The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About10 October 25, 2004 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA • TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Monday, October 25, 2004 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS 66;r�3 ***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 li_3C4).10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.mtc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:00 a.m. Monday, October 25, 2004 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1st 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 October 25, 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. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending September 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity month ended September 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview Pg. 5 Report for the Pg. 7 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 25, 2004 Page 3 7. 8. • STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 9 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-33-519 (AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2128) TO STV INCORPORATED FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE NEW START APPLICATION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Pg. 15 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for additional scope of work related to the final environmental assessment, rerun of SCAG's transit model, update of the New Start application, and BNSF coordination for the Perris Valley Line Project for an additional base amount of $548,430; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $500,000 of STA Funds and increase the FY04/05 Rail Capital Budget to accommodate the allocation; 4) Amend the FY04/05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 25, 2004 Page 4 9. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 24-006 FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Pg. 26 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M24-006 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway Improvements within the City of La Quinta; 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. 10. PROJECT STATUS REPORT OF FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDED PROJECTS Pg. 42 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Project Status Report of Federal and State Funded Projects, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. APPROVE THE FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-520 BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pg. 51 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,071,368 in State funding for FY 2004-05; • Budget and Implementation Committee October 25, 2004 Page 5 • 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. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. 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. 14. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING • • The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, November 22, 2004, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Committee may want to change the meeting schedule due to the upcoming holidays. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, September 27, 2004 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairperson Terry Henderson at 10:00 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 Terry Henderson Robin Lowe Bob Magee Ameal Moore Gregory Pettis John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Art Welch Robert Crain Juan DeLara Ron Meepos Kelly Seyarto 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Buydos/Moore) to approve the March 22 and August 23, 2004 minutes as submitted. Abstain: March Minutes — Pettis August Minutes — Pettis, Welch Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to approve the Consent Calendar. 6A. QUARTERLY CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 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 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the months ended July 31 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 NO. RO-2041) TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE SR 74 PROJECT AND SR 60/SR 91/1-215 PROJECT Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the scope of services for the agreement with the County of Riverside for real property services for the SR 74 project and SR 60/SR 91/1-215 project. M/S/C (Lowe/Berg) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-514, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. RO-2041, to 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 SR 60/SR 91/1-215 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 Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 3 • • 8. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-513 (AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-917) WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Hideo Sugita reviewed the scope of services for the agreement with the County of Riverside for real property services for the SR 79 realignment project. Commissioner Robin Lowe requested that staff provide to the Commissioners a map of the impacted parcels. In response to Commissioner John Tavaglione's inquiry regarding work performance of the County of Riverside Real Estate Division, Hideo Sugita indicated that the division has performed very well in supporting the Commission in this process. Commissioner Chris Buydos requested staff to provide notification to the Commissioners representing the affected area when correspondence is sent out to the public to be able to address constituents concerns and provide an education of the process. M/S/C (Buydos/Lowe) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-31-513, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 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 2003-2004 BUDGET AMENDMENT Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, briefly reviewed the budget amendment for Measure "A" Local Street and Roads expenditures. In response to Commissioner Lowe's question regarding receipt of the allocation necessitating this adjustment, Theresia Trevino indicated the Commission received the final allocation adjustment for FY 2004 in September. • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 4 M/S/C (Lowe/Buydos) 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. 10. $15 MILLION SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) CALL FOR REHABILITATION PROJECTS Shirley Medina, Program Manager, briefly reviewed the STP Call for Projects noting that new criteria has been recommended that meets the federal requirements for sub -allocating STP funds using a two tiered criteria system. At Commissioner Buydos' request, Eric Haley, Executive Director, provided a history of the previous STP allocation formula and Shirley Medina explained the new tiered criteria. At Commissioner Ameal Moore's request for examples of high priority rehabilitation projects, Shirley Medina indicated that these are projects included in federal aid system, which is an extensive arterial system. She also noted that due to financial constraints, programming will not occur until FY 2005-06. However, if projects readiness can be demonstrated, it may be possible to work with Caltrans to advance funding. M/S/C (Moore/Lowe) to: 1) Approve the criteria for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) CaII 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 11. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-45-518 FOR DIGITAL CELLULAR SERVICE FOR CALL BOX PROGRAM M/S/C (Lowe/Pettis) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-45-518, to AT&T Wireless Service, Inc. for digital cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program for a five-year term 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. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 5 • • • 12. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY AND PALM DESERT M/S/C (Lowe/Tavaglione) to: 1) Approve the FY 2004 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Moreno Valley; 2) Approve the FY 2005-2009 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2009 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT, DESERT HOT SPRINGS, INDIAN WELLS, AND MURRIETA M/S/C (Lowe/Tavaglione) 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; 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 Eric Haley reviewed the extension of the legislative agreement with SANBAG, noting the focus on authorization of TEA -21 extension and goods movement. In response to Commissioner Lowe's question regarding the status of the Riverside County grade separation projects, Eric Haley confirmed and referenced a letter from Congressional representatives expressing strong support for the recognition of the Alameda Corridor East as a project of national significance in the transportation bill at a level of $900 million to be equally distributed to the four impacted counties through their respective lead agencies. Commissioner Gregory Pettis' requested the list of bidders for the original request for proposal of federal legislative advocacy services. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Lowe commented that San Gabriel County has expressed strong opposition to the proposed funding of the Alameda Corridor East and the Commission and its legislative advocates need to maintain a heighten awareness of this issue. Commissioner John Tavaglione asked about the City's automatic train whistles program, Tom Boyd, City of Riverside Public Works Department, responded that the program has been implemented for several month noting problems in the track circuitry causing continuous train whistles but is improving. He indicated that minor relief is being achieved, however, it is a demonstration project and can be discontinued if the desired results are not achieved. He also noted that quiet zones and grade separations are the goal. In response to Commissioner Moore's concern regarding funding for grade separations, Eric Haley estimated that five to six grade separations, based on statistical priority, could be funded if bill passed with recommended fund split. Commissioner Lowe requested staff to bring the grade separation project list back to the Committee/Commission for further review and/or additional discussion. M/S/C (Pettis/Lowe) to: 1) Approve agreement No. 05-14-515, an extension of the shared Federal Legislative Advocacy Services (SANBAG 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 STATUS REPORT Eric Haley updated the Committee on the reauthorization of the federal transportation act and the status of AB 2498, AB 2628, Bay Bridge funding issues, and Propositions 42, 68, and 70. M/S/C (Buydos/Welch) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 27, 2004 Page 7 • 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 17. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF Eric Haley noted: • State Route 91 Successes Luncheon sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Authority on September 29th • Inland Empire Transportation Forum focusing on state financing on October 7th • Meeting with Sunny McPeak regarding the Bay Bridge funding issues on September 27th • Participation in a group to review the respondents to a request for qualifications to review and audit the Bay Bridge issues on October 13th 18. ADJOURNMENT • • There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:49 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ending September 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook by the end of the second quarter. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 8% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure "A" funds and remits them to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections for July 2004. On a cash basis, the Measure "A" and LTF sales tax revenues are 13% and 11% higher respectively, than the same period last fiscal year. Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. 1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee revenues of $5,255,742 were billed subsequent to September 30 and will be submitted to the Commission by Western Riverside Council of Governments. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. General administrative expenditures are higher due to a one-time payment in July for the Commission's general business insurance for FY 2004/05. Intergovernmental distributions are higher than budgeted due to the annual LTF administrative payments made to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Western Riverside Council of Governments. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — September 2004 • • • 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/04 DESCRIPTION REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 122,479,100 $ 10,084,420 $ (112,394,680) 8% Federal, state & local govemment reimbursements 21,924,100 1,130,050 (20,794,050) 5% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 28,000,000 (28,000,000) 0% Other revenues 4,727,000 131,833 (4,595,167) 3% Interest 3,030,700 105,230 (2,925,470) 3% Total revenues 180,160,900 11,451,533 (168,709,367) 6% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenses Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of way Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way Local streets & roads Regional arterial TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Total debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over expenditures 1,358,400 257,337 1,101,063 19% 108,500 5,570 102,930 5% 998,500 137,923 860,577 14% 363,000 104,045 258,955 29% 927,700 390,555 537,145 42% 3,756,100 895,430 2,860,670 24% 1,786,700 387,572 1,399,128 22% 964,000 107,603 856,397 11% 1,335,870 157,309 1,178, 561 12% 1,924,000 62,772 1,861,228 3% 2,985,000 11,864 2,973,136 0% 34,405,000 4,979,277 29,425,723 14% 9,720,000 41,143 9,678,857 0% 2,770,000 28,120 2,741,880 1% 2,200, 000 11,681 2,188, 319 1% 4,857,000 - 4,857,000 0% 42,545,000 2,752,289 39,792,711 6% 9,000,000 2,506,854 6,493,146 28% 4,000,000 355,326 3,644,674 9% - 500 (500) 0% 30,000 100,000 (70,000) 0% 1,383,800 37,132 1,346,668 3% 1,483,600 246,325 1,237,275 17% 2,522,540 498,267 2,024,273 20% 137,200 17,795 119,405 13% 1,464,500 78,926 1,385,574 5% 4,457,500 1,068,411 3,389,089 24% 2,762,000 147,418 2,614,582 5% 5,295,900 1,090,305 4,205,595 21% 54,900 21,971 32,929 40% 138, 084, 510 14,708, 860 123, 375, 650 11% 786,900 241,848 545,052 340,000 20,266 319,734 31% 6% 27,200,000 - 27,200,000 0% 8,286,000 8,286,000 0% 35,486,000 - 35,486,000 0% 178,453,510 15,866,404 162,587,106 9% 1,707,390 (4,414,871) (2,707,481) -259% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 35,766,300 5,668,715 30,097,585 16% Operating transfer out (35,766,300) (5,668,715) (30,097,585) 16% Bond proceeds Payment to escrow agent 0% Cost of issuance 0% Total financing sources/uses 0% 0% Net change in fund balances 1,707,390 (4,414,871) (2,707,481) -259% Fund balance July 1, 2004 177,506,700 202,781,114 25,274,414 114% Fund balance September 30, 2004 $ 179,214,090 $ 198,366,243 $ 19,152,153 111% Uusers/prepnnUmc/quarterles/master quarterly 3 RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION QUARTERLY ACTUALS BY FUND 1ST QUARTER F OR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/04 MEASURE "A" PAL O STATE T RANSPORTATION UNIFO RM WESTERN GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITIGAuI OFN FEE CCONSTRUCTSE RVICE COMBINEDDEBT ` DESCRIPTIO N FUND SAFE C OUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE Revenues - - $ • $ $ 10,084,420 Sales tax $ 2,587,320 $ - $ 5,581,787 $ 58,862 $ 1,856,451 $$ 1,130,0500 Federal, state & local govemment reimbursem ents 347 125,866 1,003,837 Other revenues 131,826 2 Transpo rtation Uniform Mitigation F ee (TUMF) - - 5 _ _ - 131,833 Interest 74 3,990 47,061 6 20 3,191 9 1,271 49,608 105,230 To tal revenues 2,719,567 129,858 6,632,690 58,868 1,856,471 3,191 9 1,271 49,608 11,451,533 Ex pe nditures Administration Salaries & benefits 245,555 11,782 - General le gal se rvices 5,301 269 Professional services 131,261 6,662 - Office lease & u tilities 99,020 5,025 G eneral administrative e xpenses 371,691 18,864 Total administration 852,828 42,602 Programs/pro jec ts Salarie s & benefits 211,477 20,330 General lega l service s 36,552 160 Professional services 15,929 2,805 General projects - - Highwa y en gineering Highway construction Highway right of way Rail engineering _ Rail construc tion _ Rail right of way _ TUMF engineering TUMF construction - TUMF right of way Lo ca l streets & roads Regional a rterial - Special studies 25,163 - FSP towing 246,325 Commuter assistance - Property managemen t 17,795 - M otorist assistance 78,926 Rail operations & maintenance 1,068,411 - STA distributions - Specialized transit Plan ning & programming service s 21,971 Total programs/projects 1,397,298 348,546 Intergovernmental distribution 241,848 - Capital outlay 19,287 979 115,676 65,489 108,486 57,578 11,864 4,979,277 41,143 28,120 11,681 2,043,669 11,970 498,267 264,741 8,237,961 257,337 5,570 137,923 104,045 390,555 895,430 3,305 - 36,781 387,569 5,403 107,604 - 90 30,000 157,310 770 - 4,424 62,772 - 11,864 4,979,277 41,143 28,120 - - 11,681 _ 355,326 - 355,326 500 - 500 - 100,000 - 100,000 58,862 649,758 - 2,752,289 2,506,854 2,506,854 37,133 246,325 498,267 17,795 78,926 1,068,411 - 147,418 147,418 1,090,305 825,564 - _ 21,971 58,862 3,986,251 147,508 532,434 14,708,860 241,848 20,266 Debt servic e Principal Intere st Total debt service Total expenditures 2,511,261 392,127 8,237,961 58,862 3,986,251 147,508 532,434 15,866,404 Excess revenues o ver (under) expenditures 208,306 (262,269) (1,605,271) 6 (2,129,780) (144,317) (532,425) 1,271 49,608 (4,414,871) O ther financing sources/uses - 5,668,715 5,668,715 Operating transfer in - - 4,352,218 - 1,316,497 .. 5,668,715 Operating transfer out - _ - - - Bond proceeds - _ - - Paymen t to escrow agent - - - - Costofissuance 4,352,218 - 1,316,497 - (5,668,715) Total financing sources/uses - Net change in fund balances 208,306 (262,269) (5,957,489) 6 (3,446,277) (144,317) (532,425) 1,271 5,718,323 (4,414,871) Fund balance July 1, 2004 7,352,174 3,559,966 115,098,845 47,727 7,253,630 2,566,624 34,439,947 2,208,202 30,253,999 202,781,114 8 366,243 Fundl0ce September 30, 2004 $ 7,560,480 $ 3,297,697 $ 109,141,356 $ 47,733 , $_ 3,807,353 $ 2,422,307 $ 33,907,522 $ 2,209,473 $ 35,972,322 $$ 19 anerlies hna5 er quarterly • AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 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 month ended September 30, 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 September 30, 2004. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of September 30, 2004 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report 5 • Riverside County Transportatio Commission Interfund Loan Acti vit ort • For period ended September 30, 2004 Amount Maturity Date C ommissioned Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund Purpose of Loan Approved April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) Advance to make repairs and March 12, 2003 improvements to Railroad Canyon Road March 4, 2004 Total 275,000 $ 575,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 December 10, 2003 Assistance (226) Widening/Animal Crossing Project V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\11 Nov ember\Budget & Imp!\Cisneros - Interfund Loan Rpt • AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2004 is $462,500. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2004. 7 • CONSULTANT SINGLE SIGNE AUTHORITY AS OF SEPT ER 30, 2004 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2004 David Taussig and Associates AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH September 30, 2004 Michele Cisneros Theresia Trevino Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter . ORIGINAL RE MAINING CONTRACT CONTRACT AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT AMOUNT $500,000 .00 37,500 .00 $462,500 .00 7,500.00 30,000.00 7,500 .00 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\11 November\Budget & Impl\Cisneros - Single Signature Rpt • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 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 the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update: California Performance Review Governor Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review (CPR) held its eighth and last public hearing on October 20 at the University of California, Irvine. The purpose of the Irvine hearing was to review public comment on the entire plan. The deadline for writing this staff report landed prior to October 20, so Commission staff will provide an oral report to the Budget and Implementation Committee. In the case of transportation issues, the most promising recommendation in the report is a call for more flexible project delivery methods. This would include design -build and design -sequencing efforts that could speed the delivery of construction projects. So far the Legislature and the Governor have approved a pilot program for design sequencing which is being utilized on the current construction project at the 60/91/215 interchange. The CPR also includes recommendations regarding performance and warranty specifications and construction costs that should be helpful. These recommendations will require legislative action and staff will return to the Commission when specific legislative proposals are introduced. Other beneficial areas of the CPR include support for upholding Proposition 42, a call for California to receive a greater share of federal transportation funding, 9 support for environmental streamlining and comprehensive planning, and the ongoing development of alternative, cleaner -burning fuels. These are all long -held positions by RCTC; however the jump between including it in the CPR and accomplishing some of the goals will be a challenge. For example, almost everyone in California agrees that the state should receive a greater share of federal funding, but that lies in the hands of Congress which has yet to pass a long-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. Upholding the provisions of Proposition 42 would maintain the will of the state's voters who approved the Measure in 2002; however what other choices will the state have if it is faced with yet another multi- billion dollar budget shortfall? Finally, there are a number of suggested improvements in the CPR that raise concerns and Commission staff will pay close attention to any legislative action that might take place next year. For example, one provision in the report suggests that a number of state highways could be turned over to local jurisdictions. This was based on a Caltrans report that was issued in 1995 that called for the relinquishment of 3,262 miles of state highway. The CPR suggests that this would save the state $ 108 million annually from reduced costs. During the CPR Public Hearing held in Riverside on August 13, Senator Jim Brulte (R -Rancho Cucamonga) expressed a concern that it was inappropriate for the state to claim a savings on any recommendation that merely passed on a responsibility to another level of government. He asked for a full accounting for provisions of this type and relinquishing state highways to local governments certainly fits that description. If this proposal is to be implemented, it will likely result in a contentious legislative fight which impacts areas throughout the state. Another controversial facet of the CPR is the recommendation to create an infrastructure agency that would be overseen by a commission appointed by the Governor. This would meld a number of agencies including Caltrans into a much larger structure with a vast scope of responsibilities. The intent of the proposal would be to look at the state's infrastructure needs in a comprehensive approach that would consider the state's housing, transportation and water needs. While it is certainly true that these subjects are not always coordinated, does combining the issues make it too unwieldy for a state commission to deal with all of it? Moreover, could a commission appointed entirely by the Governor be ready to consider all of the issues in an informed manner and would it be advisable to concentrate this much power with any governor? Implementation of this idea will likely require legislative and voter approval and might be years in the making. Staff's conclusion is that the California Performance Review exercise will result in a number of worthwhile improvements and changes to state government in a number of areas. However, the issuance of the report in August of this year should be considered the start of the process rather than a defining statement of what will • 10 • • • happen. Some press accounts have suggested that a number of recommendations in the CPR are likely to be shelved or scaled back. Some of the CPR Commissioners including Assembly Patricia Bates (R -Laguna Niguel) have called for additional public comment before action is taken. Actual implementation of the recommendations in the report will depend on the subject matter. Some recommendations will require legislation or even voter approval if it involves a constitutional change while simpler recommendations can be implemented by gubernatorial action. Legislative actions and public reaction will either hasten or hinder the implementation of provision in the CPR. Staff will provide ongoing updates and requests for Commission positions as the process unwinds next year and beyond. Bay Bridge Bid Expires On another state subject that is of interest to everyone is the issue of the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge seismic retrofit project. The issue was one of the most contentious items debated by the Legislature during the final hours of their session and was unresolved. It became an issue of statewide importance because a construction bid $2.5 billion more than originally anticipated would have placed statewide transportation resources in even more jeopardy than they already are. Moreover, long -held state policies of an equitable north -south split in transportation funding would be made a moot point. At first, the Governor reacted by stating that the bridge was a Bay Area problem and costs should be borne by local residents through higher tolls. Northern California legislators countered that claim by arguing that the bridge was of statewide importance and deserving of statewide funding. The state has now responded by rejecting the only bid that was submitted for the project. The next step is in the state's hands and could involve re -bidding the project or choosing a simpler design that could prove to be less costly. The problem is that a new design could delay environmental review of the project which could eat into any potential savings. Sunne McPeak, the state's Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing has promised a recommendation by the end of this year. Federal Update Federal Reauthorization Delayed Yet Again Congress has yet again decided to approve a short-term extension of the Federal Transportation Act. This time, the action is a six-month extension which effectively punts the bill to the next Congress. While some members have vowed to bring up the bill again before the end of this session, action is highly unlikely. 11 Grade Crossing Funding & Priorities When action is finally taken in the future to pass a federal reauthorization bill, one item of interest to Riverside County and to all of Southern California will be the issue of goods movement. Most specifically the need for federal funding of railroad grade separations is especially acute in a number of communities within the county. Recently, a number of Congressional leaders including all of Riverside County's congressional delegation signed on to a letter to Chairman Don Young of the 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. Without a reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, funding for grade separations will remain uncertain and will once again be an important Commission priority next year. During the September meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee, a number of members sought additional information regarding the Commission's grade separation priority list. The current priority list, which is attached, was approved by the Commission in March 2001. The criteria used to develop the list was based on the following seven factors: Existing Vehicle Delay Future Vehicle Delay (2020) Accident Reduction (Safety) Distance from other grade separations Local ranking Emission reduction Noise reduction (impact on nearby residential areas) Since the list was first approved, one grade separation has been completed in Coachella at Avenue 50 and the Union Pacific Line. It is certainly advisable that the Commission continue to update its priority list and make changes when circumstances require such a re-evaluation. The 2001 effort required a significant level of data collection and work with local jurisdictions on a countywide basis. Ethanol Taxation Fix Approved There is good news, however on the issue of ethanol. Congress recently passed a corporate tax reform bill known as the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. As is usually the case with federal legislation, various amendments for special interest groups can often overwhelm this kind of bill. As one news article stated, "...The • 12 • • • final 633 -page product pared taxes for interests ranging from major manufacturers to native Alaskan whalers and ethanol producers. Other winners included fishing tackle box makers, NASCAR track owners, Chinese ceiling fan importers, and foreigners placing winning bets at U.S. horse and dog racing tracks. .." Of interest to California and other states that are required to blend their gasoline with ethanol, was a provision that will no longer divert money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for ethanol production. Under the new law, ethanol production will still be subsidized but 5.2 cents per gallon in federal gas taxes will no longer be siphoned away to pay for the subsidy. What it means for California is that as much as $2.7 billion in federal transportation dollars over the next five years will continue to flow to the state. Attachment: RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List — March 2001 13 • • • ........ M‘. I 1 aue a.urnuur uraue crossing separation Need List, March 2001 Rail Line Cross Street Jurisdiction Overall Weighted Score* Priority Group BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4260 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Iowa Av Riverside 3880 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd Indio/Coachella 3775 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3600 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside County 3600 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 50 Coachella 3500 1 (Completed 1/04) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 3440 1 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 3000 1"* BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St Riverside 3180 1 UP (LA SUB) Magnolia Av Riverside 3100 1 UP (LA SUB) Riverside Av Riverside 3060 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3320 2** BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av Riverside 2940 2 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2820 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2750 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 2738 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av Banning 2675 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Rd Riverside County 2650 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2520 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 2500 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 2500 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Kansas Av Riverside 2480 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler St Riverside 2460 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 2240 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2225 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 2200 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Av Corona 2113 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 2000 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 1975 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1950 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 1885 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 1880 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1850 3 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1820 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1755 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 1750 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 1740 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 1713 4 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Av Riverside County 1700 4 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 1700 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 1667 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 1625 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Road Riverside County 1450 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1350 4 ** = Per RCTC March 2001 * Seven factors were considered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were identified in consultation with technical staff of the affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The factors include: • Safety — Accident Score (combination of frequency & severity) 20% of total score • Delay — Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Delay — 2020 Daily Vehicle Delay 20% of total score • Emissions Reduction 10% of total score • Noise Reduction 10% of total score • Adjacent Grade Separations; and 10% of total score • Local Priority Ranking 10% of total score • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Program Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for services related to the New Start Application for the Perris Valley Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 05-33-519 (Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. RO-2128) to STV Incorporated for additional scope of work related to the final environmental assessment, rerun of SCAG's transit model, update of the New Start application, and BNSF coordination for the Perris Valley Line Project for an additional base amount of $548,430; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Allocate an additional $500,000 of STA Funds and increase the FY04/05 Rail Capital Budget to accommodate the allocation; 4) Amend the FY04/05 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Contract No. RO-2128 with STV Incorporated (STV). The scope of work for this contract was to perform preliminary engineering that would result in improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line for a new commuter connection between Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris. Over the past three years, the Commission has approved a total of 8 amendments to the STV agreement to provide notices to proceed with various stages of project development. All elements of work will ultimately lead to the completion and 15 submittal of the New Start application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The New Start application is required in order to obtain authorization to proceed with preliminary engineering by the spring of 2005 from the FTA. Below is a summary table showing the authorized amounts and descriptions for each amendment approved by the Commission: Date Authorized Description Authorized Amount 1/10/01 Original Agreement - Preliminary Engineering $166,187 2/14/01 Amend. #1 - Additional Aerial Photography and Mapping $40,636 4/11/01 Amend. #2 - Alternative Analysis for use of UPRR RIL $104,170 6/25/01 Amend. #3 - Additional Studies for Completion of New Starts Appl. $157,730 9/10/01 Amend. #4 - Studies for the Evaluation of Highgrove Connections $76,536 11/14/01 Amend. #5 - Add. Env. Investigations from Riverside to Romoland $254,320 1/31/02 Amend. #6 - Extended Term of Agreement N/A 7/30/02 Amend. #7 - Additional Engineering Design Studies $33,394 9/9/03 Amend. #8 - New SCAG Travel Demand Model/New Start Appl. $314,616 11/9/04 New - Final EA, SCAG's Model Update and New Start Application $548,430 TOTAL Proposed Contract Value $1,696,019 Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 9 to incorporate additional studies for the final environmental assessment, revise and rerun of a new SCAG travel demand model, update the New Start application, and continue coordination with the BNSF for an additional base amount of $548,430. Of this amount, $48,430 was included in an amendment to the Commuter Rail's Short Range Transit Plan approved by the Commission on October 13, 2004. Accordingly, a budget adjustment of $500,000 is required to increase State Transit Assistance revenues and expenditures for the Commuter Rail Capital Program. The proposed Amendment No. 9 will bring the total authorized contract value to $1,696,019 with $68,719 remaining in contingency for a total not to exceed contract value of $1,764,738. Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 04/05 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: State Transit Assistance Funds Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 221-33-81101 P-3800-19 Fiscal Procedures Approved: • Date: 10/25/04 Attachment: STV's Description of Scope of Work and Cost Breakdown for Amendment No. 9. • • s 16 • �i STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 October 15, 2004 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: RCTC Perris Valley Line - STV Job No.: 06-10533 Out -of -Scope Extra Work Through September 30, 2004 and New Work Through May 31, 2005 for Completion of Final Environmental Assessment, Oversight of SCAG's Model Update and Resulting Revised PE New Start Application. Dear Mr. Quintero: Attached you will find a request for out -of -scope extra work and a request for new work for the Perris Valley Line Study. The explanation for requesting the out-of-scope/new work is provided below. Out -of -Scope Extra Work Please find attached an estimate of cost for extra work in the amount of $37,548.27 for performing Out -of -Scope Extra Work under our ceiling budget of $1,147,589.00. The request and justification for out -of -scope extra work is as follows: ■ Task 1 - Project Management — Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of January 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004 due to the extension of the project beyond the previous end date of December 31, 2003. This task also includes project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly (or bi-monthly) project review meeting held in person or via conference call. ■ Task 7 - BNSF Coordination and Analysis — STV attended and documented meetings, reviewed and edited scopes of work, reviewed operating agreement and assisted RCTC with responses to BNSF for the Alessandro siding (storage track) requested by the BNSF. E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 17 STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Subcontractor Services — Jones & Stokes Public Meeting Noise Impact Assistance — ATS Consulting was brought in under Jones & Stokes in an effort to assist with the four open houses for the draft EA, particularly for answering questions related to noise and vibration impacts and mitigations. This was requested by RCTC and necessary given the high level of noise impacts associated with the LPA throughout the corridor. - Project Management & Miscellaneous (Jones & Stokes) — Due to the extension of the study from December 31, 2003 through September 2004, Jones and Stokes attended additional Project Review Meetings and LPA specific meetings with the Ad -Hoc committee and RCTC Board. Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate by task and person for STV (Exhibit 1) with subcontractor expenses for Jones & Stokes for the items above. New Work for Final EA, SCAG Model Update, Additional BNSF Coordination & Analysis, and an Updated PE New Start Application As agreed to since our last conference call with FTA and our last EA review session, several tasks and deliverables will be undertaken to fix the SCAG model, produce a revised FTA New Starts submittal and supplement the EA in several critical impact/mitigation areas with additional, more detailed analyses. Please find attached an estimate in the amount of $510,880.51 for performing new work above our previous ceiling budget of $1,147,589.00. This request is necessary for two reasons: 1. FTA's recent decision that the SCAG model is fatally flawed, producing unreasonable ridership results and related outputs that cannot be accepted as a basis for moving into Preliminary Engineering. 2. The study team's decision to allow the Draft EA to remain open while more detailed analysis is completed in response to specific comments from the public, regional stakeholders and resource agencies. The following tasks have been identified as new work items necessary to complete the overall tasks identified above: • Task 1 - Project Management — Project Management includes those activities associated with administrative and managerial tasks from the period of October 1, 2004 thru May 31, 2005. This task will include: E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s 1 P t a n n s r s/ c o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • 18 • • • �i STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Project management to guide the revision of tasks and completion of final deliverables for the Final EA (including required public meetings), New Start PE Application (including coordination and meetings with FTA in Washington D.C. and SCAG in Los Angeles) and BNSF coordination. - Project manager time for the preparation and conduct of the monthly project review meeting held in person or via conference call when appropriate. - Preparation and delivery of presentations to the Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board of Commissioners • Task 2 - Ridership Coordination / New Starts Update — Coordination and management efforts by STV associated with the revision of the travel demand model conducted by PB Consult and SCAG for the TSM and Perris Valley Line alternatives, and the subsequent update / preparation of New Starts submittals to FTA. STV will: - Coordinate and manage ridership activities including a schedule and reporting mechanism (weekly status call) to ensure adequate progress by sub -consultant and appropriate support from SCAG. Review intermediate results of the model update and provide assistance in model validation based on previous analysis of regional travel patterns. - Direct the rerunning of the TSM and LPA by working with travel demand consultant to re -define the alternatives and make subsequent adjustments necessary to optimize the operation of the project for achieving the proper level of cost effectiveness (Transit System User Benefit). - Update, parking demand, train consist requirements and fare revenue estimates based on new ridership results for both the TSM and LPA. Update capital and operating costs for both the TSM and LPA based on changes in ridership estimates, vehicle requirements and design changes (e.g. park and ride capacities.) Update New Start Quantitative templates for travel time savings, air quality/energy, cost effectiveness (including annualized capital costs), system efficiency and new costs per new riders - Update New Start Financial Volume (impacts due to different operating and/or capital costs) and Land Use Volume (if needed) including all related templates. - Assemble SUMMIT package including user benefit maps and detailed data tables for FTA review/analysis. - Prepare updated travel demand PowerPoint presentation to present final ridership results and communicate merits of project to FTA in Washington D.C. • Task 3 - BNSF Coordination — STV will support RCTC in communications and negotiations with BNSF Railroad. This effort can include: — Track alignment issues such as locations, spacing, curvature and impacts on future passenger operations. E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 19 STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Storage facility areas for both passenger and freight operations. Operational capacity issues and integration between passenger and freight movements. — Maintenance of way issues. Discussions and review of issues related to existing operating agreements Attendance at meetings including the development of agendas, minutes and other materials to illustrate and complement RCTC's position at all meetings. • Task 4 - Noise Mitigation Design — At the request of RCTC, STV staff, based on recommendations by the noise consultant (see Subcontractor description below), will prepare sample designs of specific noise mitigations for three selected sites. The sample designs will be useful in understanding and communicating physical noise mitigation measures in the context of local situations along the Perris Valley line, and will be incorporated into the public meeting materials discussed below. ■ Task 5 - Public Involvement & Agency Coordination (Round 4) — STV staff in coordination with Jones & Stokes will prepare necessary presentation materials for three open house public meetings to present the results of the Final EA. Additionally, the STV team will present to the Ad -Hoc Committee and RCTC Board of Commissioners as appropriate. This effort will include: Development of presentation materials for three open house meetings, Stakeholder Committee, Ad -Hoc Committee and the RCTC Board as appropriate. Presentations to stakeholders as needed throughout the study period ▪ Task 6 - General Engineering/Planning Tasks — At the request of RCTC, this general category includes additional engineering, planning and environmental analysis that are not directly related to the specific tasks identified above. The assignment of these efforts will be at the direction of RCTC. This effort may include: Analysis of street closures at specified locations. Analysis of general property issues along the SJBL right-of-way Advanced engineering tasks such as schematics, mapping, facility footprints, station definition, etc. Additional targeted outreach meetings to gain consensus for the project. Other requests as directed by RCTC that are related to the Perris Valley Line and the eventual implementation of commuter rail in the corridor. E n g i n e e r s 1 A r c h i t e c t s! P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • 20 • STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832-3599 Subcontractor Services Environmental Assessment (Jones & Stokes) — The following issues that were identified in comments on the Draft EA need additional technical analysis in order to thoroughly develop responses to comments and for concurrent incorporation into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. This effort will include: Air Quality (respond to EPA comment) - Develop response to CO impacts, new regional AQ regulations, SCAQMD future implementation date, quarterly construction schedule methodology, applicability/effectiveness of EPA's suggested mitigation measures. - Biology (respond to EPA comment) - Clarify consistency with MSHCP, clarify potential indirect impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, clarify potential runoff impacts, address use of native species vis-a-vis Executive Order 13112. - Water Resources - Clarify discharge of fill materials and effects under S. 404, provide summary of jurisdictional waters, clarify jurisdictional determinations. - Detailed noise and vibration impact assessment per FTA guidance sufficient to respond to EA comments. The tasks are as follows. ➢ Project Review and Coordination: Review project materials and coordinate with project team regarding schedule and outstanding issues. ➢ Noise Measurements: Take long-term (24 hour) noise measurements at a minimum of 5 locations. The exact locations depend on commitments made during the public outreach process. ➢ Vibration Measurements: Measure existing levels of freight train vibration at five locations, including three in Riverside (two residences, a mobile home park, and a school) and one representative location in Perris Valley. ➢ Data Analysis: Based on the measurement data, develop projections of future noise and vibration levels resulting from the proposed project and identify areas of potential impact. ➢ Mitigation Measures: Develop preliminary recommendations for noise and vibration mitigation. Our recommendations may include those measures outlined in the Draft EA, such as sound walls, wayside horns, closing grade crossings, residential sound insulation, ballast mats, etc. The approximate location and dimensions of the mitigation will be provided, along with the expected reduction in noise and vibration achieved by the mitigation. ➢ Reporting: Prepare a comprehensive technical report summarizing our methods/procedures, findings, and recommendations. ➢ Public Meeting: Attend three public meetings regarding the Final EA. i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P t a n n e r s 1 C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 21 �i STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax:(215)832.3599 Travel Demand Modeling (PB Consult, Inc.) — To appropriately address FTA's concerns with regard to the SCAG travel demand model, a collective decision has been made by STV and RCTC staff to employ PB Consult to take over the primary control of the travel demand activities from SCAG for the project. PB Consult staff have successfully performed similar work for OCTA and bring the benefits of in depth knowledge of the SCAG region and model, and a close working relationship with FTA. The following tasks will be performed by PB Consult, with assistance from SCAG, where needed: - Network Evaluation & Comparison— The current model transit times, access coding, and pathbuilding parameters will be evaluated. On -board rider surveys will be assigned and evaluated. Path and skim matrix creation scripts will be developed, and the baseline and build transit networks will be updated. The results will be analyzed and differences compared to the existing model. Calibration Target Value Development— Target value estimates for calibration will be obtained from LACMTA. These will be modified, as appropriate, and observed data frequency distributions will be prepared. - Trip Distribution Pattern Analysis/Evaluation — With assistance from SCAG, observed trip distribution data will be compiled from the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). This data will be compared to Year 2000 model HBW trip distribution matrix. Revisions and adjustments will be recommended and implemented, as appropriate. Mode Choice Model Specification & Calibration — The mode choice nesting structure and purpose -specific coefficients will be defined. A mechanism for station capacity restraint will be designed, and the mode choice application program will be developed. The alternative specific constants will be calibrated and key parameters and frequency distributions evaluated. Mode Choice Model Validation — using the new mode choice application, the Year 2000 transit trip matrices will be assigned and the resulting estimated boardings compared to observed data by mode and route type. Particular focus will be applied to Metrolink boardings at the Route level. Adjustments, as needed, will be identified and the mode choice model re -calibrated. Optimize Build Alternative Performance — Revised baseline and build alternatives will be modeled for the forecast years. A range of forecasts will be prepared by varying the alternative specific constants. A user benefit analysis will investigate causes of negative and capped user benefits and the alternatives will be re -run as needed to optimize the project performance. E n g€ n e e r s t A r c h+ t e c t S! P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i P n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 • 22 • • STV Incorporated 1818 Market Street, Suite 1410 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215)832-3500 fax FTA Coordination — PB Consult will coordinate closely with FTA staff at each step of the travel demand process. FTA input and buy -in will be obtained during model specification, after calibration and validation, on the definition of the alternatives, and once forecasting results and user benefit data has been obtained. Attached you will find a labor and direct expense cost estimate for new work by task and person (Exhibit 2) with subcontractor expenses for Jones & Stokes and PB Consult. If you have any questions or comments related to the extra work items above or the attached cost estimate, please call me at 215-832-3525 or 267-254-7111 (Cell). Thank you. Sincerely, ?„4„,,?/2,747144. Richard M. Amodei Vice President Attachments: Cost Estimate Worksheets (Exhibits 1 and 2) File: RCTC San Jacinto Branchline Cc: Bill Matts (s-rv) Belia Cardenas (STV) Margarita Gagliardi (STV) E n g i n e e r s/ A r c h i t e c t s/ P l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c 1 i o n Managers an employee -owned company providing quality service since 1912 23 Exhibit 1 Out of Scope Extra Work for PVL NS Submittal and BNSF Coordination Through September Labor and Direct Expenses 30, 2004 TASK DESCRIPTION Amodei (Proj Director) Mohr (Prof. Mgr.) Semmler (Eng/Plan) Trembath (Eng/Plan) Furgerson (Planner) Craft Engineer Bell Engineer TOTAL HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management - 1/1/04 thru 9/30/04 72 72 2 Subtotal Hours 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 Task 7 BNSF Coordination Storage tracks (including meetings) 7 67 21 95 0 Hours 0 7 0 0 0 67 21 95 Subtotal TOTAL HOURS 72 7 0 0 0 67 21 167 HOURLY RATE $65.65 $65.75 $35.24 $24.78 $26.14 $59.20 $79.34 DIRECT LABOR $4,726.80 $460.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,966.40 $1,666.14 $10,819.59 OVERHEAC @ 119% $12,875.31 TOTAL LABOR COST $23,694.90 Travel & Other Costs Semmler 2 trips @ $800 Other Costs Miscellaneous Subcontractor Jones & Stokes ATS Noise Assistance Additional Project Management Meetings $1,600.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $11,196.00 FEE ON SUBS 3% PROFIT @ 10% 287.80 $ $ $287.88 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $37,548.27 e 24 • • Exhibit 2 ' New Work for San Jacinto Branchline Project Completion Through March 31, 2005 Labor and Direct Expenses TASK DESCRIPTION Amodei (Proj Princ.) Clarke is. Advisor) Mohr (Proj. Mgr.) Semmler (Eng/Plan) Trembath (Eng/Plan) Furgerson (Planner) Craft Engineer TOTAL HRS Task 1 Project Management Project Management - 1/1/04 thru 3/1/05 48 48 0 Subtotal Hours 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Task 2 Riderhship Coordination/NS Update Model Update Management/Coord Rerun 8 40 48 Alts using New Model: Review Assist in Optimizing 18 18 Alternatives Update 40 40 revenue, costs, cost effectiveness Update 8 24 24 56 remaining NS templates Update New 8 16 16 40 Starts Volumes Assemble 8 8 16 32 SUMMIT Package Prepare 16 8 24 updated FTA Presentation 8 40 8 16 72 Subtotal Hours 40 0 0 202 16 72 0 330 Task 3 BNSF Coordination Right of Way Analyses Track Alignment 48 24 72 Issues Siding / Service 24 40 64 Tracks 48 40 88 0 Subtotal Hours 0 0 120 0 0 0 104 224 Task 4 Noise Mitigation Design Design sample mitigation at 3 selected sites Prepare 8 24 24 24 80 official noise mitigation response 4 8 8 24 44 0 Subtotal Hours 4 8 32 32 0 0 48 124 Task 5 Public Involvement & Agency Coordination Prepare Materials for Open House Meetings Attend 4 8 40 40 92 and conduct 3 Open House Meetings Presentation 16 16 32 to RCTC Board and Ad -Hoc Committee 8 8 16 0 Subtotal Hours 28 0 0 32 40 40 0 140 Task 6 General Engineering/Planning Tasks Street Closures Highway/Bridge 16 16 16 48 Issues Massachusetts 40 40 80 Avenue Advanced 24 24 16 64 Engineering/Planning Additional Targeted 24 40 40 40 144 Outreach Other Requests 16 16 as Per RCTC 8 16 16 40 80 Subtotal Hours 24 48 136 88 0 0 136 432 TOTAL HOURS 144 56 288 354 56 112 288 1298 HOURLY RATE $65.65 $93.84 565.75 $36.24 524.78 $27.06 $59.20 DIRECT LABOR $9,453.60 55,255.04 $18,936.00 512,828.96 $1,387.68 $3,030.72 $17,049.60 $67,941.60 OVERHEAD © 119% $80,850.50 TOTAL LABOR COST $148,792.10 Travel & Other Costs Amodei 5 trips @ $800 Semmler 3 trips @ $800 $4,000.00 Other Costs 52,400.00 Miscellaneous (e.g. Fedex, Board Mounting, etc) $250.00 Subcontractor Jones & Stokes (ATS as specialty consultant) Detailed noise mitigation analysis Biology Water $65,000.00 and Resource analysis Air Quality $15,000.00 (EPA follow-up) Project Management $10,000.00 and Meetings $10,000.00 PB Consult, Inc. (with AECOM as specialty consultant) Travel demand model development, alternative modeling, analysis, optimization, and FTA Coordination $230,640.00 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $337,290.00 FEE ON SUBS 3% PROFIT @ 10% 59,919.20 $14,879.21 TOTAL COST FOR EXTRA WORK $510,880.51 25 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. 24-006 for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 1 1 1 Improvements within the City of La Quinta STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M24-006 for the funding reimbursement of State Highway Improvements within the City of La Quinta, 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 1988 Measure "A" Program includes a state highway element that provides 15% of the Coachella Valley area's Measure "A" funds to project improvements on Routes 86 and 1 1 1 . At the July 2001 meeting the Commission approved funding for Routes 86 & 1 1 1 projects, as recommended by CVAG totaling $15.42 million for funding. Subsequently, the Measure "A" revenue forecast was updated by Ernst & Young to support the development of the Measure A extension programs. The updated revenue forecast projected a reduced revenue expectation between FY 2004 and FY 2009 resulting in a need to realign the program of Routes 86 & 1 1 1 projects with the new revenue forecast. The new revenue forecast for the period is $12.0 million, a difference of $3.42 million in comparison to previously approved project costs. Through meetings with CVAG staff, the CVAG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee and RCTC staff, project scope and cost estimates were refined reducing the projected costs for Tier II projects to $13.8 million. 26 Given the FY 2004-2009 revenue projection of $12.0 million a shortfall of $1.8 million dollars is forecast. CVAG has committed to cover this shortfall in FY 2008-09 if necessary. The CVAG Executive Committee approved this commitment at their March 2003 meeting. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the fourth (4) of nine projects programmed for funding under the Measure "A" Tier II State Routes 86 & 1 1 1 program is being submitted for funding authorization by the City of La Quinta — Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This MOU is consistent with the Coachella Valley Measure "A" state highway program of projects and cash flow which was approved by the Commission at the July 9, 2003 meeting. (Attached) Staff recommends approval of the Memorandum of Understanding for the City of La Quinta, consistent with the approved list of Tier II Highways 86 & 111 project improvements. Attachments: Memorandum of Understanding for City of La Quinta Coachella Valley Area Highway Revenues • 27 Agreement No. M-24-006 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. • • 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of La Quinta. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. AJIM681474.1 1 28 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street, within the City of La Quinta (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Million Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five Dollars ($1,860,635.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State right-of-way. Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This costlfunding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.2.1 Increased Funding. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Funding Amount will not exceed $1.,860,635.00 for any reason, including but not limited to cost increases or delays, unless (i) additional Measure A funds become available for projects within the Coachella Valley; (ii) the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") directs RCTC to disburse a portion of the additional available funding to reimburse the City for increased Project costs; and (iii) the proposed increase is approved in writing by RCTC's Executive Director. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Teiiu/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. AJM\681474.1 2 • • 29 • • 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Tom P. Genovese, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. AJM\681474.1 3 30 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys ❑ fees, incurred by the City, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. RCTC's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the City or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. AJM\681474.1 4 • 31 • • • 3.13 Insurance. The City shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associatedwith right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and AJM\681474.1 5 32 agreed that these costs may include costs already incurred by the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) City Project coordination costs; (2) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (3) any City fees attributed to the processing of the Project; and (4) expenses for items of work not included within the Project services and improvements in Exhibits "A" and "D". 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. With the exception of funding increases authorized pursuant to Section 3.2.1, the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage will not be determined in a manner that results in an increase in the Funding Amount. 3.14.4 Payment. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by June 30, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through June 30, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after June 30, 2009. Notwithstanding any increase in the Total Project Cost over the initial estimated Project cost, RCTC's funding obligation will not exceed the amount set forth in Section 3.2, unless a funding increase has been authorized pursuant to Section 3.2.1. 3.14.6 {reserved] 3.14.7 Progress Reports. RCTC may request the City to inform RCTC of delays in ,the Project and provide RCTC with progress reports. AJM\681474.1 6 • • • 33 • • • Agreement. AJM\681474.1 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this 7 34 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 ATTN: City Manager RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S, mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement; or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all AJM\681474.1 8 • • • 35 • wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Roy Wilson, Chairman Don Adolph, Mayor APPROVED • • AJM\681474.1 to the Riverside County Transportation fission 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Katherine Jenson, City Attorney 36 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The proposed improvements will widen Highway 111 to its ultimate General Plan Configuration, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This segment of Highway 111 is partially complete to six lanes with raised curb median. The unimproved area represents approximately 3,890 linear feet. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' sidewalk, 4 handicap ramps, intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and potentially the acquisition of 15 feet of right of way. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibit "D". AJM\681474.1 A-1 37 • • • EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project or in accordance with the phased reimbursement schedule approved by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"). CVAG's phased reimbursement schedule allocates $200,000 during Fiscal Year 2004/2005, $96,101 during Fiscal Year 2005/2006, $400,000 during Fiscal Year 2006/2007, $500,000 during Fiscal Year 2007/2008, and $664,534 during Fiscal Year 2008/2009 for eligible project components. Notwithstanding this reimbursement schedule, RCTC shall not be obligated to provide reimbursement to City in an amount that exceeds the Total Project Cost. Arrive at an appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with the City of La Quinta prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at an appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. AJM\681474.1 B-1 38 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project, and for which the expenditures by the City are considered part of the Total Project Cost pursuant to Section 3.14.1. Those improvements might include, but are not limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn; If the parties disagree on a right-of-way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. AJM\681474.1 C-1 39 • • EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements will widen Highway 111 to its ultimate General Plan Configuration, from Adams Street to Jefferson Street. This segment of Highway 111 is partially complete to six lanes with raised curb median. The unimproved area represents approximately 3,890 linear feet. Improvements include the installation of one 12' travel lane, 8' shoulder, curb and gutter, 8' sidewalk, 4 handicap ramps, intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and the potentially the acquisition of 15 feet of right of way. The following project budget is anticipated: AJM\681474.1 Project Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $834,000.00 Engineering: $83,400.00. Construction Management: $83,400.00 Construction Engineering (Inspection/Testing/Survey): $64,635.00. Right -of -Way: $583,500.00 Sub -Total: $1,648,935.00 Contingency: $211,700.00 Total Estimated Cost and Maximum Reimbursement Amount: $1,860,635.00 D-1 40 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION / 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS PROJECTS PROGRAMMED TO RECEIVE 15% STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS SCHEDULE FOR RCTC PAYBACK BY FISCAL YEAR 02/03 - 08/09 Available Funds per RCTC Plan Lead Pr oject Revised Description Agency Cost Cost State Route 111 Projects 1- West Cathedral Ca nyo n Channel Bridge CC 1,584,000 1,584,000 2- Je fferson St. to Madison St. IND 3,200,000 3,200,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. LQ 291507 311,644 4- Adams St. to Je fferson St. LQ 2,433,995 1,860,635 5- West City Limits to Washington St. LQ 244,616 321,255 6- M agnesia Falls to Fairway "" RM 6,500,000 6,100,000 7- Intersection Improvements @ Lincoln/4th COR 800,000 80,000 8- Left turnlane @ Pierce COR 100,000 100,000 State Route 86 Proiects 9- Traffic Signal © 66th Ave. CO R 271,000 271,000 Total Authorized 15,425,118 13,828,534 • EX HIBIT A. FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 '"` TOTAL 0 I 1,600,000 1 1,800,000 1 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 12,000,000 0 100,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 484,000 1,584,000 0 0 300,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 1,900,000 3,200,000 0 200,000 111,644 0 0 0 0 311,644 0 100,000 100,000 96,101 400,000 500,000 664,534 1,860,635 0 0 100,000 121,255 100,000 321,255 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 6,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 88,356 82,644 0 0 0 271,000 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 4,228,534 13,828,534 ** FY08/09 shortfall fro m RCTC funds of $1,828,534 will be c overed by CVAG TUMF/ Measure"A" funds, if necessary *** CVAG will advance the City of Rancho Mirage project co st ($6,100,000) in accordance with Available Funds per RCTC Plan, from TU MF/ Mea sure "A" funds . RCTC will r eimburse CVAG according to the RCTC Payback by Fiscal Year 02/03-08/09 for the City of Rancho Mirage, shown in the table above 1- West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge: This project is scheduled to start Design in Feb, Mar of 2003 (4-6 months) including Environmental, then 2 months advertising followed by 6-8 months construction 2- Jefferson St to Madison St. This project is scheduled to start Constructio n in January 2004. Construction will be completed in 90 days. The cost for Design is $300,000 and constructi on is $2,900,000 3- Simon Dr, to Adams St. 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St. The above two La Quinta Projects will be in design once the City finalizes an agre ement with RCTC to secure the reimbursement . St art design in M arch, April 2003 for 6-8 months, followed by constru ction for 10-12 months 5- West City Limits to Washington St. Project will start once funding is available. 6- Magnesia Fa lls to Fairway - Project completed 7- Intersection Improvements @ Lincoln/4th County of Riverside withdrew this project County of Riv erside did some Design, Env. & Survey work which cost $80,000. This project needs more money , $1. 6M illion. If there are no funds, county will drop this project, otherwise they like to proceed with this project. 8- Left turnlane @ Pierce 9- Tra ffic Signal @ 66th Ave. The above two County proje cts are waiting for the money to be available so they can start working on them. • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Development Policy SUBJECT: Project Status Report of Federal and State Funded Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Project Status Report of Federal and State Funded Projects, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission is responsible for allocating state and federal funds for transportation improvement projects. Along with this responsibility comes ensuring fund obligations and expenditures occur prior to their respective expiration dates. Monitoring projects is a major work activity in our planning and programming department as we are required to report on AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" provisions and provide updates on state and federal projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The following provides a summary of our monitoring activities: AB 1012 Project Monitoring - Under the AB 1012 "Use It or Lose It" provision, fund balances that are three years old are subject to reprogramming by the California Transportation Commission. The fund programs included under AB 1012 are: 1) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ); 2) Surface Transportation Program (STP); and 3) Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA). RCTC must monitor three year old balances to ensure that these funds are obligated (Caltrans authorization to proceed with advertising) so that funds are not lost. The CTC allows only one 6 -month extension for the obligation of 3 -year old balances. To date, RCTC has not lost funds under AB 1012. 42 e FTIP Monitoring — AlI federal and state funded projects are included in the FTIP. The FTIP is updated approximately every two years; however, funding and project descriptions are constantly being amended to reflect changes occurring to projects during the development stages. In addition, once funds are obligated, the project funding is adjusted to show the obligation of funds, which indicates that the project is progressing. STIP Monitoring — Various deadlines are associated with STIP projects. Each phase must be closely monitored to ensure the allocation of STIP funds occur as programmed or if an amendment to the STIP is warranted. Once STIP funds are allocated, the clock begins on when the phase must be completed. For example, construction allocations have one year to award a contract. Although we have been monitoring the status of projects for many years, we thought it would be beneficial to provide the Commission a summary report of all the projects programmed with the following funds: • CMAQ • STP • TEA • DEMO • STIP (RIP) The attached "Project Status Report" reflects projects that the Commission previously approved for funding that await obligation of funds. This report includes information received from agencies in July 2004 and any additional information we may have received to date. RCTC staff has been sending out "project milestone reports" to each project sponsor three times during the fiscal year (July, November, and March). We plan on providing a summary report to the Commission twice a year. There are many projects being delayed for various reasons such as: 1) the state budget crisis; 2) environmental delays; and 3) unrealistic project schedules. During the Technical Advisory Committee meetings, we have emphasized the importance of local jurisdictions informing staff of any delays they are experiencing with projects so that we can assist in resolving these problems and work with Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to prepare project amendments to the STIP and FTIP, if needed. Attachment: Project Status — November 2004 43 • f or Unobligated CMAQ, Project Status Reports r;rtt DEMO, STPL, STIP, and TEA Funded Project s July 2004 Rep orting Cycle «�_ Project Fund Type Appr oved Amount (000s) Obligated or STIP All ocated Amount Pr ogramming Summary 1 2004/2005 Estimated Milestone Rep orts Obligation Dates as of: C omments Pr oject Phase Fiscal Year July 2004 N ovember 2004 March 2005 City of Banning Ramsey Road, Construct 4 - Lane Extension City of Blythe U.S 95/Intake Blvd widening .4, from 2 to 4 Lanes Install Signal STIP-RIP $ 50 STIP-RIP STIP-RIP Total: Lovekin Rehab/Reconst from So of 1-10 ramps to 14th St Hobson Way Rehab/ Channelization STIP-RIP $ 53 $ 928 $ 1,031 $ 54 Cons STIP-RIP $ 760 Design Cons Total: $ 814 03/04 I Dec -04[ 07/08 Project received federal earmark in FY 03/04 . New project in 2004 STIP . New project in 2004 STIP. TEA $ 202 Total: $ 202 Cons TE funds will be required to be amended in to the STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05 . City of Calimesa Calimesa Blvd Landscaping Improvements Caltrans On 1-10 at and Near Ramo n Rd IC: Construct Bob Ho pe IC, Extend Bob Dr - Ramon to Varner, & Modify Ramon Rd IC In Nov 03 scope and schedule were revis ed. TE funds will be required to be amended into the STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. $ 2,704 $ 1,024 $ 18,538 $ 850 $ 23,116 $ 2,704 $ 1,024 $ $ 3,728 Eng RAN Cons Cons 03/04 03/04 06/07 06/07 Jul -06 Jul -06 Project delays due to environmental clearance, design changes, and r/w mitigation funding increases. In June 2004, CVAG approved $11.7 million of TUMF and Meas A funds for additional right of way mitigation costs. Page 1 of 7 Programming I 2004/2005 Milest one Reports Project Fund Appr oved pp Am ount Obligated or STIP Summary Estimated Obligation Dates as of: Comments Type (000s) Allocated Project Fiscal July Novemb er March Amount Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 Caltrans - (co n't) On SR60 - Jct 1-15 to Valley Way IC: Add 1 HOV and 1 Mixed Flow Lane NH I $ 13,046 Total: $ 13,046 $ 13,046 $ 13,046 Cons 04/05 1 Aug -04 Allocation of STIP funds was requested at August 2004 CTC meeting; however, approval is pending. $25 million of CMAQ funds were allocated in August 2004. On SR71/SR 91: Conduct Wildlife Movement Study for Mitigation Commitment On SR91 at Green River IC: Reconstruct/Replace IC Including Overcross Widening from 3 to 6 Lanes and WB Ramps Widening DEM O $ 4,000 Eng ST -CASH $ 1,000 Total: $ 5,000 NH-STIP DEMO Eng $ $ 16,183 $ 53 Cons R/W DEMO $ 4,364 Cons TCRF $ 590 04/05 I Nov -04 04/05 Nov -04 Cons 06/07 Total: $ 21,190 STIP delay - construction moved from fy 05/06 to 07/08. In In May 2004, RCTC approved local funds to advance project to meet construction schedule in fy 05/06 . City of Cathedral City STPL $ 54 $ Cons 05/06 I Nov 05 Project is tied to other work in Ramon Corridor . TE projects will be required to be amended into the STIP reprogramming if not obligated by 5/01/05 . Ramon Road Corridor Improvements TEA $ 312 $ Cons 05/06 Nov 05 ; Total: $ 366 $ Widen Ramon Rd 2 to 6 Lanes - Date Palm to CL STIP-RIP $ 1,385 $ - Cons I 06/07 1 Jul -05 , '' Y.�=. R„ " STIP funds delay - may advance if funds are available. Total: $ 1,385 $ - Date Palm/White Water Bridge Restoration STPL $ 135 $ - Cons 05/06 1 Aug -05 :�: � "` Delay due to additional recommendations from Caltrans maintenance inspector . Total: $ 135 $ - City of Co achella Dillon Road 4 Lane Grade Separation STIP-RIP Total: $ 4,559 $ 4,559 Cons 1 08/09 1 Jun -06 $ Dillon Road Widening 2 to 4 Lanes - SR86 to 1-10 STIP-RIP Total: $ 2,117 $ 2,117 Cons I 07/08 1 Apr -05 STIP delay - project reprogrammed from 06/07 to 08/09. STIP delay - project reprogrammed from 06/07 to 07/08. PM10 Engineering PM10 PM 10 Program Cons L PM10 Morongo Ck Fences PM10 FTL Fences CMAQ $ 314 $ CMAQ $ 1,540 $ CMAQ $ 704 $ CMAQ $ 160 $ Total: $ 2,718 $ Eng Cons Cons Cons 04/05 04/05 04/05 04/05 Feb -05 Sep -05 Mar -05 Feb -05 Pierson Blvd Rehab and Minor Widening Lincoln Ave/Pomona Rd Channelization • • Obligated Pr ogramming 2004/2005 Milestone Reports Fund Approved or STIP Summary Estimated Obligation Dates Project Type Amount All ocated Pr oject Fiscal as of: C omments (000s) Amo unt Phase Year July No vember March 2004 2004 2005 STPL $ 671 Total: $ 671 Cons 04/05 Oct 041 . Jan 04 RCTC reprogrammed STIP funds with STPL funds. Magnolia Ave IC Ramp Improvements STPL Total: $ 6,418 $ 6,418 Cons 04/05 Oct -04 Jan 04 RCTC reprogrammed STIP funds with STPL funds . STIP-RIP $ 627 Total: $ 627 City of Hemet Construct Park -N -Ride at Harvard/Latham Av e cr 04/05 ' Nov 04 Environmental delays. CMAQ Total: $ 207 $ 207 Cons TC M project State St M ulti -Use Bicycle and Pedestrian Path TEA Total: $ 520 $ 520 Cons 04/05 ' Jun -05 Project is dependent on completion of another project. TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/05 . City of Indian Wells Rubberized Pavement Overlay/Rehab on Cook St. STPL Total: $ 84 84 - I Cons 04/05 I Jan -05 City of Indio Widen/Reconstruct Jefferson IC - 2 to 6 Lanes STIP-RIP Total $ 10,710 $ 10,710 - I Cons 07/08 ' Jun -07 1 STIP funds delayed due to State budget crisis. City of Moreno Valley Modify/Reconstruct Nason St IC and Nason St from Elder to Fir DEMO STPL $ 4,500 $ 2,200 Total: $ 6,700 Cons Cons 04/05 I Mar -06 06/07 Mar -06 Several environmental issues have delayed the project. Widen Perris Blvd 2 to 4 Lanes STIP-RIP Total: $ 3,184 $ 3,184 Cons 05/06 I Oct -05 Reche Vista Dr Realignment STIP-RIP $ 1,967 Total: $ 1,967 Cons 05/06 I Oct -06 Page 3 of 7 Programming 1 2004/2005 Milest one Reports Obligated Project Fund Approved Am ount or STIP Summary Estimated Obligation Dates as of: Comments Type (000s) Allocated Project Fiscal July November March Amount Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 Moreno Valley (con't) Rehab/Reconstruct Ironwood STPL I $ 1,111 Ave Total: $ 1,111 $ - Cons Aque duct Bike Trail TEA 688 Total: $ 688 05/06 1 Nov -05 $ - Cons A_ 04/05 I May -05[ TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/1/05. City of Murrie ta Widen Cal Oaks/Kalmia St IC 4 to 6 Lanes STIP-RIP STIP-RIP $ 2,224 $ 5,142 Total: $ 7,366 R/W Cons 05/06 Iec-05D 06/07 Jun -06 STIP funds delayed. City of Norco - Signal Installation at Parkridge/Lincoln / First STPL $ 75 Cons 04/05 1 Feb -05 Total: $ 75 Santa Ana River Trail Missing Link TEA $ 365 Total: $ 365 Cons 04/05 I Dec 04I/ No update received . TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. City of Palm Desert Construct New Portola IC (4 Lanes) and Ramps at 1-10 STPL 1,275 Total: $ 1,275 R/W 06/07 Feb -09 City of Palm Springs On 1-10 at Indian Ave: Widen Overcorssing from 2 to 6 Lanes and Ramps 1 to 2 Lanes STIP-RIP $ 2,000 R/W 06/07 Jan -05 STIP-RIP DEMO $ 13,262 $ 1,260 Cons 07/08 Feb -06 Cons 07/08 Feb -06 Total: $ 16,522 STIP funds delayed - may advance if project is ready and funds are available. Widen Gene Autry Trail from 2 to 6 Lanes from Salvia to South of UPRR Bridge STPL $ 190 Eng 04/05 1 Nov -04 STPL $ 1,540 Cons 05/06 1 May -05 Total: $ 1,730 STIP funds delayed - In Jan 04 ROTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds. Widen Indian Canyon Dr 2 to 6 Lanes - Garnet to UPRR Bridge • STPL $ 146 Total: $ 146 Cons 05/06 1 Jun -06 Environmental delays. Federal Bridge funds delayed to fy 07/08 . Pall 7 Widen Indian Cyn Dr 2 to 6 Lanes (Phase 1 - 2 to 4 Lanes) UPRR to Tramview • • Obligated Programming 1 2004/2005 Milestone Reports Project Fund Type Approved Amount (000s) or STIP Allocated Am ount Summary Estimated Obligation Dates as of: C omments Project Phase Fiscal Year July 1 November March 2004 2004 I 2005 STPL $ 263 STPL $ 1,936 Total: $ 2,199 Eng Cons 04/05 07/08 May -07 Nov -07 STIP funds delayed - In Jan 04 RCTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds . City of Perris Reconstruct Intersection at 4th St/Redlands Blvd Including Roundabout, Minor Landscaping & R/W Restoration of Historic Sante Fe Depot CMAQ ST -CASH $ 194 $ 750 Total: $ 944 Cons Cons 04/05 I Jan -05 04/05 Jan -05 Scope change including roundabout and IC ramp improvements by Caltrans have delayed project TEA $ 298 Total: $ 298 Cons 04/05 I Jan -05 Environm ental delays, Sec 106 . TE funds will be amended into STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05. **City of Rive rside Construct Underpass at Jurupa Ave/UPRR CMAQ CMAQ $ 3,100 $ 3,171 Total: $ 6,271 R/W Cons 04/05 I Oct -04 04/05 Jun -05 Environmental document delays. SR91/Van Buren IC: Reconstruct Ramps, Widen Overcrossing 4 to 6 Lanes CM AQ STPL $ 500 $ 1,681 Total: $ 2,181 R/W Cons 05/06 I Sep -05 04/05 Sep -05 Rehab Various City Streets STPL $ 235 Total: $ 235 $ 5,625 $ 5,625 Cons 04/05 I Jun -05 Widen Van Buren Blvd - Jackson to Santa Ana Riv STIP-RIP $ 3,465 Total: $ 3,465 Cons 06/07 I May -07 STIP funds delayed . University Ave Streetscape Enhancements TEA $ 502 To tal: $ 502 Cons 04/05 I Nov 05 Environmental delays, Sec 106. TE funds will be am ended into STIP if not obligated by 5/01/05 . Riverside County SR60Nalley Way IC - CMAQ $ 2,670 $ - Cons 04/05 1 May 05 -, Environmental and preliminary design delays . Relocate/Construct Ramps Total: $ 2,670 $ - Construct New Galena St DEMO $ 1,750 $ - Cons 04/05 Nov 04 `- Environmental delays. Obligation of funds will occur over the STPL $ 9,432 $ - Cons 05/06 Nov 04 Interchange at 1-15 next few months . Total: $ 11,182 $ - Page 5 of 7 Obligated Programming 1 2004/2005 Milest one Reports Project Fund Type Appro ved Amount or STIP All ocated Summary Estimated Obligation Dates as of: C omments Project Fiscal (000s) July November March Amo unt Phase Year 2004 2004 2005 Riverside Co un can't Miles/Clinton Widening & Bridge Construction STIP $ 2,040 Cons 05/06 1 May -06 Total: $ 2,040 STIP-RIP I $ 810 Total: $ 810 Rehab Defrain Blvd from Hobson Way to 6th St Cons 07/08 Jul -071'• Schedule being developed. Signal Installation at SR74 and Sherman Ave STPL $ 305 Total: $ 305 Cons 04/05 I Nov -04 Rehab Cajalco Road from Lake Matthews to Kirpatrick STPL j $ 761 Total: $ 761 Cons I 04/05 Jan -05 Monterey Ave from Varner Rd to Ramon Rd - Rehab STPL $ 425 Total: $ 425 $ Cons 04/05 I Nov -04 Ramon Rd from Miguelito to 1000 Palms - Rehab STPL $ 1,000 Total: $ 1,000 Cons 04/05 1 Nov -04 Ramon Rd from Varner Rd to UPRR Bridge - Rehab STPL 1 $ 512 Total: 512 $ Cons 04/05 I Nov -04 Varner Rd from Ramon Rd to E. Harry Oliver Tr - Rehab STPL 550 Total: $ 550 Cons 04/05 I Nov -04 SR79 from Hunter to Domenigoni Pkwy (1st Phase Widening 2 to 4 lanes) STPL $ 1,000 Eng Eng R/W 04/05 Jan -05 STPL $ 1,012 05/06 Jan -05 STPL $ 676 05/06 Apr -06 STPL STPL $ 1,300 $ 16,857 R/W Cons 06/07 07/08 Apr -06 Aug -07 Total: $ 20,845 STIP funds delayed . Jan 04 RCTC replaced STIP funds with STPL funds. RCTC Prepare PA&ED Alignment Alternatives -South of Domenigoni Pkwy to Gilman DEMO Total: $ 1,502 $ 1,502 R/W 04/05 1 Jan -05 Construct Corona North Main Parking Structure STIP-ITIP $ 1,000 I $ STIP-ITIP $ 9,500 Total: $ 10,500 Design 05/06 Cons 08/09 Sep -05 Nov -07 STIP (IIP funds) delay - construction reprogrammed from fy 05/06 to 08/09. Pagel 7 • • • • Obligated Programming I 2004/2005 Milestone Reports Fund Appr oved or STIP Summary Estimated Obligati on Dates Project Fiscal Project Type Amount All ocated as of: C omments (000s) Amount Phase Year July rN0mi March 2004 2004 2005 RCTC (con't) Regional Rideshare Program STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP Total: $ 400 $ 300 $ 400 $ 120 $ 1,220 Cons Cons Cons Cons 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 May -05 May -06 May -07 May -08 SR91 HOV Lanes - Mary St to Jct SR91/60/215 STIP-RIP $ 13,070 Total: $ 13,070 Design 05/06 Jul -05 SB45 - Planning, Programming, and Monitoring cr c STIP-RIP STIP-RIP STIP-RIP $ 170 $ 953 $ 105 Eng Eng Eng Eng Eng 04/05 05/06 06/07 Aug -04 Aug -05 Aug -06 Aug -07 STIP-RIP STIP-RIP Total: $ 500 $ 500 $ 2,228 07/08 08/09 1 Aug -08 Eng and design currently programmed. Funding for construction anticipated from 2006 & 2008 STIP cycles, Allocation requested FY 04/05 in August, STIP funds not available until later in FY. FY 05/06 funding includes CETAP work . Perris Valley Line STPL $ 500 Total: $ 500 Eng 04/05 1 Apr 05 mom Purchase Expansion Rolling Stock STIP-ITIP Total: $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Cons 07/08 STIP (IIP) delay - construction r eprogrammed from FY 05/06 to 07/08. Procurement process initiated in May 04. C ity of Tem ecu la Pavement Rehab and Reconstruction Lump Sum STPL $ 906 Cons 04/05 STPL $ 1,814 $ 2,720 Cons 06/07 Total: Jan -05 FY 06/07 funds may be advanced if project(s) is ready and funds are available. Murrieta Creek Multi -Purpose Trail TEA $ 886 Total: $ 886 Cons 04/05 1 Mar -05 Additional required environmental studies have delayed project. TE funds may be subject to reprogramming by CTC if not obligated by 5/01/05. Page 7 of 7 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: October 25, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 Between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Operation of a Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,071,368 in State funding for FY 2004-05; 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 Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for over ten years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats on SR -91, I- 215/SR-60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for fiscal year 2004-05 provides for continued State funding in the amount of $1,071,368 and requires a local match of $267,842. This is an increase of $29,750 over the funding level for FY 2003-04. The Commission's FY 2004-05 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program includes $1,012,304 in State funding and $253,076 in local matching funds. The additional State and local match funds are not being requested at this time. Staff, along with the CHP and Caltrans, will review the hours of operation and service level to determine if any additional service is warranted. 51 Annually, the program provides approximately 32,200 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside county freeways. The Commission contracts with three tow truck operators to provide thirteen tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The programs day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Attachment: Freeway Service Patrol Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 05-45-520 • 52 Agreement No. 05-45-520 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) Agreement No. FSP05-6054(001) Location: 08-RIV-Var-RCTC Project No.: FSP05-6054(041) EA: 08-924849L THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2004, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq. authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrols for fiscal year 2004- 2005; hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost State Funds $1,339,210.00 $1,071,368.00 Local Funds $267,842.00 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached. For Caltrans Use Only hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Original Siyi1ea i al Mahmood Chapter'ststes' Item Accounting Officer [Fiscal Year I Program Pteaol 1'1,0'71,368, 00 1 BC 1 CategoryFund Source 1$ 208 1 2004 li 2660-102-042 i 2004/2005 20.30.010.600 II C 1224040 1114-042-T 1 / / 3 /' ¢� OO Page 1 of 6 53 Non -Fed FSP NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: • 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,071,368.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $171,418.88. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior au of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds totaling $267,842.00, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. • Page 2 of 6 54 Non -Fed FSP 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. • • • 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9. COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that 1. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2. those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold' future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the California Transportation Commission. Page 3 of 6 55 Non -Fed FSP 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)] on the basis of noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. • 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY i responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE demand. Page 4 of 6 56 Non -Fed FSP • 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be JULY 1,2004. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section .810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. Page 5 off576 Non -Fed FSP 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJE� equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2006; However, the non -expendable equipment, and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. • STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of Transportation TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Office of Project Implementation, South Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: Approved as to Form By: Best, Best & Krieger Legal Counsel • Page 6 of 6 58 Non -Fed FSP