmed in the RTIP. RCTC staff will make every effort to advance projects if possible. • 21 • • It should be noted that the County continues to receive annual allocations for rural roads, as specified in TEA 21 legislation, in addition to the target allocation from this $15 million call for rehabilitation projects. Caltrans takes these rural funds off - the -top of the total Riverside County STP allocation. The amount is equivalent to pre-ISTEA levels, which is $1.2 million annually. Attachment: Agency Allocation Tier II Calculation 22 • Agency Allocation Tier II Calculation $15 Million STP Rehabilitation Call for Projects • • Agencies Attachment A Recommended Agency Allocation Agency Allocation Agency Allocation (Avg. of Road Mile & 2000 Census Pop.) Per Road Mile Per 2000 Census Banning 'Beaumont Blythe $ 185,575 120,414 138,611 „$. 228,700 0,497 117,980 Canyon Lake th Coachella Desert Hot Springs tern Indian Wells Inch Lake Elsinore 4,876 33,245 3,301 $ 341,207 96,597 207,138 115,456 128,296 67`,161,,: 50,737 413,94 , 220,566 06" 197,862 160,950 291 195,559 10,583 35,142 37,039 7 280,784 450,09,8-,' 310,996 X523 1,375,174 6 #;,55 212,862 0 ,685 498,025 9 157,497 �uirita Moreno Valley Norco Desert Palm Springs 186,395 Rancho Mirage :90 „„Oli. San Jacinto TemeculaN 1, Unincorporated 227,065 $ 1,368,353 $ 1,381,994 8115;; 234,475 3:. 415,498 128,599 $ 782,4 328,884 274,318 230,806 56 5,821,845 $ 4,164,288 01 279,845 72 4,993,067 Total $ 15,000,000 $ 15,000,000 15,000,000 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Contract Award for Digital Cellular Service for Call Box Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a Five year contract to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc., for digital cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program at an annual amount not to exceed $89,078; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), reviewed and approved the release of a tri-county Request for Proposals (RFP) for Digital Cellular Service for Call Box programs in Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties at its May 6, 2004 meeting. San Diego SAFE staff took the lead for the three agencies and released the RFP, conducted the pre -proposal meeting, answered questions from the proposers, and received the proposals. The RFP was released on May 14, 2004, and proposals were due on June 28, 2004. Five (5) proposals were received, and the three SAFE agencies interviewed all five vendors at the San Diego offices on July 7, 2004. At the conclusion of the interview process, each of the SAFEs was to proceed on its own and select the vendor of its choice. The vendors and bid amounts received were as follows: 24 • Monthly Cost Estimated Cellular Vendor Per Call Box Annual Cost* AT&T Wireless Services $6.35 $ 89,078 Verizon Wireless $7.13 $100,020 Cingular $7.93 $111,242 Sprint $12.45 $174,649 Nextel $15.56 $218,276 * Based on number of active call boxes Only three vendors were able to provide 100% coverage of the Riverside County service area: AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. In addition, the top two vendors proposed different cellular technologies. AT&T proposed using Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and Verizon proposed using Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology. GSM (from AT&T) uses a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card that contains subscriber details, security information and memory for the dialing directory. The SIM card also stores data that identifies the call box to the network service provider. Most importantly, the SIM card facilitates the replacement and repair of malfunctioning call boxes during field servicing by simply pulling the card from the malfunctioning or damaged call box and inserting it into a replacement box without having to go back to the shop. CDMA (Verizon) uses an embedded chip within the call box with the specific activation information. Each call box has discrete programming that cannot be imported from call box to call box. Major repairs would have to be done at the shop and the box returned on a "second trip" to the call box leaving the site inoperable. Needless to say, this would be costly in a county the size of Riverside. CDMA also requires a GPS antenna to be mounted on the call box at an additional cost of $125 per site or approximately $146,125 for the entire system. Based on the above information, staff is recommending the Commission award the digital cellular service contract to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc., at the rate of $6.35 per month per box. RCTC's existing analog cellular service is with AT&T at a rate of $7.50 per month per call box. The current RCTC/AT&T five year contract is due to expire on June 30, 2005. The new proposed rate is 15.3% less and would be effective on July 1, 2005. 25 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Amendment to Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Moreno Valley and Palm Desert STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley as submitted; 2) Approve the amendment to the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert as submitted, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of Local Streets and Roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The FY 2004 Measure "A" plan for the City of Moreno Valley was approved by the Commission at its July 9, 2003 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Moreno Valley is requesting to amend its FY 2004 Measure "A" plan to add four new projects and to match the city's FY 2003-04 budget for Measure "A" funds. 26 The FY 2005-09 Measure "A" plan for the City of Palm Desert was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 2004 meeting. When the proposed plan was presented to the city council, they requested some minor changes. The city council wanted to bring forward the Portola Avenue bridge project where it crosses the Whitewater Channel, shift other projects to later years and eliminate others. Attachments: Revised FY 2004 Measure "A" Plan from the City of Moreno Valley Revised FY 2005 Measure "A" Plan for the City of Palm Desert • • • 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANOIRTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 — 2005 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errarite, P.E. Phon e No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Versi on ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. 2. 3. _ 4. 5. Portola Bridge — Design (at Whitewat er Channel) Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction Palm Desert High School — Aztec Road Hwy 111 — Desert Crossing/Toys R Us Intersection Monterey Ave & Avenue 35 Bridge Construction On-ramp/ Off-ramp construction Street and Signal Construction Intersection Improvements Street Project 6,000 2,525 800 800 505 300 655 100 300 505 7/1104-G:1PubWorks\Ryan Geyler\Word Files\RCTC 04-05\RCTC Funds Program For m - FY 04-05 yr 1 revised 1.doc - sa RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 — 2006 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E. Pho ne No.: (760) 346-0611 e xt. 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Versi on ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Monterey Avenue / Freeway Loop - construction On-ramp/Off-ramp construction 2,525 1,260 2. Monterey Ave — Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore — Const . Street Widening 690 205 3. Gerald Ford Drive — Portola Ave to Cook Street Street Widening 1,015 450 711104 - G;1PubWorkslRysn Geyler\Word Files\RCTC 04-05\RCTC F unds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 2 revised 1 .doc • sd • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 — 2007 Agency. City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Pho ne N o.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Da te: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A ' FUNDS ($000'S) 1. San Pablo Ave — Magnesia Falls to COD Driveway Roadway widening 405 405 2. San Pablo NB @ Fred Waring — Right Turn Pocket Right Tum Pocket 505 100 7/1/04 - G:\PubWarks\Ryan Geyler\Word FIIe s\RCTC 04-05URCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 3 revised i,doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 — 2008 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E . Phon e No.: (760) 346-0611 ext . 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Gerald Ford Drive — Cook St. to Frank Sinatra Street Widening 1,015 480 2. San Pablo NB @ Fred Waring — Right Turn Pocket Right Turn Pocket 505 405 7!1104 - G:1PubWorks\Ryan GeyteAWord Files\RCTC 04-051RCTC F unds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 4 revised 1.doc - ed • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS RTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 — 2009 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P .E . Pho ne No.: (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Date: June 24, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Revised Version ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. El Dorado West - Construction Road Construction 8,300 5,000 2. Portola Interchange @ 1-10 - Construction Street, Bridge, and Signal Construction 20,000 3,220 7/1/04 - G:1PubWorkstRyan GaylernWord Files\RCTC 04-051RCTC Funds Program Form - FY 04-05 yr 5 revised 1.doc - sd RIVERSIDE. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 — 2009 Agen cy: City of Palm ,Des ert Prepared by: Michael Errante, P.E. Phone No. : (760) 346-0611 ext. 447 Da te: June 11, 2004 Page 1 of _1 Proposed Versi on ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LI MITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST • ($000'S) . MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. El Dorado We st - Construction Road Construction 8,300 5,000 2. Portola Interchange @ 1-10 - Construction Street, Bridge, and Signal Construction 20,000 3,220 711104 - G:\PubWorks\Ryan Gayler\Word Flies\RCTC 04 -05\RCTC Funds Program F orm - FY 04-05 yr 5.doo • sd 4111 41111 • City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Re vise d July 13, 2004 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" LOC AL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTI ONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 2003/04 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Ongoing annual program. Reh abilitation/ Overlay 2003/04 Bicycle Lane Account (BTA) Bicycle Lane Ongoing annu al program . 2003/04 Ironwood Ave. Rehabilitation/Day SL -Pigeon Pass Rd. Reconstruction Release 10% retention . 2003/04 Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral Bridge * $3,253 Page 1 of 7 $3,253 * $1901 $66 * $1552 $16 Construction by RCFC & V. CD. Moreno Vall ey's portions of the bridge cost. * $455 $455 2003/04 Perris Blvd./Ramona Expressway to Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral " A" Rehabilita tio n Wide ning Planning stage and project report - joint project with City of Perris. $325 $325 2003/04 Iris Ave./Indian St. — Traffic Signals Traffic Signal Construction. * $198 $54 ' BTA funding - $123,750 2 TEA 21 STP funding - $123,000 3 CMAQ funding - $146,000 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMtIISSION (RCTC) MEASURE " A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YE AR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 2 of 7 . ... .F �,', ! ti -ii,_: v f E r C . .... :z p . . µ .. . -. , u,. ' ., (.... . x. tl n .,. :: ,. r _.. .�. �... . .s: .�- .. . _.. k � �'.: �.m.� . - - . ...ti .... .. ef r.... .c ")..5 r r ...�.-:,o. :. .�xl k. '• ,C'-',, ., , ^ Yr i:'- .. , -.. .. : r�rrF . -i - .. r. , , r �.: -. Prt r.i`ixPr rl o ect .� � . J, , ,. , k. 6. cr... � x .r •• ��''k a.. . . I�r, o-. .. � .... r 'kil - X. .n .. k.. .: .,.:..: rA ,. Fundm � . ,k , L,. ., , . 9.._:, a .,u.. .. x_..._. . c:�xC..r_d.. r __.. .. . . .. � � .,_:. .. i . i... . . .. .� r ...,. :. , . , � ..F'. .... � v r. .,.. a k, . u .Ye ar, :,�. .,. ._. ....... .(-,)�. � �., . :. , .,, xC ,e r .M .'r. xrrz r .. .. .Oe. .. �C :.... .,. , ,4J.v - 1 W. �. 1 I . e y ,x,, - .... 1!I :.:a n FiN...r.,. k r<. . .:. �,. i i . .E . rk�,� ,> _..� o :ect,Nam , rn is F. .. r . ti ... ! . .. w: ._ ,. y z>v€ _,.. � .. 1.. + i . , ...: . R .:F , : ..el F.� : 'Er. ,.,. ., k' .x-. .� � :. ... ,. �... . ��e . _.. . .4_.. . _, . .. .. s ..... .. _._ k .._.. .. .... : .,,, .r„ - .r.. ... .�.. . -: ,.1""@ Y 'i ...r .. . . , :.L� r� " 7 . r Ik . k,-. ak .. r .�; .:t ..._ ... ,. ..,F .E. : . r .. ., . .1 _ .. 'E_a!u 1. _. ,. --r .::I_. .''t,tr. -F -t-. . ....:.0 _ ,,.., .. .x . . . .. _ r��r{k . k .. . .... . .,. .., ...._ . .. . ... r .. w_ t , , ��: . � .,. M G 4 . .x�'s �. - - . x. .� r .F ,r . ,.Lc>< � . � �N ��; [. ... �. .r . . .. ... .. .k c x .,,. �rr... ..x. .. ._.. . .. .. .. ,1 G.,.... ....,.� ..., .. F .,., kid., .. .. . __ .t_. ., {!: . 'R . a. ...f ' .n .'- . _.� .:i, .. .. .. i. ... F' , _ f ..pJ_.� .:, .. ..... �. r:. _ . .l, s. l.0 �. a. ..�... .... .. ..7. . .. .. 1 .. , .: ...__.. i_ . d-1`� t�. .1 .. . ... .. . .. f: .,. _M .. . ..... _ . Y '�' M .i ...M - r ... .-k, . f. 1, ,:.. .. .! r ..� - ! r. E .... � ... _ C x . r � �� � � _ s :�_, € fi ti:F� ., , .krEFi_i_.E_.Ii�.1. 4G .,.--.:.,i .� ,€r � :'r +. ..v 4' 1,._fi. i CA I .. x,.�' .. t . ..; :: ._r :,:. . n. I .l 'edge ; _ . .. ,.. ..r.: t3T�. �..,... ..,P ,o ec, ,. e ,..,:k <1 ,.... YP . a .., i.. , �,:�, t 'h �!. r ,. .... _ �. .... . _ .. € - _.. ...:% hx t .. . ... . - .I .. .r-0 : a - e ... . r r: _. t f. ... n• .. .,! .. . .. ._. P� "' i _ .. ,k... _. . I..... -. _ ,�, , k .r .._ L i � �. N. [, .i' ..,7s. C ,.. R....FE++kk �.k..n..f e. .L a,.._ .r .. ... .. ... .... .NP.x- v. ,.xrc .e. .. pp yy ..nII €: ,,.n .._ ...x F... ... .� .k. . . . :F .: �: , Y ,�rc. .. . ..€u.71t i _.I..i�.�i . E 1. 1: .. _ tl >< � k_ tl .k,,,.. .x....,-... .rn. ..,, , �l ..: .,...L�w n T_ Ix .rx, . .r, - C . :. . ! G7 .' . 4, rc. 1, ..:. .N-... I,W M1,N �,:. x:: RL . :. ,. .i . ,. .. f.Y':MC f 3 .1 ..I E.n v'I: :d7 .. 'r,Y:I': F-. k 1 F! .L . 6 .+ r r,�:l_ :E � . G =.� .. . ..... k I" r.v k'! -P- n -I: ", €, . .�: a r € c .. ,,. H , . L .,,.:F, a I 1 ,,: - . d d_ >� I E.,f ..,. . ,,. � . �.Saatiis ,F�i":I w ��! . . ., .. � H- rl , .� �, . �:u :„ r FiS[ta ;� � -1- ,�w- .+(-':f�:.x,, eh'. , , �-icrF .. k� -n. iw. '.n� - � . .. .. . � �-€� . ., k _k . a . f E � .i :. '%� -.. rca . .. .' .I.r.rcrx ,t .a9 r� . W:P' : A, w _1 4, ;MP, �. Ydn,, .� ., . " a . v 5 ,: f- k . ., Ir .. c,5 d. il".) k C b r. .w . .e , .. ..� A .. k. , 7 e .� ':, .:� ; � .�,.a, .e.e�,_ x r.d. x, �Y:fr .,k€ , l,,. .,x _ .. . € . ,.: t, r,,� €;;k.: ., I. EI°`� . r ! . . _n . � �. u kl .k � rf .,a. _ ._:� ,x x .'`�.,n t.t: ,Lh#:r�. A k � .�. � l Em . € r7 .:e i .. .. .. .� .rr:� .:: ::::r, . } I - {t' ... ... k ... e ...T, , e .. ... .. . a _ .. .(• P.,:.rY. .� . . .a.. :.�' �:�t .. . .. �E .C::.. .: , ..-, � e .€ . .F.x€ .: . ... .,� _r ....nV :..i . 14r ,, fir . I:.: -, ,:€ .:: , FI'. , .... Ik l:: 1 � � � :� . .,,, � �.. . 5[� .rE F.,. { .... :y : {h �.,�Gk . A . ..K: .k ..Y.4!k .....Y f 3,�' �. ..,. ., 1 .hk a -u. : `I.. m . uf .,_ :.E � . _ ... ,.., � . .. .i.:S, � .. r ..: : .... ... - - .n , ,.� � ; = �..., . }, n � �, , ,�r.r. �CGL�.k� .. ,.,,� .I,,, .k..,., ,ti L i .l - : F- ,iW' I:kvtl:r+li''r c 1 k .47. . r, 4. FT:,otal Cost°,. Measure �: ..a� L.� . i' .k .. ,i:l. ..J r �m'z!" • k .. uu k ,.,� :., € � 5b r, FF � I , =''I F � ' � H k . [, , L e,.. uz. s,�.r, .k .a I � L,.F i d� ..t . „ .._h _!tryV .-�F ':I'e .. A. .,.'1,. rF /.x .':,:: ,. $ .:!kI E ,�1 000 � .... i..k�� € ..._ .�. .. tI , ,� . :.11:. ...'I' .° i.. . .: y -kA.x, ,7 rit � : s W . f.... .E € p�4 ! :'.l-ry f -= r �"�i•: � ,: Fundin; tt �, _ I Y ".'P :kl 'eNk... .1 7 E. ..,q . �!��� k. .,. K ... L'r1'' ,L H 0" .!s. 1 00 ��r�x .e .,... 7 2003/04 Reche Vista Realignment/Perris- Heacock to North City Limits Street Construction Environmental, PSR, and dusign . * $287 $287 8 2003/04 Perris Blvd./Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Construction . * $242 $242 9 2003/04 Heacock St. /Parkland Ave. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal C onstruction.. * $240 $240 10 2003/04 Krameria Ave./Kitching St. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Construction. * $73 $73 11 2003/04 Moreno Beach Dr./Cottonwo od Ave. Traffic Signal Road Widening/ Traffic Signal Design and construction . * $275 $275 12 2003/04 Cactus Ave. /Joshua Tree Ave. Yellow Solar Flashing Beacons Traffic Signal Design and construction . * $17 $17 13 2003/04 Pavement Management Street Pav ement Condition Update Ongoing annual program to update condition of street pavement. * $21 $21 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • s City of Mo reno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Rev ised July 13, 2004 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE " A" LOC AL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Re vised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 3 of 7 :.:.. � Item,_ Eti: tk � fx:F ... � :,.. ...... e :. -- !i .. :' -. .. .. , .F �.. . P ,! .. ...�._..- .. . .,1\.0.... : .. .. 1 �..... .,, 1_.......5. .� [. .... d P !?':.,.. .. .. iit..,... .A �.. : k L,. :_ ... ., .h ... ::::!. � {.:. ! .I445'e,.. .. .. ..:[;::�. .,,,P�.� .�:, n t ct , .11 F ._M ,�a.:.:. :: .R. .. ry a �. . _5... It ... E:.I,,. :. ... : _. S , .. .. •.. . .: �E.. . . , : v '� i,:_I: . Fund�n , ,.. r. ,.._..: rs k. +:c.Ft. .. t f. .:.. ,# r,.:�. ,:. 5t k.r.- ,: : :. . :((�. . - : v: :. d. , . .E r . _ „_. . ears .,. :.r_ p...,. . .. Ek (..._) .. �� i' ii. .Nr= e. .. L„ y.. Pro ect Name/t .: ..: € r �� 4i -if k „ , ...:FP .:. n r� � �. k : r.. .. .hr.r3' :..E ... . '�: ...,l: .._..v:.i. $ . rr„ .. �t'..:� .. kk .� 5) � F. I. . F -Jl1, . ,.E , . ..4 .... . .. ..,P � ,r .... .. IF�s .. ,. ., r. � , ,2 � ,,, 4 .� !re, _.. .... .. . .. .. .: .lv .. .. ..: .: : :.. 1.IL � rr. .r .:. .i �. , � :: ....� ,r i . 5.. � � . I . , . _ _ __ -- :.t.,. � p : r .. -,.:.x ,. r ..r „ �,. .. . <_ t. .. §� .r - i {x E, .... ro�: �'. 4 - .. . .... ,. a , E. _. ,_ :`"tx, - #. I. .. N r.. v.. , , _: i r ::r .. ., _ :,�:i.,du. �,. ,,� r : tx ti , k.xr gy [[. �ryy.. ,. s .S ,ti , .. ... : 3. :! ..lrF .d�,,. f..:.:fi. r. .#r,.: � r: lFo. r-.ri�.... __�:M� .. Y.., g� f Q,s c .awi' .: rl: +u . ...:;xp ,r t ..: � ., _, : ,. L: ., k Pro. ect�T, e . r I r..J>~,F .. YP. .. f. ...I . :� _, .-.:: .:. :.�... v.:, ... .r .. r .v 5. ...5.k. � � -,- .. : .. E,, .k'. ... . E .. _,. r, .. ..._ ... ..... e. .r. _ . .,. ,..i. .. ., :_W'.:... N ... .. . ... ....... . . .:.. ....... .p . .... . .... .. .. _e., s� t . r ., . .. , _r .. ...� ,. .. ... ,:, # x : .. ,+r.. .fY E� r � P:.: r:. , ,I , ..:. .,,,. .: . r .- p. , . ... 55.t, ...-:: 1 .:rl :ilri F 1t: t: n'. ':-� .. : I;�r ;.. x .::: E '. ..:: g: u,°�N .. ��. w r<g. a ;,,:, � k a,a' . ,. r . - :; t .. ...x . ... . ._: '� pr r -: . ... -: ir..:' :�t �a�Y,,,rr � a. � r. r,,. �.. ,E,¢:r,� :. .rs:E•rs,, .. � ..... � . �� _ ., �,! _ � � 4 5 :.: , , : Status f xrm 4 r! � .i , _r✓.x €�.. kk .��. i,.,: ._ ,: P. � E €:i, ,�, .. ..l .:: .1:,-. x ,.:� .� � r� 1 k a .�:. . r._. < t .. Y� gg ��r .iP. F .':�` vf F,:ex. , . ..... . �, :_. ,I!:r .., d ... , _ mn .n k,:., , a . u, ,r ,E_ _ .. r .. , r . , r .� �:rx h. . ,, . ,. � . ! t .r., ::k �.�I z Ei .s, d E _, ,, .:.,.., �4.... ....�r , r., _.. .k x . .. , .PEY:: . . . ... .. . .: _ ., a, .., 1, s. ,_ .. :: E .� ..a ., L ,� . , .:� r r<k .t. .I. .I ,' F. .. 3 ., . ..33 � W �.:. �:a. , 'r'-� , '.. �., r..!t } / fl ., _y, : E_.,.: k'_ v. , :. _. L ..kn..� 1 ! w ��nC�!}. .<<a L..��' . ,. �5 '.r.�:! '��, s.r P,s.,� .. kF. .0 _....v.e... k., � l i.. k:rr,A''k4.k k e.rtr�;t ,l.r ir r:3�E -.II , .LIR� � ,r'.,. "Ef ::3,j F ,�•¢l: `: til �� ,r To Ir C ' tf 5 to _ .ost } _b 'a • �.I.1c .t .NPf .'• .r/tii0o. �.. n. '� :' .t l ..:J X11, `•' .11' . r Measur e CC -i: >n,€ vi BY ', ,w I �.. :!�' . ��, `1000!Le 14 2003/04 Moreno Beach Dr./Alessandro Street and Design and construction. * $213 $213 Blvd. Street and Drainage Drainage Improvements Construction 15 2003/04 GIS — Graphic Information System Creating Street Data Layers Add public infrastructur e information onto City-wide mapping system for tracking, query, and efficient m aintenance. * $79 $79 16 2003/04 Preliminary Street Engineering Project Study Preparing RFP's to hire consultants. * $169 $169 Report 17 2003/04 Installation of Battery Back-up Traffic Signals Construction . * $1554 $96 System for 10 Signalized Intersections 18 2003/04 Newhope St. Street Advertise for bids and construction . * $1,379 $1,379 Improvements 19 2003/04 Retrofit Signalized Intersections with LED's Traffic Signals Construction. * $180 $180 4 CA Energy Fund $58,800 * Total cost changed to match City of Mo reno Valley's FY 03/04 budget City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" L OCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Re vised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 4 of 7 E.rv. ..l .:. . e 4 r.4 rK: Item : ... , --...1!-! : i' . ,... ._ "('.- JJ F... .w •,:.... P,. ,. , k.... ..d. ..., N!- ' ' k .A. er-. .. P :. �. , E. _... a•%, _. I . �,.. .. .. h•... ._..... : C. ..Y.. I,. .. .. .: 't�'. , ;F ..�. Ye ..d,. ..:::34'. _.,..!p..,Y.. :. _. ,(.. .)I:f$E....i1.C...r.i31.1.. t : ; b E. k} Y VE r „F,!{"; •E, . Y .. .. . .. url, : h•. k. : _ . Pro ect,M r, . .:..:, F?, h, :,. ,.. ... _I 9, 'E:' .. ,. Y. n.1. „a .a . ,. 'W .YI _r. 1 .. . :. f .,,. . .. ... .. ,. ,E,F, �# t _ ,. Fund!,,,7f, ,- dE. .t - . . . ,l � •,. .._.. 'x. p._ e cA.,,._ ✓. :tee... . .r. : .. . .. .. ... ,.,.._ €.: ... _ . .. v. .. .. .W .. , . . , . ..e r.. a. .. L. r s .�.4 _ , �. .. . w. .., :. :E. S.:IS7', Y. ,. � ,:-i..G4FWY .ti.•.kv.;. t :1..�. � M ... . .. .: .4�, B- :. , E: .._ 4 , 4 '1, ; .. � I� .�., F p Pro ect Nam e/L�m is ., r .. _ , _, .. ... __ ._ . ,. , .:F<, ,_:. . ,x ... .. 1 .:' . r .E,r_.. ... .. . . . . �`�' ,E„ ' .:, ... W -, ,: .. .t . .I :} .,. ,,.. m, 3�. p. s... -. . "ItR-r, ,:A.: :, ..- ,...€ . ,f .. .. ..... ,..,�i'�S� .,EY. Y � M.�.. F.. ... .. .. . r. ..E .4 .. i. .. .. ., _.kJr �i .,,,o -i _. ..,R.,wr. . ... _. .':.I ._h,. , ...F. ..! ,.: `,I, ...: k. �. f.... Y.... .: a .. .. . .-. :# :_... _ IE,a ,.,. .... r �.t:i`�.,1kT#r y_ o- n.• Ei. :: . k.. ._ E .� �: , „ I .: � y L Fl r f:, . _ -.�.k.E ., r. .. . , .kE ..`4�,i n . ,�. ,e .,- , f .`,.!! .:.. .. .�. 5. ,.. . I.r.v _a ,._.i.hr .r ._. . .. ..... .. ,..�. .. • :F[IR�A I. _.. . , ...,.. .. ... .Y :.. r ........_u ..._ fi ... �%.� �:� . i.:... A, ._.. :f . .. ..... ... .. . .. . ., ._,l. . u.tr..r .-.,.F .. _• ,,. .. ..._, . 1 �.., .r .,. .. ::.. _.. .3,l...n .:. ,S.E.. .E. k E. .. _. _. .,. -.e .. ..i .:.r14 . ., r.. .. _� . % x : .._ .. .. .,:.,._,�:: �' ..�'. .42 •, n„y. t ._,. .._.. .. F., .. . .. . . .1...� � .,. � it m � E�,. ... E. . �.� .. . ...�_ w E. ..,. I ,, t, a,. eurc;: .r..k .r .... e ....i:sd `--: .. .N:, 1.. }i f .. .. n_ . ur _.. . _ d. . r :.:: .'. y. . __ .. L :t Pco ec.t t: t , , 'Oiled''''',6§ , ,- ..... ,. . . .a. ., . , .. ... Fi : cr:. . ..i e ..'r ,. §�. .. r .r. -, ... r .�. . a" . ._� .k. ... t. . ... »i� .�•5 .. :ra.._,.- .v: .,.-. -..:,r :.r . t , .. ... .. Fs -E. r.. w,.. �. L R . r „_ s r 4 v : .: .k _ -. .I F �. , ._,_. e.. -'( ..i � _� .. ,YI .v .. 4 �::r .. - -Y .. ... ..._ ., .r -,E .. . .d 5�... _6: �' .�-, ..E . ... `S� 4 . u-. ., .. .E _13 ,. a pa.., .�' r„ '?� , 3 ,,. :, - 1, .. _,, ..� ,cb..e._ ..e,__ . t, ,. 4: :. . i_4:c, .: ...: 't [x u rev 'u' .� _..- ..F . ,.. .. ... N. Yi, ._ ::; I.." Fk .cO -e Y 'ik [ :: # h E T. I .. f Y E t Y f I. ;: 2. P :. I' hx .: ^ .' . ...,:Y ... { .F .(; h,r F , x � IY E �,, . . , :. E. - . M � Status t , . , F. I ,ts. , ,, .. ,. ,,, y a k Er �.... .F k k s .r ...! .,. , ., E ....E . t t t ., t .,E. ., r : . ..,E: .. ... ...... _ ..,- , rT_ A 14 + .. .. .,, . ... . ..,. w ,,,.... [ ..�. ,. . � a._ . .. .. ..... wi' .' ... .., :r � ,.r, d . � � N ....: .:� :.r.,..�:6,. :�:kir! ,!! ._'.r.r, :_ .... ..•rrf `: ..__m .�, ... k':i .. -h.. ... .,. ..[ ., c .L. r ... ..: ., E :l w. c a w,. :l::n:l ,�k,: .:.: . ... ._ , ..r:'�: �k Ih ... t 6 � 4�d• E ., 4.. E€E',-.r'Fi .. ,�E vF.E x t t a- ,. � �,,. E. ,. . w.d:, -r '..« E' s__ ,_ ..'E FeE. f F C.. .i•. .E_, ,. ,. ..., .„_f .n.Y wIr;;a ._..,, . ..k.,., , .f' ,. . � .h. ,.,.. i y i � 4. 41 r, -, ... F ,, r E. E , o. ,r. ... , . � 1� ._.•:+� .o.. .� ..- F , � L" i � _c. 1: *1 1 q � .p. ., ..1 . ,. :.�1 . • Y , Y.. .. I.. :� �E ., ::a�} r . ..., x��.. ,L. ,' �-,� - :,Y.: __ ..•,;,R � rF. *�1 : �� a , .�il ! � ., _ [ E.,: rti . .. x. ., ..k_ -i rr .:. ..f , r . �. . .. : .,t .. . ,o :' •Fi , :.. T � �' : .: ..: .. E u, , :wp El ,.. t I . �� . , �: . .. .�e � '� _: p w r � .:F ...E .. x, .r.,Y '�. .. ., . E �°� t:' .1 v4�:. .SEE ...r .. c . € f...IF. E;E . w.� .. � rt s -.el. re . _}, , ( ,lla ." :. �. .c ,_ ., �.p.:.�L� .�r_�_L_ - � ...,kir6.6�ilt . .. . ,. �...I� 2•:i �.E z .r,. ro.. .. ..,.. .d. .-vao.,--[:r,�...f. .v n.. .r ..u. . .. r 1. -a'1 .. :="p kiv � tal -Co t�� To s. F ... :r .... .._ ,: L .. i . t r::..:ru :5 .,.r ..,F .E tt .. •� :� Y a. E.� ... ,.r .. w: �_ . . s „p 4 .(r J. :E 1 Pr'. !k ..::, :, �.� � i rp ,r.Et, ..: . f, .I 1r` g:'M1! r 1� , 1:; , i, . kl:,f, �,.[, 1 Q.00.s . r E 8:,::. E .ettE 1 '- ' iM'e'asu �q. : re.. ... . r e blp . F .[` - ::: It t:. €� _�s fi.,�$.�,a.. c... F h .. 1 ,F,;- { �, i. '.I' r r:FutYd in ►. II �rF�I•E 1� . .4.1 -. jj i+h•F •E' �- :. rrtF : F!•1 . .1 .1: n., :r', .:I'': . ' '��- . �` 1 0 � V QSE. -l<,., ... f., k1:,w:L. >, .._ .t 20 2003/04 Reche Vista/Reche Canyon Route Concept Report/PSR Pr oject Study 'Retain Report c onsultant to prepare PSR . $2755 $69 21 2003/04 Route 60 Interchange Study/PSR Project Study Report Retain consultant to prepare PSR . * $65 $65 22 2003/04 Street Improvement Inve ntory fo r GASB 34 Requirements Evaluate Public Infrastructure Review and evaluate public infrastructure. * $38 $38 23 2003/04 Eucalyptus Ave,/Wichita to 660 Feet East Pedestrian Walk Construction of pedestrian walk for scho ol childr en. * $356 $12 24 2003/04 Atwood Ave./Indian St. to Perris Blvd. Street Improvements Construction of street improvements . * $156 $156 25 2003/04 Slurry Seal Program Resurface Ongoing annual program. * $2,204 $2,204 5 Contribution of $68,750 each by City of Colto n, County of Riv erside, and County of San Bernardino 6 Safe Route to School (maximum) funding - $23,000 * Total cost changed to match City of M oreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • • City of Moreno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE "I ►" LOCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIB E YEAR PROJECTIONS FI 3CAL YEAR 2004-2008 R+ vised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 • Page 5of7 t ewe 4 CJ, v :. . y! Ite m _.. r at. r:R.x:..� ....,:. : ,. * _. _ .:: ksNo.��. F .,, .. .. ', . / . ..�. ..+. .... � ,,. <�( .,.... %.. .. n. .. .8 :, :.: ., F.. "'" .. ..� r r, ..x€ -0.k . C i ,:;� 1. ! 0"P 11',5. x, .,.h:..i.. ... r , .. x. e..,x Y ,�I Pro e ct. . x: t : , l.x ....:....v :.,. ..,e. .� .. `- ' �:ra .!+. ::r', _. . -: .R.., -. ... ::: E� I ��. , undin i.+i-... .� ,. r_. „ . .. 9...: NRM a+ ,. .:r • i . :.. r. . .. �.. ,_ . .-'r :, ,, : C , ,_,..: _ F. .. ., .. ,.:5fi , ... L Year s: � .. n. .L.... . ,. .. . i. �4F .. .. _. � - ,. i.'-� 'ti PAi:;Ci re-N '' I IY". J,:..f ::: � :�x.R� � .. ., ^Rt..F�kf;3,n:P fi . P JA „ „, .. r...xl .:� -,. . P ,: .....,, . Y� ,, r , ro ectFN . "' .m �#s ..5_ J... e, �. v., � .< I ..., .r, �.: f��a� �:.� �. .1.E. .I k r•r,:k_,�� ., . 5 m � .. .. :. .. .... .. Y �. ..�,.. ... ..,, :.,. ft .. .. _., _ . e. ....._. , 5:, ,.e, ,.- ,4 . .,:.�s. {�: ._3.. . ,, � .,. ':iN:l:� . .. . -. .. ek ._ �: ... I . .b .. r _ ., w.. -: . d�" � # �.. d Y' -!.t _, � .� .. _. .., A,.e r - e r._ �,_! ,gg CC .- � M . �:� . .. ..1. x_ : r r ry r p!x _ " S I, ,. a .d k . tl .- . .. ,1 ..� , L. , _, . „ .. - a. - _: ..,. ..:.. , Xx:r,,J::. L. .. ... �� 2 _ _,.. ,. . GAR. . �� � . t.. ei .. � # :e ,< - .. : ,..,:�k.i, .. . .. .. � .. x:, � ti :e .. ._.. R. ,:p. :. a,ex { r.:�� ..4 - n 4: .,. _w �E� .: . :.... L . .x .%e .r :6 r: xl... .. x,. a kt. ::�r. ."r4 � . _,. � � :M . E .k �'< .. :.. . . .... ..., . .nr _., a:..l 1.. Fn c :� � .�_ tr >i bb t :.. ,.,r'a'n .:rV . [ ,•, . _ e. E _. .. k 'ri- is �I .. :,: i ', .... .. . R. . .:. H: <�_., pa �..i�. 6�i. , rr�:r:� et.r."4��: II���� V. : f'.��.(( .. 7 F 1t..�7��sn.oae., ,.*v. r�:, .�1:f .: CF L.R .,::: ':n .:: R:r. .. . , .<. _e! u ''=' • I .,ar w::,,. n . .., _ , ., .. _ Pr AEI T: a .Q , f6 ,.:.,., . ,d :,y .... .. � _ 3. �- 1 �ryP .. ...... . :ke �'.,:.. __.... ... .:�. R . : .: ,. : .. ..:. �,.�: ,,tp .. .w .. ..... <:. , a, :a.. rA.k. .. t `Ti. 7 : , ... r .. - . /. .. . .. . ..., -., i.-:..s __,, .. ...,Ir,I ,. : .._ , r e , : � �...�.. . r, �. .. ._ . ... i.. ..... ... . ... -. , . ..... .: . 4x w. .d, .. .. r. ,{ ,e, _e � � bl. .. P .Rk.G`e.,,:=..-k r. _ i, Y, . , ,. _: .. .� e:. � ..,,v .., i :. !� 6E scALE, .R ��'rF d,6I ..,:.,_... �,::... s Lt-°:" ! ' _I: s.,: r a n nr. . :..: . .... �1 .. X. . -8; ,i 1, : ,.- ,: I t r ..r ti :;;:.; ., .,3 r...1"t:,v r . .,. ...� .:, E i, I. �: ..::, ,, ..r .._ _... 4 :. ,; .: t >n r ..ru ,: ,� , .. , xr G .9 , w k elt, k r u,, rr >. _ ... ti,- < o- W , eg .< . .. , .. r � .xR ti., �r _ r:,.: ,,t . �, .w .'USN - ._, .,. ,. : t _�.�Stat4.4. _ � � ! � , !r!��� r � :FF�. � ., . � � , ►:._ 'a ._ . , .Nk...C,. ..t:r : .: � ... ._, 11 -,,:!r ... .. .a . . ., _.. ...e.b ..e : :q .: _f _. .. . .:. f .t 3 ..,r : II:. .R, :, �, r� . Y,C„ ca. x r E:.�� -,��a , .R ,�.,,I :,wl<. ,., J6-, S , „_. n R r .fin . .J . .. � : '� � � .:kx. - .4 ,_�.. �� e. F' . ..0 _ . . �.., ..I :::!:'. .. ... ..:_. , (. fi: : r,T.. F . .h . t, I .-'! �" ,,rr Z� .Y .. ..... tr r. y... .. >=k. .,; . .1, ,� . r�- -:!�, .,r F .,. .. .. .. ... . :. s t :.: � .„ �a i( t% a', . �... � , .. e . R Ir � : � -. . _e- _ _.. R. . ,E .. ... x � x�x[. �� � tF .� r,.�r .: I�„�:.:, �! � ., c tL:�� � , :.,: �., .. . ..� ..., :.... w .i. C �f. J 11ui':� .: @ "!r4 r : ''r' ,,: ` Y. : . .. , .. L Y .. i. r ... .. . : �. . ti; s . ..:F y E n: , ...i' w .,. l £ ,. � .:_ -' , � �: G't '. . I R. , � , r � .11� .E. xn ... 444 :.:� f ,, :��.: _ y :x� .�:E.n. .f . , .. ., i� :. -...r -_�L .::.: k �,,,. �:.:.�..P' { (I:' . �FY. I ��LI. �. 0k w�l ht�Ff ��+'e,,.� �21 [i e c ��E��''LL�� } � fE � .r ��/sc 9 �7 �'i: . , :x � aw �_ �:e i �N4ck� _ ...0 �: � Fit€,.l .f f ::[; _ u.33,�'� Fl. .: ,:- . ., . 6: y Iti �. iii •, �.To#aI,R,C t, ost. .Y,g _ !' :a 3 1:R. r. � r 1!.. ._, n . , r ny , �`� pe k- .;E -.'l: �, � � . x: � _ae .Q�p : 5i .. 4 :§,.r , , . tt T. ac At�f!�j�.:. �,� "�. .4 iiP I.�Id���O.O�S: 7:� e �:la:: ; 4, • Measure, A. 'w�.?:n :r.! .t,,: �,. '4".;� ` [ k: ,e:h t' .,t�, ..,rl �_ � r. F�, II r x . .�.:. undi;n ;. 1�>': � ^ n; : l ..u� v t F�,,w 'k ' (;I!x •4 .. I Ip 26 2003/04 Surface Recycling Rehabil .ation Ongoing annual program. * $127 $127 27 2003/04 Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Interch Inge Imp. Ea t and West E )und Rarr )s Requires revised project report, design, Caltrans & FHWA environmental approval, utility relocation and RP/V . Estimated construction completion date is December 2006. * $1,105 $405 28 2003/04 Street Improvement Program Ste :t Improve nents Ongoing annual program. * $264 $264 29 2003/04 Reche Vista Dr. /Reche Canyon Rd. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Coordination of traffic signal design with the County of Riverside . * $115 $115 30 2003/04 Perris Blvd. /Red Maple Ln. Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and construction of traffic signal. * $185 $185 31 2003/04 Ironwood Ave./Moreno Beach Dr. Improvements Street Improvements/ Traffic Signal Design of street and traffic sign al improvements. * $80 $80 CMAQ funding - $700,000 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget City of Mo reno Valley John Hogard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Rev ise d July 13, 2004 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ME ASURE " A" L OCAL STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Revi sed Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Page 6 of 7 . r. . .. Jr. 'r.. . y,=.,.,. . ... . .F.. F: ,, { ltemF F «. . �. f.. . :. kr. �-,.€ - .. .. .... ._.. ... . !., . .�. No. F, _: _ r .:6. r ,a.,. , ::. i .,,.. : ,... .. .,. Y , _�, ,r r.. #� r } YI� tM-.l� F, �W, a. k:F r. . ,. ..::,. 'wc.si !� . -_a. . • n, , :, ,, !:,r,,,i h... P:ro e ct.Pro �l._ r 1 . ,: .1:: ,,. .. ..L ..I .i_ .__ S sr .I_�r_ A. e k• I:. b.lw 4h - .. _.- ,_.. r ,. . _... _, .-. .... . .. .. .1 .. Y a,+ .: pp. Fundm_ t ; .: .' u .: 4r. x €k-a r..,a,. �. F r..�. 1_.. .e. x .. ... .: :., :..._. . ...... ... .. „- , �, r,u Year s y,:, r,r:� Y....t___ 1,,._._)rf._.F�.: .. v .. � _..+ .Ylr '. ,r . .rw.. kLtkariw ..J•. E. '�.p. k:Yl:i 1. : ., 4.. .W, _., �. �. .. . t S, f :-,t i'a'�.Y ,.h -1' P.:,,r: � t _ _. ,, F;. , .,, r�i„r:��.. .,: .: .. a fif A' 'ne/l_rmits .. � , , ,. 1. R: F, � x... �. . . . . _�... , r .F .. ... . _.. ,». ..v' . ,4 ,.,>__ . .:l.. ...�, .,. _ � .,.. .. ,.:! .. �! n._. - .,,, ., ."Y' . ..,, - 6 .. ,r t _„_w.. ... ..k.� .:,. .. :: .: � .W . .. � �Ya .. {.. ...,� r :. r. - : ,.. r€ - a �: '„x,j. �,a . .. .r.. 7'r -. . .. . �3 ... ..,, _L�, . .l.r.... G .. � i i� . -,. ,i'.3_,.�. .s € €• ._ � ... ... , _....t . .. ::x�'� ._, :.i- �s�YE` :�r- �k:..._._., . r ._.x € k „ _.. a 2 ,r+ �P ., , . , .�r '� .. . i w, _r.'x ,-�' .! ..... ... ..,LI':F .iF..: !!r ,,�, � k_ _._ ._ . � .E•::. �x � ,... �_. wt 1. - :., ., .. �..,..F' ...., F , .1.. "h t.:.l. .. r._. ... .a. r,: _. i1. ._. n .r: ,. .. .c . ,i ... _. .., 'i..� .... r!l .._ .' 4r.. . . ... .. .n . .. _:ilrr.. ..0 .. .. .Y , .. .. - w x � t � _ r , _ ..r �: : �,r ,.�. � � � _ .. :.r� ,_ r h . t�, � jj��77 .y,,, � ¢ x:4 _s , _ �, F x x �::i�.5:l, l.:'['F .�:-fa...i.. .,. z:[� .�. .,-r.. .:.�[.;l r .G j[ .ikai �n:..... .e. ; .< . .. ,r ,.. . .[� __! 1-lf :.f..... 1C €., . ., . i li. :.�,t.., ., .. 'Pro ect T e F . _., .€ . .. .... ....:. .. .[ . ._ _ .•A ...- . ':... ._,_._., "! ... . : +Y s. .4 r. .. . rt. . ..ni ,-; a: � . .k. .�. .1 '3. ..)(. • . .. .. ,. .�.4 a. . .. �. i,: ,. .. { eF.t _ ... . .r .4 .-.,{': .'3. c 1� R r k ;, .:-� ..a, m 3.3 __ .. . �, _ a. �. +�,_�. rP ?, ... � . P ... L4 .. ... ...i _ ,. .. .r .. ...• . -.r �. , r'.: .. :.. .. ..' ..._. , �. .L. . - ..,. .... . it .... F_. K. 4 .. j r''' r.. ,r ,. , , ..€a 3, .,.. . , ., k � rL .: l.:__�,,. , ..� u.-€'Fa:.:.,f h:: !M r. ::) ...::. _ .. v ,. .r � ..M -p.Y .[ ::'k �'_f'k. F. ... t. -.F r..A,F �' k, tt.ni .. R .I r.= . J'SI r,� ., .r� '. uii't, L{.r 4.'K . �k .:. ,.,r. , : d: F, - .r : . .., ]' "ut ... 1 -� f: `� f',:F fy.:. P.,. :� .:.. � is r ,; ,, ,..,,. .,« _ ,. t � k t r:. . F € .€: �,x � �f>w�. �,.. _.._ .. � .. .., ± ._ :...:_ __� :, .� �: _., .:_:€ ,, , r,.,_ rk, ...., Status _. i k' .� _.b p: .s . .,� 5 r ,r ., .:. .. ...� t r . : .. .nr �l� 1r. .., .. 1, , .€ �' i.xrk, �.. IfiG LF ...c... ,P. . y '. <� &, .0, . ... b_ ., r., a ,. ... .•r __, �_. .. ... ._ E �f� .� �9 .4 . .c S.. .: i M1hi S k u. a. :d ....,r,,, ,c ,.. ... ..� .... : f - ': t•, ., � P pp : �5 LL E . ..e_ o- . .r. . _ .r. C� , c. .., b tF W ,... ,: f;, H . .:. .. .: 1 f � ..i ... ��3.€�SI l,0 id .E. .� .... 3.,tr 1. : .Iil. :.�� ' '-F . ! i € 3 r k , .r. .�k� ..€,r_ .. r -r I €k,; . r .. .,. r, .., , r r f > r ,w d _ . r� .. Y r _ a € ., , , . �_r . k.. ..:4 .�._. r c'e r .. ... ,. .:. rta i .:: . �-:, ?k a: r k .. -,.� -,�' n a r� i. w �: � v k, _ Y .,x : ,rY r_LR, %s _�. • . ... r .l . i .. _._..., �r.€. .., ..'r..... .. 5 .. ae , �.� :.::,. F . ..p.-'� .. , r. •. ..a .. ..T.� Y. ..il . -. r. r; ,: .. ,.. . L , . _. ..r' :._ .... _ .. .. '. .. .i;d €r_ e@ w .a .€ Y r :_ T t , wry I ., i. �i�. _e .,F,�. Or r._ . , .,, , ::,..� t. _, t r , �. t.. ., _,�..1: . k�_ ..L .,,�.± ray xr,Fc „E ���L,� k,,�.,,.: . _ ._'- - �._:�: . � ��h�1 .}ri _. �. , �.i ,... . . -�a k ! !w , r w. :T r. F`xF. � 'rj2 `I .r ,-.i. 3 . :..: r,. . .'tal:�Cost:. ._Measure To :r,r, .1 .. h. :'Lt .:r'.. w. ( ` �-r� �: p$?'�Fn€ .- e. l., , .r s. �:: '.'I .,�f _ � - :3 x r r•,. :.. .k F. �1. .,f ,-4 € , rt �, n •� i r, r .i,:�ne .J_.r t +.k _� i R� r.� S .0 .: _ .4 E :1 :F.:c �.a1� OOO s r.. r 1r _, .t Y"l. b. 1 .. �' i1, 1 �Y:11'. ' " ia: , . - F r� . r� . ..A:.. . 4i k . P. ki: .0 . I!`kl: I� . ,r'. _ . . ::I'!1 3 .r �{,�, r a,r in [ -g "..>3�P F . � 8 F; �.::. .., - E: .:9- $kd. P:€k' . ; � 1 DOO�S��.:- �r,�� ..• .,,...,n. 32 2003/04 Perris Blvd. /Manzanita Ave . Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and constructi on of traffic signal . * $200 $200 33 2003/04 Ironwood Av e. /Nason St. Traffic Signal Street Improvements/ Traffic Signal Design of street improvements and traffic signal. * $80 $80 34 2003/04 John F. Kennedy Dr. /Lasselle St. Flashing Beacon Flashing Beacon Construction of Flashing Beacon. * $27 $27 35 2003/04 Indian St./Cactus Ave. Impro vements Street/Storm Drain Improvements Design of street and st orm drain improvements. * $100 $100 36 2003/04 added project Frederick St. Median/Calle San Juan De Los Lagos to Alessandro Blvd. Median Improvements Funding for design and construction of raised median project was dropped. * $227 $227 37 2003/04 added project Dracaea Ave. /Heacock St. to Perris Blvd. Street Improvements Project completed. * $20 $20 38 2003/04 added project Alessandro Blvd. Entryway Improvements Median Improvements Project Completed. * $22 $22 * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • • • • City of Moreno Valley John Ho gard & Prem Kumar (909) 413-3130 Revised July 13, 2004 39 Lasselle St. /Gentian Ave . Traffic Signal • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND RO ADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 Re vised Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Pag e 7 of 7 fi C c a €�r E rerm o- 41i nw l € i e� ct4� I ,, itr �4 ail xi I �� k1! �Staf11 f .. ��,� ; wo- �' •�d�'r co -G �1 _r G F r l 14� lig :t kttkk yY�flg . �a Ft �xt:t i hid li i $ e� [ Ylc FM sr ,M 1I1p`f l�,lla�.fi h €i ��{, s, :�Fl �a4 RiB v NAY CIF :f P6 :{Sq> f''! ' �`Fr44 tl(�� E :- E f; F�.I:+,€!P�rf vi eas c .sf:l; s, .k `MV.I nd . � s'� a;l i 6 r1!F:ed s. mr tiF-ti ili a E �hTotal Cost , - � �niel�go- i k .P(�� F 11.�1�!��fk�'F '�FI pYt iFrF@ ''�� `t Y:ls.. .f000.1 r Measiiiiit �) i-1fYrftG.�,€' I MI; i'Ffundin9 fl . 01! , it ..:: !S'f:�. esign. * $15 $15 /. / q/p/ O/ O/O /O/ e,Fi,./ q/m/q /p/q,O/p/p/erioxa 97.07. q/q/q/q/q/O/q/q/ O/O/q/O7q/q /q/q/il/O/q /O/q /q /q /q /O/OJq/q cre.m/q/O /O /Oze rhwa/O/sow ,oxq /q/O /q /q/q/panmo/O/O/q /v /q/q/O/q/q /q/O /O/O/Q;F! ..F /O/O/O /O /O /O/ . q?cree/Z, ,q? / 0/q/O/O /O/O/O /O /O/ / M p ,,p � �. './ ' Ys, I y f � � f qi Jo.ro, 2003-2004 m p ***'* ? 13 246 � 115851.';0 y , q/dq/v/qi0/Yio/qiq/vim/Y/G/ q/oiC/ o%q/O/gi0i 0iG/q/QYq.�q/ oJG/vie/q/q/O%q1q/oigm/q /o�/Oi 6iq/q /q� /o61 i0 /q /qi G/gidb/o/q/G/b%omogi0 /qm/d/O/q%lJ/G/o/o /o/qJC%C /�iv%O /v/q/v%q /gigi!> /O/q!O /O/O/q /q/q/OJq /O%4�/q/q /q/q/q/o/q /q/q%O%O%� O W:\CapProj\CapProj\Measure A\5YEAR\2004-05\071304 Amend 03-04 5 yr Projections.doc ** Includes carryover funds * Total cost changed to match City of Moreno Valley's FY 03/04 budget • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells and Murrieta STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-09 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells and Murrieta as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of Local Streets and Roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 6, 2004, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for Local Streets and Roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 16, 2004 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 28, 2004 meeting and to the Commission on July 14, 2004. At its July 14, 2004 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but nine (9) cities, and on September 8, 2004 the Commission approved the Plans for three additional cities. Subsequently, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells and Murrieta. The remaining two Cities (Coachella and Indio) 41 have been informed that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for Local Streets and Roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachments: Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Murrieta • • • 42 • • RIVERSI DE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUN DS PR OGR AM FY 2004-2009 Agen cy: City of Beaumont Prepared by: Public Works Department D ate: March 2, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Fiscal Year PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL C OST STATUS MEASURE "A" 2004 Elm Street, 7th Street to 12th Street Rehabilitation $454,875 Desig n Phase $454,875 2005 Palm Avenue, 5th Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $600,000 Design Phase $475,000 2006 Penn sylvania Avenue, 6th Street to Oak Valley Pa rkway Rehabilitatio n $500,000 Pending Design $500,000 2007 Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Av enue to Palm A ven ue Widening and Rehabilitation $600,000 Pe ndi ng Design $525,000 2008 Oak Valley Parkway, Palm Av enu e to Cherry Avenue Widening an d Rehabilitation $600,000 Pendi ng Design $550,000 2009 Beaumont Avenue, 6th Street to Brookside Avenue Ro ad Rehabilitation $600,000 Pendi ng Design $575,000 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005 Agency: Prepared By: Pho ne #: Date: City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude 760-329.6411, e xtension 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type T otal Cost Measure "A" Fu nds 45-1 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Palm to L. Morongo Street Improvement $1,100,000 .00 $365,000.00 45-2 West Drive Street Improvements - 8th to Pierson Street Improvement $775,000.00 $150,000 .00 45-3 Rancho Del Oro - Slurry and seal streets Street Improvement $35,000.00 $12,000 .00 45-4 Two Bunch Palms - Verbena to West Street Improvement $300,000 .00 $50,000 .00 45-5 Slurry and Surface Proje cts City wide by PMS and as funding allows $200,000 .00 $75,000.00 45-6 Traffic Signal - Pierson and West Signal Improvement $250,000.00 $75,000.00 45-7 Palm Drive - Sidewalk Improvements Sidew alk Improvements - ADA Ramps $100,000.00 $25,000 .00 45-8 MSWD Sub area sewers - Street Construction Street Construction with new sewer install $500,000.00 $150,000.00 45-9 Arroyo West and Arroyo East Street Improvements Street Improvement $225,000.00 $50,000.00 45-10 Hacienda Avenue - Corsini School to Deodar Street Widening Improvement $200,000 .00 $50,000.00 $1,002,000.00' Totals $3,685,000.00 • • Agency: Prepared B y: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSP ORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LO CAL FUNDS P ROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patnea ude T60-329-6411, exte nsion 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Protect Name/Limits Pr otect Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 56-1 Hacienda Avenue - Cholla to Palm Street/Storm Drain Improv ements $750,000.00 $300,000.00 56-2 West Drive Street Improvements - 8th to M. Lakes Street Improvement $800,000.00 $355,000.00 56-3 Offsite lmpravments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $500,000 .00 $100,000.00 56-4 Traffic Signal - West Drive and Two Bunch Signal Improvements $225,000.00 $75,000.00 56-5 Slurry and Surface Projects City wide by PMS and as funding allows $100,000.00 $25,000 .00 56-6 Streets Palm to Cho lla and Two Bunch to Hac. Street Reconstruction with curb and gutter $1,500,000 .00 $300,000.00 To tals 53,875,000.00 $1,155,000.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATIO N COMMISSIO N MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2006.2007 Agency: Prepared By: Phon e #: Date : City of De sert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude 760-329-6411, e xte nsion 243 August 31, 2004 ite m No. Project Nam e/Limits Project Type Tot al Cost Measure "A" Funds $350,000.00 67-1 Hacienda Avenue - Verbena to Mtn. View Street/Storm Drain Impro vements $1,000,000.00 67-2 Traffic Signal - Palm Drive and Camino Aventura Signal Improvements $185,000.00 $75,000.00 67-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $350,000 .00 $75,000.00 67-4 Multiple Streets - Loma Vista, Monterey, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $750,000 .00 $250,000.00 67-5 Palm Drive Slurry - City Limit to Pierson Street Preservation $350,000.00 $75,000.00 67-6 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $150,000.00, $80,000.00 67-7 Traffic Signa l - Little Morongo and Pierson Signal Improvements $275,000.00 $1,055,000.00 ' Totals 3,410,000.00 • • • Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTYT RANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007 - 2008 City of Desert Hot Spri ngs Da n P atneaude 760-329-6411, extensi on 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Project NamelL/mlts Project Type ' Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 78-1 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View to McCarger Street/Storm Drain Improvements $1,500,000.00 $400,000.00 78-2 Traffic Signal - Hacienda Avenue and Mtn. View Signal Improvements $250,000.00 $90,000.00 78-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $750,000 .00 $200,000.00 78-4 Multiple Streets - Club Circle, Catalpa, Acacia, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $400,000.00 78-5 Two Bunch Palms - Slun-y - West to Verbena Stre et Preservation $350,000.00 $75,000.00 78-6 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $150,000 .00 78-7 Palm Drive Reconstruct - Pierson to 8th Street Improvements - Reconstruction $850,000.00 $250,000.00 78-8 Palm Drive - Pierson to Hacienda Storm Drain Imprvements $1,250,000 .00 $450,000.00 Totals $6,550,000.00 $2,015,000.00 RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL . FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL. YEAR 2008 - 2009 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude 780-329-6411, extension 243 August 31, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limit s Project Type Total Cost Me as ure "A" F unds 89-1 Little M orongo Road Widening - Pierson to M. Lake Street Improvements $1,500,000 .00 $400,000.00 89-2 Traffic Signal - Hacienda and West Drive Signal Improvements $250,000.00 $90,000.00 89-3 Offsite Improvments - City Wide Curb Gutter and Sidewalks $750,000.00 $200,000.00 89-4 Multiple Streets - Acoma, Buena Vista, Cahuilla Street Improvements $1,250,000.00 $400,000.00 89-5 Hacienda - Slurry - Cholla to Palm Street Preservation $250,000 .00 $50,000.00 89-6 Streets with M SWD Street and Sewer improvements $500,000.00 $150,000.00 89-7 Palm Drive Reconstruct - 8th to M. Lakes Street Improvements - Reconstruction $850,000.00 $250,000.00 89-8 8th Street - Reconstruct Street Improvements $1,250,000.00 $450,000.00 89-9 Palm Drive - Hacienda to Two Bunch Palms Storm Drain Improvements $1,500,000.00 $450,000.00 Totals $8,100,000.00 $2,440,000.00 • • • UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001-2005 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year 450 TOTAL $450 O:1TIm\M1sc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 49 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005-2006 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 450 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year TOTAL $450 O:lTim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc • • • 50 • UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year 190 TOTAL $190 o:lTrn\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 51 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007-2008 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year 190 TOTAL $190 O:1TimtMisc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 52 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008-2009 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 1, 2004 Item No. Project Name/ Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 Citywide Traffic Services Mowing, Tree trimming, and watering within right of way. Replace top soil, shrubs, trees, Irrigation facilities, etc. $500/year 190 TOTAL $190 • O:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 04.doc 53 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City ofMurrieta Prepared by: Jim Kinky Phone No.: (951) 461-6077 Date: August 30, 2004 Page I of 5 ITEM - NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASUREA FUNDS ($000'S) 1 French Valley Parkway Design and Construct Road Improvements 70,000 978 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 2.052 1,759 3 Fig Street Design and Construct Road Improvements 645 645 4 Lincoln & Kasota Alignment Design and Construct Road Improvements 747 475 CWExceNMeasnsyr 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Page 2 of 5 PROJECT NAME /LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway Interchange 1-15 ra Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements 826 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,050 520 Fig Street Uncon & Kasota Alignment • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2007 Page 3 of 5 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway Interchange 1-15 © Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements 932 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Constrict Road Improvements 1,075 1,075 41) • 56 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007 - 2008 Page 4 of 5 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway interchange 1-15 Cat Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,100 1,100 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2008 - 2009 Page Sof5 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) French Valley Parkway Interchange 1-15 c Cherry Street (Temecula lead agency) Design and Construct Road Improvements Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1,125 1,125 58 • AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 05-14-515 to Amend the RCTC/SANBAG Contract for Shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve agreement No. 05-14-515, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services Contract No. 00-051 between RCTC and SANBAG, for a two-year period in a total amount not to exceed $ 144,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2002, at the direction of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) governing boards, staff released a request for proposals for RCTC/SANBAG Shared Federal Advocacy Services. The RFP generated responses from seven firms to provide Federal Advocacy Services, four of which were interviewed by a joint RCTC/SANBAG selection committee with the advocacy team of Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton, and Shockey with Cliff Madison Government Relations ultimately being agreed to by both RCTC and SANBAG. At that time, staff negotiated a two-year contract with two, two-year options commencing January 1, 2003. The thinking behind the length of the agreement was that Congress would have approved a reauthorization of the federal transportation act for a six -year period. The two-year contract with two, two-year options would ensure consistency of federal representation for the duration of the federal act and could result in a number of advantages in seeking subsequent federal funding in future years. 59 Additionally, this arrangement was fashioned at a time when SANBAG and RCTC shared the staff position of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. The procurement was designed to result in a contract structure that was similar to the staffing arrangement. Since then, RCTC and SANBAG have abandoned the shared position, although there has been a significant and productive collaboration between the agencies on federal legislative issues. Recently the agencies worked together to seek favorable language in the reauthorization bill regarding funding for Alameda Corridor East improvements that would benefit both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The language has been supported by all of Riverside County's Congressional delegation. The existing federal advocacy contract has provided effective support in this effort and in developing funding support for a number of individual projects. Unfortunately, Congress has yet to definitively act on a reauthorization and we have been left with short-term extensions of the federal transportation act. In spite of these circumstances, the existing contract for federal legislative advocacy has been effective for both SANBAG and RCTC. RCTC primarily relies on the services of Cliff Madison who has extensive experience and contacts regarding transportation and has capably served the Commission even prior to this joint agreement. The Copeland team has also provided effective representation for the region and will play a big role, along with Cliff Madison when Congress finally acts on a comprehensive federal reauthorization. Given the general satisfaction with the current contract arrangement staff recommends the exercise of the first two-year contact extension as part of the original agreement. Assuming Congress acts sometime next year on a federal reauthorization, the Commission can then re-evaluate its federal advocacy needs before the December 31, 2006 expiration of the option. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $72,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" and LTF Sales Taxes SAFE Fees and FSP Revenues Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: S-14-65506 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v `eeivte Date: 9/27/04 • 60 • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update: Congress is likely to pass yet another short-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act by the end of September. With the upcoming elections, this means that a multi -year reauthorization well have to start over with the next Congress in 2005. While Congress is expected to reconvene for a "lame duck" session after the election, the actions will most likely be limited to appropriations bills and consideration of a federal transportation authorization act is doubtful. Congress' inaction jeopardizes more than $20 billion in federal transportation funds that could have been made available if legislation would have been passed that is similar to the Senate's version of the bill (S.1072). To further complicate the matter, the issue of ethanol taxation is still unresolved. With California's phase -out of the gasoline additive MTBE, ethanol has taken its place. Yet the grain -based product receives federal subsides that allow it to be taxed at a fraction of the 18.3 cents per gallon federal gas tax that is deposited in the state's general fund. When this is combined with the ongoing diversion of state transportation dollars to the General Fund, it's not surprising to find that the California Transportation Commission is not programming funding for new projects. On a more positive note, Congressional awareness and support for funding of goods -movement -related projects in Southern California is increasing. Fourteen Congressional representatives signed on to a letter to Chairman Don Young of the 61 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urging a total of $900 million be allocated to the Alameda Corridor East project and for the funding to be split equally between Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. It would also recognize the Alameda Corridor East as a project of national significance and provide Riverside County with its most significant amount of federal funding for freight -related projects which could be used for grade separations. The letter was signed by all of Riverside County's Congressional delegation and also garnered bi-partisan support from representatives in Los Angeles County. Of course, the approval of this funding depends on the passage of a federal transportation bill. While that might have to wait until next year, having this type of widespread Congressional support on the record at this time establishes a positive precedent in the future. State Update: With the conclusion of the Legislative session, Governor Schwarzenegger is now faced with the task of deciding the fate of hundreds of measures that have been approved by the Legislature and placed on his desk. In many cases, he has moved swiftly and sought to protect California's business climate by vetoing a number of bills including an increase in the minimum wage. Two bills of interest to the Commission are Assembly Bill 2948, which would ease the way for SANBAG to offer additional Freeway Service Patrols and SB 18 which deals with CEQA notification requirements regarding Native American tribes. The Commission supported AB 2498 because it will improve the area of coverage for drivers throughout this region. The Governor signed the bill into law on September 21. As for SB 18 the Commission opposed previous versions of the bill that would have made most projects extremely vulnerable to challenges from Native American tribes. The bill was opposed by business interests and governmental organizations such as the League of Cities and numerous local governments. Facing widespread opposition, the bill was amended to remove a number of onerous provisions and was eventually approved by a bi-partisan 2-4 vote in the Assembly and 30-4 in the Senate. The Governor had not decided on SB 18 as of the writing of this staff report. The information will be updated prior to the Commission's meeting on October 13. Attachment: Legislative Matrix • • 62 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRARTATION COMMISSION POSITIONS ON S E LEGISLATION UPDATED September 20, 2004 AB 496 Correa Creates the Santa Ana River Conservancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91 . OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED Passed Assembly 52- 24, referred to Senate Natural Resources Committee - DEAD AB 2372 Correa AB 2498 Longville Protects counties such as Riverside County that ha ve not programmed their state funding shares. Maintains and strengthens current law regarding county shares of state funding. Clarifies state regulations to allow the creation of additional Freeway Service Patrol programs, especially in San Bernardino County Referred to Assembly Transp ortation Committee -DEAD Passed by Assembly and the Senate and sent to the Governor SUPPORT SUPPORT AB 2628 Pavley Would allow hybrid -electric cars to be operated by solo drivers in HOV Lanes Signed by the Governor OPPOSE AB 3007 Plesica Eliminates property acquisition and litigation discussions from closed meetings under the Brown Act . Referred to Assembly Local Go vernment Committee - DEAD OPPOSE ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees -DEAD SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine 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 C ommittees -DEAD 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 -DEAD 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 -DEAD ACA 21 Bogh & Spitzer Raises Legislative threshold for the suspension of Proposition 42 to a 4/5ths vote Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee — DEAD SUPPORT ACA 24 Dutra Limits loans from the Highway Account to the General Fund to one- year or requires the payment of interest on loans of a longer term. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee - DEAD SUPPORT ACA 29 Harman (Coauthor: Benoit) Would eliminate the current provision in Proposition 42 that allows the Legislature and the Governor to suspend the funding transfer that is outlined in Proposition 42. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee - DEAD SUPPORT SB 18 Burton OPPOSE Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Amended Significantly and Approved by both houses and sent to the G overnor SB 87 Hollingsworth SB 380 M cClintock and Murray SB 541 Torlakson Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. 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 . Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflation. Signed by the Go vernor Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File. - DEAD Failed passage in Senate Transportation . Reconsideration has been granted. SUPPORT SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Signed by the Governor SUPPORT SB 1210 Torlakson SCA 2 To rlakson Would enable additional state construction projects to be built with the Design -Sequencing procedure that is being utilized on the 60/91/215 interchange 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." Signed by the Governor Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees. -DEAD SUPPORT SEEK A MENDMENTS SCA 7 Murray 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 - DEAD SUPPORT • • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO AGENDA ITEM 15 tottgrg of tlje ttiteb 6tateg Joucie of 1epresentatibei% Illasibington, ANC 20515 September 13, 2004 The Honorable Don Young Chairman Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure United States House of Representatives 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable James Oberstar Ranking Member Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure United States House of Representatives 2163 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar: As we continue working toward a conference agreement on the Transportation Equity Act - a Legacy for Users, we are writing to express our strong support for the retention of the House passed program for Projects of National and Regional Significance. In addition, we strongly advocate that the Alameda Corridor East, as designated in the House passed bill, be recognized as a project of national significance at a level of $900 million, to be equally distributed by the state to Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties through their respective lead agencies: Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, OnTrac Joint Powers Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, under your leadership, recognized that federally re -designating the Alameda Corridor East to include all four counties directly impacted by the Alameda Corridor, including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside, was a critical step in mitigating the congestion and air quality impacts of increased movement of goods throughout the southern California region. Section 1105 (c), paragraph 34 of TEA -21 was amended in TEA-LU to state that the Alameda Corridor East would be defined as: "(34) The Alameda Corridor -East and South-west Passage, California. The Alameda Corridor- East is generally described as the corridor from East Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda Corridor) through Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, to termini at Barstow in San Bernardino County and Coachella in Riverside County. The Southwest Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona State line." As we stated when we requested this language change in TEA-LU, the intent of amending the definition of the Alameda Corridor East is to federally recognize that all four counties bear significant goods movement impacts on existing infrastructure. Significantly, all four counties have implemented comprehensive programs to address infrastructure needs including safety upgrades, traffic synchronization, and grade separations. The ACE Trade Corridor encompasses 285 miles of mainline freight corridor and passes through a current population of 16 million residents. An expected 160 percent increase in freight trains by 2020 will result in congestion, disruption to emergency services, impaired access to community facilities, and train noise associated with movement of goods. The 130 grade crossings proposed for improvement experience 1.4 million vehicles/trucks per day and will increase to 2.4 million by 2020. Implementation of improvement programs in each of the four counties would eliminate 13,000 vehicle hours of delay, 370 accidents per year, and 288 tons of air pollution would be eliminated in the worst air basin in the nation. Federally recognizing the Alameda Corridor East as a Project of National and Regional Significance is of paramount importance in achieving the basic goals of this program, as outlined in Section 1304 of TEA-LU. The very purpose of the Alameda Corridor East is to improve our nation's economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. Each of the four counties' programs planned for the next six years are eligible as described in Section 1304, and under Title 23. Even more important is that the Alameda Corridor East is an example of infrastructure investment that yields tangible results like traffic congestion reduction, air quality and safety improvement, and increased mobility efficiency. We share a commitment to meet our critical national economic and transportation needs with significant investment in areas that will reap national and economic benefits. The Alameda Corridor East is a top transportation priority for the State of California and is unanimously supported by Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties to work together to facilitate trade in the region while mitigating the infrastructure impact to our communities. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Alameda Corridor East be recognized as a project of national significance at a level of $900 million, and look forward to working with you on this critical priority for Southern California. Sincerely, Chris Cox -5:74,2yti Ed Royce Ken Calvert frAMPiltAi Lucille Royb -Allard Grace F. Napolitano ages4 AdamSchiff )4" Alf}14 Howard P. "Buck" McKeo Hilda L. Solis , -,_,..„,„__ Joe Baca