Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 26, 2004 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 2:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, January 26, 2004 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor Riverside, CA 92501 1(0X57 RECORDS Coachella Valley Association of Governments (Video Conference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 200, Michael S. Wilson Room Palm Desert, CA 92260 ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Vacant - Chair Terry Henderson, Vice -Chair/ Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Art Welch / Barbara Hanna, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / Richard Macnicki, City of Coachella Bob Magee / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Jack van Haaster / Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, 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 r • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 2:30 p.m. Monday, January 26, 2004 BOARD CHAMBERS** County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1S` Floor Riverside, California * *Coache//a Valley Association of Governments (Video Conference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste, 119 Palm Desert, CA The Public is welcome to attend the meeting at the meeting location and at the video -conference site. • 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 Committee at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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 Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the 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 January 26, 2004 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in 0 single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending December 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 5 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months • g 9 p ended October, November and December 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 7 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six months ended December 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee January 26, 2004 Page 3 • 7. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-031 FOR THE REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING OF STATE ROUTE 74 FROM 0.5 KM EAST OF WASSON CANYON ROAD TO 7TH STREET, AND AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-032 FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF GREENWALD AVENUE AND THE GREENWALD/MEADOWBROOK/STATE ROUTE 74 INTERSECTION LOCATED BETWEEN LAKE ELSINORE AND PERRIS, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pg. 12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: • • 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-031 for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 From 0.5 Km East Of Wasson Canyon Road To 7th Street and Agreement No. 04-31-032 for The Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris, in Riverside County. The bids for both agreements are due by 2:00pm on Tuesday, January 20, 2004. Staff will present a recommendation for award at the Committee meeting. 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. 8. AGREEMENT #04-31-047 (AMENDMENT #6 TO AGREEMENT # RO-9954), WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SURVEY SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7TH STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Pg. 14 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement # 04-31-047 (Amendment #6 to Agreement # RO- 9954), with SC Engineering for additional Engineering Design and Survey Services to complete the PS&E for State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, for an additional base amount of $229,305 and an additional contingency of $70,295, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $300,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and Budget and Implementation Committee January 26, 2004 Page 4 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • 9. OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT MEASURE "A" PROGRAM STATUS AND MEASURE "A" EXTENSION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 26 1) Receive and file the Measure "A" Program Status overview as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the increases in appropriations, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 32 • 11. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 04-006, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)." Pg. 34 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).", and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Pg. 38 Overview 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; 2) Approve the budget adjustments to RCTC Administration, RCT Planning and SCAG Planning to reflect the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) revenue and expenditures, and Budget and Implementation Committee January 26, 2004 Page 5 • • • 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 Pg. 41 Overview 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation (LTF) apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE CALL BOX PROGRAM FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL PLAN Pg. 44 Overview 1) Accept the Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan for the Riverside County SAFE Call Box program; 2) Authorize staff to proceed with the recommendations outlined in the report, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. TUMF TOP PRIORITY CORRIDORS Pg. 104 Overview 1) Adopt a list of eight priority arterial corridors that will be designated as the Commission's top arterial candidates for TUMF funding; 2) Approve the allocation of $1 million in TUMF funding for project development work (preliminary design and environmental review) for the widening of State Route 79 between Thompson and Hunter Roads, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the staff report as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 109 Budget and Implementation Committee January 26, 2004 Page 6 • 17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 18. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 19. 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. 20. NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 P.M., Monday, February 23, 2004, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. 21. ADJOURNMENT • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, November 24, 2003 MINUTES 1 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairman Robert Schiffner at 2:30 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501, and the video conference location at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California, 92260. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Roger Berg Chris Buydos Terry Henderson Ameal Moore Robert Schiffner Alan Seman* John F. Tavaglione Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Members Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Gregory Pettis Michael H. Wilson * Attended meeting via video conference 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting November 24, 2003 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 22, 2003 M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve the September 22, 2003 minutes as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Chairman Schiffner noted amended memorandum to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 7, "Award Agreement No. 04-31-018 with Jacobs Civil Inc. to Provide Engineering Services Related to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor Project" • Agenda Item 12, "State and Federal Legislative Update" 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve the Consent Calendar. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending October 31, 2003; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-018 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE CAJALCO-RAMONA CORRIDOR PROJECT Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, recounted the previous Commission actions regarding the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor Project. He then reviewed the selection process recommendation of an integrated Jacobs & CH2M Hill team and the scope, schedule, cost, and funding for this phase of the project. He noted that by linking the delivery teams of these two projects, staff hopes to re -invigorate the stalled progress of the SR 79 project that the resource agencies have not been able to address due to resources/priorities that have been directed to support CETAP. Also, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans have indicated that a Project Study Report (PSR)/Project Development Support (PDS) document is not required. Commissioner John Tavaglione recommended receipt of written documentation from Federal Highways Administration and Caltrans assuring the Commission that a PSR/PDS document is not required. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting November 24, 2003 Page 3 • • • In response to Commissioner Chris Buydos request for clarification regarding project funding, Hideo Sugita indicated the Phase I project funding will consist of $30,501 of the remaining Federal Streamlining allocation and $5,000,000 of Western Riverside County Transportation Unified Mitigation Program (TUMF) funding. M/S/C (Buydos/Tavaglione) to: 1) Approve the selection process recommendation of Jacobs Civil Inc. as the lead consulting firm for the preparation of a Project Report, and Environmental Document for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. based on the negotiated project scope schedule and cost for a not to exceed amount of $5,030,501 to perform Phase I activities related to developing the Project Report and Environmental Document, subject to receipt of written documentation from FHWA and Caltrans assuring the Commission that a PSR/PDS document is not required; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. M-23-011 WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND COST REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE (PERRIS VALLEY LINE) PROJECT Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed the MOU (M-23- 011) with SCRRA regarding the development and cost reimbursement for the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line) Project. She also reviewed the estimated cost and funding opportunities of this project, including eligibility for a Full Funding Grant Agreement in the amount of $60 million from the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). M/S/C (Wamsley/Tavaglione) to: 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding No. M-23-011 with the SCRRA for the development and cost reimbursement of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line); 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 November 24, 2003 Page 4 9. CITY OF CORONA'S REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS Ken Lobeck, Staff Analyst, informed the Committee on the request from the City of Corona to remove the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Project from the STIP and instead program TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. M/S/C (Henderson/Welch) to: 1) Approve the City of Corona's request to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds on the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) Project with TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2008 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, briefly reviewed the FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Approve the FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 04-005 "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004" Michele Cisneros, Accounting Supervisor, reviewed Resolution No. 04-005 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2003-2004". • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting November 24, 2003 Page 5 • • • Commissioner Jack Wamsley appreciated the detail of information provided by staff, specifically the inclusion of the attachments supporting the calculations to determine the appropriation limit. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 04-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2003-2004"; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Director of Public Information, reviewed the new Federal Energy Appropriations Bill and its provisions regarding the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive. He noted that the Federal law taxes for ethanol -blended gasoline results in fewer funds to be contributed to the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The replacement of MTB with ethanol will cost California approximately $3 billion in Federal revenues over the five-year STIP period. M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 14. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF A. Hideo Sugita noted: • Hideo Sugita provided an update on the funding status of the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. The Commission transferred $33.915 million to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The scheduled bid opening for the project is December 4th • Due to the holidays, the Committee determined to reschedule its next meeting from December 22nd to December 15th, should agenda items necessitate the meeting. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting November 24, 2003 Page 6 • 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m., Monday, January 26, 2004. Respectfully submitted, v Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the month of December 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report - December 2003 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION CONTRACTURAL COM MIT MENTS TO DATE % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AG AINST ALLOCATION 12/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Eng ineering/Environ./ROW (3003 & 3004) Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) Cajalco/Ramona Corridor SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (R03008) Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTA L ROUTE 91 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) 3410,9743,9849-9851(3411-3413) (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 $37,222,727 37,222,727 $69,847,655 $69 ,847 .655 $2,894,497 $5,030,065 $7,924,562 $11,902,100 $2,954,000 $1,274,430 $1,603,450 $17,733,980' $18,546,856 $18,546,856 $33,722,727 $33,722,727 $38,514,368 $38,514,368 $2,793,935 $5,030,065 $7,824,000 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 $1,062,025 $1,603,450 $15,993,799'' $18,546,856 18,546,856 90 .6% 90 .6% 55 .1% 55.1 % 96.5% 100.0% 98.7% 87 .2% 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% 90.2% 100. 0% 100. 0% $137,954 137 .954 $164,085 $164,085 $0 $129 129 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,955,815 $8,955,815, $36,669,515 $36,669,515 $1,066,179 $5,031 $1071,210 $9,574,055 $2,109,519 $719,777 $876,228 $13,279,579 $16,508,128 $16,508,128 26.6 % 26 .6%' 95.2 % 95.2% 38.2% 13.7% 92.3% 71.4% 67.8% 54.6% 83 .0%I 89.0% 89,0%' Page 1 of 3 • 2 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018, 3006) Design Sequencing SUBTOTAL 1-215 PROJECT & CONSTR. M GMT SERV. (Agreement (03-31-070)) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199 SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE COMMUTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Perris Multimodal Facility (3816) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 SUBTO TAL COMMUTER RAIL • TOTALS COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMI TTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 12/31/03 TO D ATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE $6,726,504 $6,726,504 $2,036,698 $2,036,698 $3,923,177 $3,923,177 $26,685,414 $2,000,000 $13,900,329 $42,585,743 $206,547,902, $6,428,173 $6,428,173'. $2,036,698 $2,036,698'. $3,923,177 $3,923,177' $25,943,070 $503,000 $13,900,329 $40,346,399 $167,336,197 95.6% 956% 100.0 % 100:0°10 100.0 % 1000% 97.2% 25.2 % 100 .0% 94.7% 81.0°10 $0 $0' $0 so $54,105 $54,105 $3,397 $0 $6,090 $9,487 $365,760 $5,715,574 $5,715,574;'; $588,859 $588,859' $3,484,701 $3,484,701 $24,848,157 $256,801 $10,660,280 $35,765,238 $122,038,619 88 .9 % 88.9% 28 .9 % 28.9% 88.8% 88.8 % 95 .8% 51.1 % 76 .7 % 88.6 % 72.9% Page 2 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCALWEETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMENT 12/31/03 ADVANCES BALANCE CO MMITMENT APPRO VED COMMIT. CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements TOTALS $1,600,000 $1,600,000' $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $18,806,636 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600;000 $5,212,623 $5,212;623' . $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 18,806,636'. $517,665 517,665 • $2,500,318 2,500,318 $1,006,100 $688,166 $2,646,689 $1,111,389 $376,125 $8,470,327 $0 0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0,' 32.4% 32.4% 48.0% 48.0 % 52.0 % 52.0 % 52 .0 % 52 .0 % 25 .1% 45,0%%. NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 12/31/03 Page 3 of 3 • AGENDA ITEM 6B • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director 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 months ended October, November and December 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the months of October, November and December 2003 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $181,208. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of December 31, 2003. 5 • SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHO R • AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003 ORIGINAL RE MAINING DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT CONSULTANT OF SERVICES AMOUNT A MOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2003 Jefferson Transiti onal C.R . Gann Demolition Inc. In la nd Mailing Services Advance Data Transcribing Data entry Services Center, Inc. C.R. Gann Demo lition Inc. Ernst & Yo ung AMOUNT USED Dem o of Structures adjacent to RT74 btw n Wa ss on Canyon Rd and 7th Street Segment II Contract #3 Compute rebat e on 1997 Series A & B AM OUNT REMAINING THROUGH December 31, 2003 Donna Polmounter Prepared by M ichele Cisneros Reviewed by $ 500,000.00 Amend to original co ntract add additional 3,301 .89 parking lots at Ri v Dwtn and La Sierra Demo of Structures adjacent to R174 btwn Wasson Canyon Rd and 7th Street Segment II Contract #2 47,440.00 1,275.70 38,205 .00 Commuter Assistance RideGuides 25,000.00 0 .00 45,000.00 41,056.95 49,952 .00 2,750.00 318,792.39 $ 181,207. 61 44,956.80 0 .00 155,769.45 $ 155,769.45 2,026.19 9,235.00 25,000 .00 3,943.05 4,995 .20 2,750.00 163,022 .94 $ 25,438.16 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\02 February\Budg et & Impl\Trevino - Single Signature Report AGENDA ITEM 6C • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the six months ended December 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first six months of the fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues and expenditures incurred in the first six months of the fiscal year. The financial statements show the Sales Tax revenue for the six month period at 37% 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. 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. In the second quarter, the Commission received the Sales Tax for August, September and October 2003 in October, November and December 2003, respectively. On a cash flow basis, the Measure A and LTF revenues are 12% higher 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 billed. Administrative expenditures are in line as budgeted. Salaries & Benefits are slightly over due to management's charge of more staff time to administrative duties than project activities. This category should be in line by the end of the 3`d quarter. Office Lease & Utilities is slightly over as a result of the rent payment due by the 1St of each month. The January rent was paid on December 23, 2003. Other Administrative expenditures are on target for the year and will be monitored closely. Expenditures in the Programs/Projects are below budget overall. These expenditures are related to the progress on projects, and staff expects these funds will be spent as the projects are completed by the end of this year. The General Legal Services is slightly over due to the unforeseen costs related to the Route 74 eminent domain issues. Staff is comfortable that the overall costs of this category will not exceed the budget by year end. Staff will monitor this category closely and report any necessary budget adjustments immediately. Planning & Programming costs are over due to the unbudgeted costs for the installation of the traffic counter equipment at Caltrans traffic management sites. Staff is submitting a budget adjustment to accommodate this work. These costs are reimbursable with STIP funding. Listed below are the capital related projects and their status: Highway Engineering/Right of way • State Route 74 - Agency approval delayed completion of engineering for Segments 1 & II. Payments for court settlements of right of way expected in last fiscal year made in current fiscal year. • State Route 111 - Design activities for the Palm Desert projects were delayed due to drainage redesign requirements and completion of permit processing. Highway Construction • State Route 60 - Additional right of way requirements along with permitting issues delayed the start of construction. • State Route 74 — Segment 11 utility relocation was delayed due to the damages caused by the recent fires. Utility workforces were redirected to support the repairs of utilities throughout the fire damaged area. • State Route 111 — Design changes and permitting processing delayed start of construction for the Palm Desert projects now forecasted to be completed spring 2004. Rail Engineering/Right of Way • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure — City planning process has taken longer than anticipated. • • • 8 • • • • Perris Multimodal Facility — Late start by design consultant was related to completion of pre -award audit and insurance related issues. • Downtown -Riverside Parking Lot Expansion, Phase 11 — Start of design is on hold pending completion of additional right of way acquisition. Rail Construction • La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion, Phase 11 — Project was held pending issuance and approval of permits. Intergovernmental Distributions are higher due to the one-time LTF payments made to CVAG and WRCOG. Debt Service is paid in December and June. Staff expects to incur all Debt Service costs as budgeted. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements 12/31/03 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/2003 DESCRIPTION REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues Sales tax $ 107,504,400 $ 40,300,647 $ (67,203,753) 37% Federal, state & local government 27,007,900 4,670,006 (22,337,894) 17% Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) - 9,493,210 9,493,210 0% Other revenues 6,319,900 1,859,987 (4,459,913) 29% Interest 2,653,200 1,817,012 (836,188) 68% Total revenues 143,485,400 58,140,862 (85,344,538) 41% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,131,300 607,445 523,855 54% General legal services 122,000 38,332 83,668 31% Professional services 1,064,157 423,028 641,129 40% Office lease & utilities 302,000 173,432 128,568 57% General administrative expenses 949,900 293,513 656,387 31% Total administration 3,569,357 1,535,750 2,033,607 43% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 1,659,700 698,936 960,764 42% General legal services 681,700 397,776 283,924 58% Professional services 1,532,838 563,196 969,642 37% General projects 2,099,100 845,125 1,253,975 40% Highway engineering 2,200,900 530,041 1,670,859 24% Highway construction 34,937,300 9,747,870 25,189,430 28% Highway ROW 2,908,000 1,905,324 1,002,676 66% Rail engineering 1,908,500 131,293 1,777,207 7% Rail construction 4,288,603 1,262,210 3,026,393 29% Rail ROW 1,600,000 1,318,179 281,821 82% Local streets & roads 36,999,600 13,558,349 23,441,251 37% Regional arterial 7,133,200 1,988,715 5,144,485 28% T.U.M.F. 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 0% Special studies 991,816 74,083 917,733 7% FSPtowing 1,423,170 452,710 970,460 32% Commuter assistance 2,624,900 921,419 1,703,481 35% Property management 41,400 11,667 29,733 28% Motorist assistance 677,900 224,636 453,264 33% Rail operations & maintenance 4,214,200 1,362,954 2,851,246 32% STA distributions 2,666,000 617,299 2,048,701 23% Specialized transit 4,510,500 1,914,665 2,595,836 42% Planning & programming services 35,900 101,474 (65,574) 283% Total programs/projects 118,135,227 38,627,921 79,507,306 33% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 915,600 633,540 282,060 69% 448,000 448,000 0% Debt service Principal 22,073,100 22,073,100 0% Interest 13,410,000 4,583,609 8,826,391 34% Total debt service 35,483,100 4,583,609 30,899,491 13% Total expenditures 158,551,284 45,380,819 113,170,465 29% Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in 46,663,500 20,393,914 26,269,586 44% Operating transfer out 46,663,500 20,393,914 26,269,586 44% Bond proceeds - 0% Payment to escrow agent _ 0% Cost of issuance 0% Total financing sources/uses - 0% Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Fund balance July 1, 2003 (15,065,884) 12,760,043 154,132, 843 158, 894, 518 27,825,927 285% 4,761,675 103% Fund balance December 31, 2003 $ 139,066,959 $ 171,654,561 $ 32,587,602 123% 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION QUARTERLY ACTUAL BY FUND 2ND QUARTER FOR SIX MONTHS ENDED 12/31/03 PALO STATE TRAFFIC UNIFO RM WESTERN GENERAL FSP/ WESTERN VERDE COACHELLA TRANSIT MITI GATION FEE COUNTY DEBT C OMBINED DESCRIPTION FUND SAFE C OUNTY VALLEY VALLEY ASSISTANCE TUMF C ONSTRUCTI ON SERVICE TOTAL Rev enues Sales tax $ 5,797,343 $ - $ 25438,590 $ 326,891 $ 8,737,823 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 40,300,647 Federal, state & local government 41,433 803,387 3,825,186 - - - 4,670,006 Traffic Uniform Mitigati on F ee (TU MF) - - - - - 9,493,210 - 9,493,210 Other revenue s 149,321 1,412 834,182 - 201,599 712,461 - - (38,988) 1,859,987 Interest 15,153 27,832 509,330 152 14,449 22,463 18,735 543,170 665,728 1,817,011 Total revenues 6,003,250 832,632 30,607,287 327,043 8,953,870 734,924 9,511,944 543,170 626,740 58,140,862 Expe nditures Administration Sa laries & benefits 579,653 27,792 607,445 General legal services 36,557 1,775 - 38,333 Professional services 413,947 9,081 - 423,028 Office lease & utilities 165,055 8,377 - 173,431 General administrative expenses 279,344 14,169 - - 293,512 Total administration 1,474,556 61,194 - 1,535,750 Programs/projects Salaries & bene fits 453,481 49,344 193,520 2,591 - - - 698,935 General legal services 52,346 2,672 339,469 3,289 - 397,775 Professional services 125,752 23,551 413,747 - 146 - 563,195 General projects - - 831,249 13,876 - - 845,125 Highway engineering - 471,055 - 58,986 -530,04 g, 530,041 Highway co nstructio n - 8,978,185 769,685 0 Highway RO W 1,905,294 30 1,905,324 Rail engineering 131,293 - 131,293 Rail construction - 1,262,210 - 1,262,210 Rail ROW 1,318,179 - - - 1,318,179 Local streets & roads 10,173,220 326,891 3,058,238 - 13,558,349 Regional arterial - - - 1,988,715 1,988,715 Special studies 28,679 - 45,404 - - 74,083 FSP towing 452,710 - 452,710 Commuter assistance - - 921,419 921,419 Property management 11,667 - - 11,667 M otorist assistance - 224,636 224,636 Rail operations & maintenance 1,362,954 - - 1,362,954 STA distribution s - - - - 617,299 617,299 Spedalized transit - - 420,665 1,494,000 - 1,914,665 Planning & programming services 101,474 - - 101,474 Total programs/projects 2,136,351 752,913 27,404,908 326,891 7,389,410 617,445 38,627,921 Intergovernmental distribution 633,540 Capital outlay - Debt service Principal Inte rest Total debt service - - 4,583,609 4,583,609 Total expenditures 4,244,447 814,107 27,404,908 326,891 7,389,410 617,445 - - 4,583,609 45,380,819 633,540 4,583,609 4,583,609 O the r financing sources/uses Operating transfer in - 7,341,424 - - - - 13,052,490 20,393,914 Ope ratin g tra nsfer out - 9,381,222 - 3,671,268 Bond proceeds - - - - - Payment to escrow agent - - Cost of issuance - - - Total financing sources/uses - - (2,039,798) - (3,671,268) - (7,341,424) 13,052,490 7,341,424 - 20,393,914 Excess (deficiency) of reven ues and othe r financing sources over (under) expenditures and other fin an cing uses 1, 758,803 18,525 1,162,582 152 (2,106,808) 117479 9,511,944 (6,798,254) 9,095,621 12,760,043 Fund balance July 1, 2003 5,757,792 3,225.168 87,281,322 47,362 7,428,955 1,600,346 - 15.928,766 37,624,807 158,894,518 Fund balance December 31, 2003 $ 7,516,595 $ 3,243,693 $ 88,443,904 $ 47,514 $ 5,322,147 $ 1,717,825 $ 9,511,944 $ 9,130,512 $ 46,720,428 $ 171,654,561 • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • REVISED AGENDA ITEM # 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 04-31-031 for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 from 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street, and Agreement No. 04-31-032 for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-031 with Riverside Construction Company for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 from 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street, in Riverside County, for the amount of $20,207,532.30, plus an approximate 5% contingency amount of $1,012,467.70, to cover known supplemental work and unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $21,220,000; 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-032 with Riverside Construction Company for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris, in Riverside County, for the amount of $416,919.50, plus an approximate 20% contingency amount of $83,384.50, to cover known supplemental work and unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $500,304.00; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute both agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Route 74 Realignment Project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris (The Project). The Project will widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to a four (4) lane roadway, with a fourteen (14) foot paved median, and eight (8) foot paved shoulders. The Project will also realign and smooth out the horizontal and vertical roadway profile at several locations and make improvements to existing intersections, including the intersection at Greenwald Avenue. The Project will be constructed in two segments. Segment is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment II is from approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Segment I construction was completed, except for minor punch item clean up work, in December 2003 and is open to traffic. Segment II consists of two separate projects, Project "A" and Project "B". The scope of Project "A", Agreement No. 04-31-031, consists of the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 from 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street and the scope of Project "B", Agreement No. 04-31-032, consists of the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris. Segment II was split into two separate projects to assure compliance with the two different funding requirements. The work, for both projects, generally consist of grading operations, paving, water line relocation and installation, curb and gutter construction, drainage improvements, electrical and traffic signal improvements. All prospective bidders were required to submit a bid for both Project "A" and Project "B". The projects will be awarded as two (2) Contracts - one (1) for Project "A" and one (1) for Project "B" to the one (1) Bidder who is evaluated to be the lowest responsible Bidder, for the sum total of both Project "A" and Project "B", and has submitted a responsive Bid for both Projects. The bidder, in conformance with these requirements, will be recommended for award to the Commission. Project "A" has been allotted 365 working days (18 months of calendar time), and Project "B" has been allotted 120 working days (6 months of calendar time). Project "B" will be constructed concurrently with Project "A". Both Projects "A" and "B" were advertised on November 3, 2003 and the bids were opened on January 20, 2004. Four (4) bids were received for each project. A summary of the bids received are shown in Table A for both Project "A" and Project "B". TABLE A BID SUMMARY Project "A" -- Agreement No. 04-31-031 f or the Realig nment and Widening of State Route 74 Fr om 0.5 Km East Of Wasson Canyo n Road To 7th Street, in Ri verside Co unty Project "B" -- Agreement No . 04-31-032 for The Realignment of Greenwald Aven ue and the Greenwald/Mead owbrook/State Route 74 Intersection 1 2 3 4 Firm (in o rder from Low bid to High bid) Engineers Estimate Riverside Construction Co. 111 Main St. P.O. Box 1146 Riverside, Ca. 92502 Griffith Company Inc. 2020 Yale Street Santa Ana, Ca. 92704 Project "A" Bid Amount $18 ,933,684 .50 $20,207,532 .30 Pr oject "B" Bid Amount $455, 523 .30 $416,919.50 T otal C ombined Bid $19,389 ,207 .80 $20,624,451 .80 Am ount Over Low Bid N/A $0.00 Yeager Skanska Inc. P.O. Box 87, Riverside, Ca. 92502-0087 $20,355,016 .59 $501,494 .79 $20,856,511.38 $232,059.58 Sully -Miller 1 100 E. Orangethrope Av e. Suite 200 Anaheim, Ca. 92801 $20,608,617 .70 $411,344.00 $21,019,961.70 $395,509 .90 $23,521,446. 21 $492,774 .00 $24,014,220 .21 $3,389,768.41 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and staff, and Riverside Construction Company was determined to be the lowest responsible Bidder, for the sum total of both Project "A" and Project "B", and has submitted a responsive Bid for both Projects. A summary of the review of the three (3) lowest Bids for Project "A" and Project "B" was received and the responsiveness of the bids are detailed in Table B: TABLE B Check List Item For both Project "A" & Project "B" unless noted Riverside Construciton Co. Inc. Griffth Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. 1 Bid Letter Yes Yes Yes 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Minor Errors Yes Yes No 3 Bid Bond Yes Yes Yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Subcontractor DBE (Project "A" Only) 8.81%1 12.08% 10.81%1 - Where Certified (Project "A" Only) Particpating Agencies Particpating Agencies Particpating Agencies - Prime is a DBE (Project "A" Only) No No No Yes Yes 5 Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check Yes 6 Safety Record Yes Yes Yes 7 Non -Collusion Affidavit Yes Yes Yes 8 Equal Opurtunity Certification (Project "A" Only) Yes Yes Yes 9 Debarment Certification (Project "A" Only) Yes Yes Yes 10 Certification for Federal Aid Projects (Project "A" Only) Yes Yes Yes 11 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Yes Yes Yes 12 Evidence of Insurance Yes Yes Yes Note 1: Bidder did not meet DBE Goal of 12.05%; they have submitted "Good Faith Effort Documentation" per Federal DBE Requirements. Table C, shown below, summarizes the subcontractors listed by Riverside Construction Company Inc. for Project "A". TABLE C Name Address Telephone License No. Type of Work Subcontract Dollar Amount DBE AC Dike Co. 2788 Venture Dr. Lincoln, Ca. 916-652- 0159 407417 Place AC Dike $27,417.00 Yes Surina Construction Co. 13930 Oaks Ave. Chino, Ca. 909-627- 8619 511095 Water Improvements (portion) $1,983,663.00 No RJ Noble Co. 15505 Lincoln, Orange Ca. 714-637- 1550 121735 AC Paving (portion) $3,997,000.00 No Highlight Electric P.O. Box 7339, Riverside, Ca. 909-352- 9646 806335 Signals/Electric $221,600.00 Yes Marina 1100 Kattella, Anaheim Ca. 714-939- 6600 492862 Erosion Control (portion) $53,730.00 No Sudhakar 1450 Fitzgerald, Rialto Ca. 909-879- 2933 752367 Stripping / Signs $283,475.00 Yes ACE Fence 15135 Salt Lane, City of Industry 626-333- 0727 801674 Fence / MBGR $284,174.00 Yes Amber Steel 312 S. Willow Rialto, Ca. 909-874- 2213 268566 Rebar $581,278.00 No W.C. Goolsby Inc. 970 N. Tustin Ave, Suite 102 Yorba Linda, 92885 800-839- 9697 CT002822 AC Oil $1,017,500.00 Yes Table D, shown below, summarizes the subcontractors listed by Riverside Construction Company Inc. for Project "B". TABLE D Name Address Telephone License No. Type of Work Subcontract Dollar Amount DBE RJ Noble Co. 15505 Lincoln, Orange Ca. 714-637-1550 121735 AC Paving (portion) $72,000.00 No Highlight Electric P.O. Box 7339, Riverside, Ca. 909-352-9646 806335 Signals/Electric included in Project "A" Yes Table F (attached) summarizes the costs associated with the construction of Project "A", for the three (3) lowest responsive, responsible bids received. Table G (attached) summarizes the costs associated with the construction of Project "B", for the three (3) lowest responsive, responsible bids received. At the May of 2002 RCTC meeting, the Commission set a project budget for all aspects of the State Route 74 widening project at $69,847,655. Staff has realigned the project budget line items to be consistent with project construction bid. The overall project budget remains $69,847,655. Table E State Route 74 Budget Item Current Budget Realigned Budget 1 Design $4,218,638 $5,000,000 2 Administration $5,000,000 $5,000,000 3 Right of Way $22,383,652 $19,000,000 4 Construction $33,010,000 $38,000,000 5 Gnatcatcher Mitigation $1,000,000 $1,000,000 6 Undesignated Contingency $4,235,365 $1,847,655 Total $69,847,655 $69,847,655 The funding for this project will remain $65,583,170 of Measure "A" and bond proceeds and $4,264,485 of State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds. In addition, RCTC will be reimbursed $1.1 million for relocating the water line that is located within the project limits which will further reduce the Measure "A" required funding down to $64,483,170. Based on staff and Legal Counsel's review of the bids received, it is recommended that the Commission award Agreement No. 04-31-031 Project "A", in the amount of $21,220,000, including a %5 contingency; and Agreement No. 04-31-032 for Project "B", in the amount of $500,304, including a 20% to Riverside Construction Company. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY03/04 Amount: $21,720,304 Source of Funds: Measure "A" and State SHOPP Funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: (P3001) 222- 31- 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \y ."¢ Date: 1/26/04 Attachment: Table "F" Project "A" Table "G" Project "B" TABLE F Pr oject "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST. QUAN. Engineers Estimate Riv erside Constr ucti on C o. Griffith Company Inc. Y eager Ska nska Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITE M TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 1 070010 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH) LS 1 $ 40,000 .00 $40,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $10,000 .00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $25,000.00 2 070014A PREPARE LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $2,500 .00 $ 7,500.00 $7,500.00 $ 26,000.00 $26,000.00 $ 5,000 .00 $5,000.00 3 071301 TEMPORARY FENCE (BIAXIAL SAFETY GRID) m 2,801.0 $ 22.00 $61,622.00 $ 22 .00 $61,622.00 $ 21 .00 $58,821.00 $ 11.00 $30,811.00 4 073000 TEMPORARY CULVERT m 161.0 $ 85.00 $13,685.00 $ 265 .00 $42,665 .00 $ 275.00 $44,275 .00 $ 250.00 $40,250.00 5 074019 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION LS 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 .00 57,500 .00 $7,500 .00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 .00 6 074020 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000 .00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 7 (S) 120090 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000 .00 $20,000 .00 $20,000.00 8 (S) 120100 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM LS 1 $420,000.00 $420,000 .00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $50,000 .00 $50,000.00 $200,000 .00 $200,000.00 9 120300 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKERS EA 3,828 $2.50 $9,570.00 $3.00 $11,484.00 $2.85 $10,909.80 $3.00 $11,484.00 10 120150 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKINGS m2 35.1 $25.00 $877.50 $30 .00 $1,053 .00 $16.00 $561.60 $15.00 $526.50 11 120161 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC STRIPE m 38,759 $1.00 $38,759.00 $0.50 $19,379 .50 $0.62 $24,030.58 $0 .60 $23,255.40 12 120116 BARRICADES (TYPE 18) EA 85 $100.00 $8,500.00 $100.00 $8,500.00 $22.00 $1,870 .00 $55 .00 $4,675 .00 13 120116A BARRICADES (TYPE 111) (PERMANENT EA 12 $300.00 $3,600.00 $100.00 $1,200.00 $54.00 $648.00 $650.00 $7,800.00 14 120165 CHANNELIZERS (SURFACE MOUNTED) EA 1,243 $25. 00 $31,075.00 $25.00 $31,075.00 $30 .00 $37,290.00 $30.00 $37,290.00 15 128650 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EA 2 $20,000. 00 $40,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $18,000.00 $36,000.00 $17,000.00 $34,000.00 16 128650A PORTABLE RADAR TRAILER EA 2 $12,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,000 .00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 $36,000.00 $17,000.00 $34.000.00 17 129100 TEM PORARY CRASH CUSHION MODULE EA 672 $200.00 $134,400.00 $200.00 $134,400 .00 $230.00 $154,560.00 $225.00 $151,200.00 18 129500 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K) m 6,782.0 $30.00 5203,460.00 $25.00 $169,550.00 $32.00 $217,024 .00 $23 .00 $155,986.00 19 150229 ABANDON WATER WELL EA 1. 0 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $3,500 .00 $3.500.00 20 150662 REMOVE MBGR m 24.0 $20.00 $480. 00 $35. 00 $840.00 $70.00 $1,680.00 $20.00 $480.00 TABLE F Pr oje ct "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST . QUAN . Engineers Estimate Ri verside Construction Co . Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 21 150605 REMOVE FENCE m 6,922.0 $6.50 $44,993.00 $12.00 $83,064.00 $13.00 $89,986.00 $8.00 $55,376.00 22 150742 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN EA 53 $100 .00 $5,300.00 $50.00 $2,650.00 $105.00 $5,565.00 $85.00 $4.505.00 23 150804 REMOVE DRAINAGE FACILITY EA 24 $1,000 .00 $24,000.00 $500 .00 $12,000.00 $2,400 .00 $57,600.00 $2,000.00 $48,000 .00 23A 150835 REMOVE BLOCKWALL m 246 $30.00 $7,380.00 $35.00 $8,610.00 $68.00 $16,728.00 $21 .00 $5,166.00 24 150846 REMOVE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE m3 3,774.0 $50.00 $188,700.00 $35.00 $132,090.00 $45.00 $169,830 .00 $15.00 556,610.00 25 150860 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING m3 9,240.0 $18 .00 $166,320 .00 $16.00 $147,840.00 514.00 $129,360.00 $14 .00 5129.360.00 26 151272 SALVAGE MBGR m 107 .0 $30.00 $3,210.00 $30.00 $3,210.00 $28 .00 $2,996.00 $20.00 52,140.00 26A 151531 RECONSTRUCT FENCE m 280.0 $35.00 $9,800.00 $80.00 522,400 .00 $76.00 $21,280.00 550.00 514,000 .00 27 152255B INSTALL MAILBOX EA 256 $300.00 $76,800.00 $225.00 $57,600 .00 $500 .00 $128,000.00 $220.00 $56,320 .00 28 152386 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN -ONE POST EA 41 $150.00 $6,150.00 $150.00 $6,150.00 $165.00 56,765.00 $150.00 56,150.00 29 152387 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN -TWO POST EA 15 $250.00 $3,750 .00 $300 .00 $4,500.00 5290.00 $4,350.00 $400.00 $6,000.00 30 152396 RELOCATE SIGN PANEL EA 3 $100 .00 $300 .00 $100.00 $300.00 $80 .00 $240.00 $100 .00 5300.00 31 153215 REM OVE CONCRETE (CURB, GUTTER, SLAB m3 155.0 $45.00 $6,975.00 $210.00 $32,550.00 $80 .00 $12,400.00 $120.00 $18,600.00 32 160120 REMOVE TREE EA 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $525.00 $1,050 .00 5500.00 51,000.00 33 160120A REMOVE TREE STUMP EA 750 $350. 00 $262,500.00 $125.00 $93,750 .00 $170.00 $127,500 .00 $175 .00 $131,250 .00 34 160101 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 5100,000.00 5150,000 .00 5150,000.00 35 160132A DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $23,000 .00 $23,000 .00 525,000.00 $25,000.00 36 160132B DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $10,000.00 510,000. 00 515,000 .00 $15,000.00 $17,000 .00 517,000.00 $15,000.00 515,000.00 37 160132C DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $10,000.00 510,000. 00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $20,000 .00 $20 .000.00 38 160132D DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $17,500.00 517,500.00 TABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS. EST. QUAN. Engineers Estimate Riverside Constructi on Co. Griffith Company Inc . Yeager Skanska Inc. • UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITE M TOTAL 39 160132E DE MOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 555,000.00 $55,000.00 $13,000 .00 $13,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 40 160132F DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 550,000.00 $50,000.00 $125,000.00 5125,000.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000 .00 41 160132G DEMOLISH BUILDING AND REMOVE APPURT. LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000 .00 $10,000.00 $10,000 .00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 42 170101 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY LS 1 $160,000.00 $160,000 .00 $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $160,000 .00 $160,000.00 43 190101 ROADWAY EXCAVATION m3 128,000.0 $10.00 $1,280,000 .00 $14 .50 51,856,000 .00 $12.00 $1,536,000.00 $12.00 $1,536,000.00 44 190170 DRILL HOLE (PRESPLITTING) m 10,470.0 $6.00 $62,820.00 $10.00 $104,700 .00 $10.00 5104,700.00 $10.00 $104,700.00 45 194001 DITCH EXCAVATION m3 104 .0 $30 .00 $3,120.00 $35.00 $3,640.00 $25.00 $2,600.00 $1.00 $104.00 46 199001 IMPORTED BORROW m3 15,000.0 $12.00 $180,000.00 $10.00 $150,000 .00 $10.00 $150,000 .00 $0 .01 $150.00 47 (S) 202007 DUFF m2 96,000.00 $0.75 $72,000.00 $0.75 $72,000.00 $1.35 $129,600.00 $0 .70 $67,200.00 48 (S) 203016 EROSION CONTROL (TYPE D) ha 8.20 $7,000.00 $57,400.00 $4,500.00 536,900.00/ $4,800.00 $39,360 .00 $4,300.00 $35,260.00 49 (S) 203016A EROSION CONTROL (TYPE BFM) m2 14,000.00 $1.00 $14,000 .00 $1.00 $14,000.00 $1.00 $14,000.00 $1 .00 $14,000 .00 50 (S) 203026 MOVE IN/MOVE OUT (EROSION CONTROL) EA 12 $500.00 $6,000.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 $435.00 $5,220.00 $400.00 $4,800.00 51 220101 FINISHING ROADWAY LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 .00 $75,000.00 $75,000 .00 $25,000 .00 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 52 250500A GRAVEL (COARSE AGGREGATE) m3 104.2 $150.00 $15,630 .00 $85 .00 $8,857.00 $68 .00 $7,085.60 $50.00 $5,210 .00 53 260201 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE m3 93,695. 0 $25.00 $2,342,375 .00 $29.00 $2,717,155.00 $25.00 $2,342,375 .00 $27.00 $2,529,765 .00 54 390106 ASPHALT CONCRETE (OPEN GRADED) TONNE 7,365.0 $47. 00 $346,155.00 $45.00 $331,425.00 $48.00 $353,520.00 $40.00 $294,600,00 55 390102 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) (OA/QC) TONNE 79,066.0 $40. 00 $3,162,640.00 $40.00 $3,162,640 .00 $41.00 $3,241,706.00 541 .00 $3,241,706.00 56 390102A ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) (MISC. AREAS) TONNE 1,154.0 $35.00 $40,390.00 $35.00 $40,390.00 534.00 $39,236.00 $34.00 $39,236 .00 57 3901028 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) (TEM P. PVMTS & TONNE 9,916.0 $35.00 $347,060. 00 $40.00 5396,640.00 $42.00 $416,472.00 $49 .00 $485,884.00 58 394040 PLACE AC DIKE (TYPE A) m 552. 0 $3.00 $1,656.00 53.00 $1,656.00 $3.50 $1,932.00 $3 .00 $1,656 .00 59 394048 PLACE AC DIKE (TYPE E) m 8,837.0 $3. 00 $26,511.00 $3.00 526,511.00 $3.50 $30,929.50 $3.00 $26,511.00 TABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST . QUAN. Engineers Estimate Ri verside Construction Co . Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 60 394044 PLACE AC DIKE (TYPE C) m 122 .0 53.00 5366.00 $3 .00 5366.00 $3.50 5427.00 $3.00 5366.00 61 394049 PLACE AC DIKE (TYPE F) m 52.0 $3.00 $156.00 $3.00 $156.00 53 .50 $182.00 $3.00 5156.00 62 394002 PLACE AC (MISC . AREA) m2 3,174.0 525.00 $79,350 .00 $18.00 $57,132.00 $28 .00 588,872.00 $15.00 $47,610.00 63 395001 LIQUID ASPHALT (PRI ME COAT) SC -250 TONNE 241 .0 $550.00 $132,550.00 $350.00 $84,350.00 $310.00 $74,710.00 $320.00 $77,120.00 64 401066A CONCRETE PAVEMENT (BUS TURN OUTS) m3 457 .0 $190.00 $86,830 .00 $200 .00 $91,400 .00 $195.00 $89,115.00 $155 .00 570,835.00 65 (F) 510104 CLASS 1 CONCRETE (BOX CULVERTS, HEADWALLS & m3 3,336.0 $410.00 $1,367,760 .00 $715.00 $2,385,240 .00 $500.00 $1,668,000.00 5650 .00 52,168,400.00 66 (F) 510502 MINOR CONCRETE (MINOR STRUCTURE, PIPE m3 275.7 $1,000.00 $275,700.00 51,000 .00 $275,700.00 $1,650.00 $454,905 .00 51,200.00 5330,840.00 67 (F) 520101 BAR REINFORCING STEEL Kg 370,363 .0 $1 .00 5370,363.00 $1.60 $592,580.80 $1.75 $648,135.25 $1.80 $666,653 .40 68 (5) 530100 SHOTCRETE m3 224.0 5325.00 $72,800.00 $435.00 $97,440.00 $425 .00 $95,200.00 5400.00 $89,600.00 69 (S) 530200A GEOTEXTILE CHANNEL LINING m2 2,758.0 $50 .00 $137,900.00 $25.00 $68,950.00 $31.00 $85,498.00 $11.00 530,338.00 70 566011 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST (INCLUDES STREET EA 53 $250.00 $13,250.00 $275.00 $14,575.00 $315.00 516,695.00 $185 .00 59,805.00 71 566012 ROADSIDE SIGN -TWO POST EA 25 $550.00 $13,750 .00 $475.00 $11,875.00 $480 .00 $12,000.00 $750.00 $18,750.00 72 568017 INSTALL ROADSIDE SIGN PANEL ON EXISTING POST EA 23 $150.00 $3,450.00 $150.00 $3,450.00 $80 .00 $1,840.00 5100.00 52,300.00 300 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m $0 .00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 73 620910 450 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 8.0 $150.00 51,200.00 $200.00 51,600.00 5140 .00 $1,120 .00 $125.00 $1,000.00 74 620913 600 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 2,825.0 $200. 00 $565,000.00 $160.00 $452,000 .00 $205 .00 $579,125.00 $270.00 $762,750.00 75 620919 750 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 264.0 $250.00 $66,000. 00 $180.00 547,520.00 $290.00 $76,560.00 $200.00 $52,800.00 76 620924 900 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 154.0 5300.00 546,200.00 $240.00 536,960.00 $495.00 576,230.00 5265.00 540,810.00 77 620933 1050 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 336. 00 $350.00 $117,600.00 $320.00 $107,520.00 $440.00 $147,840 .00 5340.00 $114,240.00 78 620930 1200 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 25. 00 $400.00 $10,000. 00 $360. 00 $9,000 .00 $500.00 $12,500.00 $265.00 $6,625.00 79 709058 900 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE INLET m 6.00 $500. 00 $3,000. 00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,025 .00 $6,150.00 5575.00 $3,450.00 • TABLE F Pr oject "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS. EST. QUAN. Engineers Estimate Riverside C onstructi on C o. Griffith C ompany Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 80 707471 900 mm CONCRETE PIPE INLET m 56.00 $1,000 .00 $56,000.00 $750.00 $42,000 .00 $1,050 .00 $58,800.00 $695.00 $38,920.00 81 709068 900 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE RISER m 15 .00 $550 .00 $8,250.00 $550.00 $8,250.00 $1,525.00 $22,875.00 $340.00 $5,100.00 82 650370 600 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CLASS m 4,100 .0 $250.00 $1,025,000.00 $160.00 $656,000.00 $182 .00 $746,200.00 $185.00 $758,500 .00 83 650375 750 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CLASS m 288.0 $275.00 $79,200.00 $180 .00 $51,840.00 $280 .00 $80,640.00 $220.00 $63,360.00 84 650379 900 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CLASS m 301 .0 $300.00 $90,300.00 $240.00 $72,240.00 $500.00 $150,500.00 $450.00 $135,450.00 85 650284 1050 mm REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CLASS m 58.0 $350 .00 $20,300.00 $320.00 $18,560.00 $430.00 $24,940.00 $320.00 $18,560.00 86 680930A 150 mm PERFORATED PLASTIC PIPE m 14.7 $150.00 $2,205.00 $60.00 $882.00 $535.00 $7,864 .50 $260.00 $3,822.00 87 705336 450 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE FLARED END EA 1.0 $400.00 $400 .00 $650.00 $650.00 $875.00 $875.00 $275.00 $275.00 88 705337 600 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE FLARED END EA 16 .0 $700.00 $11,200 .00 $750.00 $12,000.00 $925.00 $14,800.00 $325.00 $5,200.00 89 705224 600 mm REINFO RCED CONCRETE PIPE FLARED EA 7.0 $750.00 $5,250 .00 $750.00 $5,250.00 $1,600.00 $11,200.00 $500.00 $3,500.00 90 705650A SLIDING GATE EA 9.0 $1,500.00 $13,500 .00 $2,500 .00 $22,500.00 $4,200 .00 $37,800.00 $3,000.00 $27,000.00 91 (S) 717000A INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1. 00 $8,000.00 $8,000 .00 $12,000 .00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $12,500 .00 $12,500.00 92 (S) 717000B INSTALL LEACH LINES, SEPTIC TANK, AND LEACH LS 1.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $7,500 .00 $7,500 .00 $9,000.00 $9,000 .00 $8,000.00 $8,000 .00 93 (S) 717000C INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1.00 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $9,500 .00 $9,500 .00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 94 (S) 717000D INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1. 00 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 $7,500.00 $7,500 .00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 95 (S) 717000E INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1.00 $6,500. 00 $6,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 96 (S) 717000F INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 97 (S) 717000G INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1.00 $10,000. 00 $10,000.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $16,000.00 $16,000 .00 $14,000.00 814,000.00 98 (S) 717000H INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1. 00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500 .00 $9,500.00 $9,500 .00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 99 (S) 7170001 INSTALL LEACH LINES AND SEPTIC TANK LS 1.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $7,800. 00 $7,800 .00 $10,000.00 $10,000 .00 $8,500 .00 $8,500.00 TABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION w UNIT OF MEAS . Engineers Estimate Riverside C onstruction Co. Griffith Company Inc . Yeager Skanska Inc. EST. QUAN. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 100 719567 CLASS 4 CONCRETE BACKFILL m3 241.0 $75.00 $18,075.00 $150.00 $36,150.00 5165.00 $39,765.00 $125.00 $30,125.00 101 720000 LIGHT ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (METHOD B) m3 446.0 $50.00 $22,300.00 $85.00 $37,910 .00 $44.00 $19,624.00 $150.00 566,900.00 102 721007 1/4 TONNE ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION ( METHOD B) m3 1,181.0 $50.00 $59,050.00 5100 .00 $118,100.00 $36.00 $42,516.00 545 .00 553,145.00 103 729010 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION FABRIC m2 2,861 .0 $1 .00 $2,861.00 $8.00 $22,888.00 $11 .00 $31,471.00 $4.00 $11.444.00 104 731627 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB, SIDEWALK, CURB RAMP & DRIVEWAY) m3 309.50 $250 .00 $77,375.00 $300.00 $92,850.00 $440 .00 $136,180.00 $260.00 $80,470.00 105 (F) 750001 MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEEL Kg 14,457.0 $3.00 543,371.00 $2.50 $36,142.50 $3.00 $43,371.00 $2.20 $31,805.40 106 (S) 800391 CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPE CL -1.8) m 2,246 $40 .00 $89,840.00 550.00 $112,300.00 $47.00 $105,562.00 $47.00 $105,562.00 107 810111 SURVEY MONUMENTS EA 15 $750.00 $11,250.00 $750.00 $11,250.00 $750.00 $11,250.00 $650.00 $9,750.00 108 820107 DELINEATOR (CLASS 1) EA 92 $25.00 $2,300.00 $50.00 $4,600.00 $27.00 $2,484.00 $35.00 $3,220 .00 109 833125 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 25B) m 30 $300 .00 $9,000 .00 $400 .00 $12,000.00 $850 .00 $25,500.00 $475.00 $14,250.00 110 (S) 833127 METAL BEAM GUARD RAILING (WOOD POST) m 176 $200 .00 535,200.00 $150.00 $26,400 .00 5155.00 527,280.00 $85.00 $14,960 .00 111 (S) 839521 CABLE RAILING m 636 $35.00 $22,260.00 $40 .00 $25,440.00 $41.00 $26,076 .00 $40.00 $25.440.00 112 (S) 839559 TERMINAL SYSTEM (TYPE ET) EA 4 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $3,500.00 514,000.00 $3,300.00 $13,200.00 $2,600 .00 $10,400.00 113 (S) 839565 TERMINAL SYSTEM (TYPE SRT) EA 12 $2,500.00 $30,000.00 $2,500.00 $30,000.00 $2,500.00 $30,000 .00 $2,200 .00 $26,400.00 114 (S) 839568 TERMINAL ANCHOR ASSEMBLY (TYPE SFT) EA 10 $600.00 56,000.00 $750.00 $7,500 .00 $775 .00 $7,750.00 $500 .00 $5.000 .00 115 (S) 840504 100 mm THERMOPLASTIC TRA FFIC STRIPE m 97. 0 $1.00 $97.00 $1.00 $97.00 $1.05 $101.85 $1.00 $97 .00 200 mm THERM OPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE 0.0 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 116 (S) 840509 300 mm THERM OPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE m 406.0 $5. 50 $2,233. 00 $5.50 $2,233.00 $8.00 $3,248.00 $7.50 $3,045.00 117 (S) 840515 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEM ENT MARKING m2 174.0 $35.00 $6,090.00 530.00 $5,220.00 $34.00 $5,916.00 $35.00 $6,090.00 118 (S) 840560 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (SPRAYABLE) m 45,337.0 51.00 $45,337.00 $0. 50 $22,668.50 $0.58 $26,295.46 $0 .60 $27,202.20 119 (S) 840653 PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE m 690.0 51.00 $690.00 $1.50 $1,035.00 $5 .30 $3,657.00 $5.00 $3,450.00 TABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . EST. QUAN. Engineers Estimate Ri verside Construction Co . Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc . UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 120 424 (S) 850102 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETRO-REFLECTIVE) EA 4,463.0 $2.50 $11,157.50 $5 .00 $22,315.00 $3.15 $14,058.45 53.00 $13,389.00 (.S) 460351 (LOCATION 1) LS $0.90 $0-00 $0.00 $0,00 $0 .00 $0.00 122 (S) 860352 TRAFFIC SIGNAL (LOCATION 2) LS 1 $135,500.00 $135,500.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $111,000.00 $111,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 123 (S) 860604 FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM LS 1 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 124 150205 -EVMWD WATER LINE ABANDONMENT/REMOVAL LS 1 $21,000.00 $21,000.00/ $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $42,000.00 $42,000 .00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 125 190161 -EVMWD DRILL HOLE (PRESPLITTING) m 320 $10 .00 $3,200.00 $50.00 $16,000.00 $90 .00 $28,800 .00 $33.00 $10,560.00 126 208304A -EVMWD WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS EA 40 $800 .00 $32,000.00 $1,750.00 $70,000 .00 $3,500 .00 $140,000.00 $2,000.00 $80,000 .00 127 208305A -EVMWD WATER M AIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500 .00 128 208305B -EVMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,000 .00 $7,000 .00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 57,000.00 129 208305C -EVMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 $7,000 .00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000 .00 57,000.00 130 208305D -EVMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500 .00 $7,500 .00 $7,500 .00 131 208305E -EVM WD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000 .00 $8,000 .00 $8,000 .00 132 208305F -EVM WD WATER M AIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000 .00 $8,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500 .00 133 208633A -EVMWD BLOW -OFF PER EVMWD STD. DWG. NO W-19 EA 3 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,750.00 $8,250.00 $3,600.00 $10,800.00 $2,500.00 $7,500 .00 134 208683A -EVMWD 25 mm (1")AIR RELEASE/AIR VACUUM EA 3 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,500 .00 $2,900 .00 $8,700.00 $1,750.00 $5,250.00 135 703564A -EVMWD 510 mm (20" ) STEEL CASING PER EVMWD STD m 150 $235. 00 $35,250.00 $325.00 $48,750 .00 $825 .00 $123,750.00 $360.00 554,000 .00 136 705925A -EVMWD 200 mm (8" ) GATE VALVE AND VALVE WELL PER EA 24 $700.00 $16,800. 00 $1,000 .00 $24,000 .00 $1,400 .00 $33,600.00 $1,100.00 $26,400.00 137 718004A -EVMWD 200 mm (8") DUCTILE IRON PIPE m 3,343 $150.00 $501,450.00 $220.00 $735,460.00 5127.00 $424,561.00 $220 .00 $735 .460 .00 138 993012A -EVM WD FIRE HYDRANT PER EVMWD STD. DWG. NO. W- EA 3 $2,500.00 $7,500. 00 $2,800.00 $8,400 .00 $8,000 .00 $24,000.00 $2,800 .00 $8,400 .00 139 150205 -EM WD WATER LINE REMOVAL/ABANDONMENT LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $80,000 .00 $80,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000 .00 140 190161 -EMWD (PRESPLITTING) DRILL HOLE m 340 $10.00 $3,400. 00 $50. 00 $17,000.00 $90.00 $30,600 .00 $33.00 $11,220.00 TABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO ITEM CODE ITE M DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS . Engineers Estimate Ri verside Constr uction Co . Griffith Company I nc. Yeager Skanska Inc. EST. QUAN . UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITE M TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 141 2083048 -EMWD WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS EA 162 $850.00 $137,700 .00 $1,800.00 $291,600 .00 $3,500.00 $567,000 .00 $2,000.00 $324,000.00 142 2083Q5A -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 11 $3,000.00 $33,000.00 $6,500.00 $71,500.00 $5,500.00 $60,500 .00 $6,500.00 $71,500.00 143 208305B -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 3 $4,000 .00 $12,000 .00 $7,500.00 $22,500 .00 $11,000.00 $33,000.00 $7,500.00 $22,500.00 144 2083050 -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $3,000 .00 $3,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $6,000.00 $6,000 .00 59,000.00 $9,000 .00 144A 208305D -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $3,000 .00 $3,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500 .00 $13,000.00 $13,000 .00 $9,000.00 $9,000 .00 145 208305E -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $5,000.00 55,000.00 57,500 .00 57,500.00 $6,000.00 56,000 .00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 146 208305F -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $6,500.00 56,500.00 $12,500 .00 $12,500 .00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $12,500 .00 $12,500 .00 146A 208305D -EMWD WATER M AIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $9,000 .00 $9,000.00 146B 208305D -EMWD WATER MAIN CONNECTION (PER DETAIL EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000 .00 $8,500.00 58,500.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 147 208683A -EMWD 25 mm (1") AV & AR PER EMWD STD DWG A-598 EA 1 $3,000 .00 $3,000.00 52,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 52,100.00 $2,100.00 148 152351A -EMWD RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EA 6 $1,500 .00 $9,000.00 $2,000.00 $12,000 .00 $3,500 .00 $21,000.00 52,200.00 $13,200.00 149 152351b -EM WD RELOCATE EXISTING AV & AR EA 2 $1,000 .00 $2,000.00 $1,000 .00 $2,000.00 $2,500 .00 $5,000 .00 $1,400 .00 $2,800 .00 150 703480 -EMWD CONSTRUCT VALVE CAP AND RISER PER EMWD EA 7 $1,000.00 $7,000.00 $250.00 $1,750.00 $1,300.00 $9,100.00 $400.00 $2,800 .00 151 703564A -EM WD CONSTRUCT 508 -mm (20") CASING (OPTIONAL NON - m 34 $250.00 $8,500.00 $110 .00 $3,740 .00 $875 .00 $29,750.00 $365.00 $12,410.00 152 703564B -EMWD CONSTRUCT 762 -mm (30") CASING (OPTIONAL NON - m 7 $300.00 $2,100.00 $450.00 $3,150.00 $3,200.00 $22,400 .00 $450 .00 $3,150.00 153 705925A -EMWD 203 mm (8") GATE VALVE AND VALVE WELL PER EA 2 5700.00 $1,400.00 51,250.00 52,500 .00 51,400.00 $2,800 .00 51,200 .00 $2,400 .00 154 705925B -EMWD 305 mm (12") GATE VALVE AND VALVE WELL PER EA 1 $1,100. 00 $1,100.00 $1,500.00 51,500 .00 $2,200 .00 $2,200.00 $1,500.00 51,500.00 155 7059250 -EMWD 405 mm (16") GATE VALVE AND VALVE WELL PER EA 6 $1,400.00 $8,400.00 $5,000 .00 $30,000.00 $5,000 .00 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 156 718004A -EMWD 152 mm_(6") C900 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE m 44 $125.00 $5,500. 00 $185.00 $8,140.00 5250.00 $11,000 .00 5225 .00 59,900.00 157 7180048 -EMWD 203 mm (8") C900 ^}^ ^ POLYVINLY CHLORIDE m 707 $150.00 $106,050.00 5210.00 $148,470.00 $205.00 $144,935.00 $220.00 $155,540 .00 T ABLE F Project "A" ITEM NO 158 159 160 160A 161 ITEM CODE 718004C -EMWD 718004D -EM WD 993012A -EM WD 993012B UNIT OF EST. ITEM DESCRIPTION MEAS. QU AN 305 mm (12 ") C900 POLYVINYL CHL ORIDE PIPE PER E MWD STD DWG 8-408 406 mm (16") C900 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE PER EMWD STD DWG 8-408 CONSTRUCT FIRE HYDRANT PER EMWD STD. DWG. NO. B-362 -EMWD CONSTRUCT FIRE HYDRA NT PER EM WD STD DWG. NO. B-517 999990 M OBILIZATION (10% OF SUBTOTAL) m m EA EA LS 167 1,126 2 Engineers Estimate Riverside Constructio n Co, UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE $185,00 $30,895.00 $250.00 ITEM TOTAL $210 .00 Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. $41,750.00 UNIT PRICE 5260 .00 ITE M TOTAL $43,420 .00 UNIT PRICE $250.00 ITEM TOTAL 541, 750.00 $236,460.00 $315.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 $354,690.00 5240.00 5270,240.00 $330.00 $371,580.00 53,000.00 $3,000 .00 $3,500.00 $1,721,164 $7,000.00 $3,500.00 $4,800.00 $5,800.00 59,600.00 $5,800.00 $3,400 .00 $3.300.00 $6 .800.00 $3,300.00 $1,721.164 $780,000 5780,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,585,000 51,585,000.00 $1,853,001 $1,853,000.80 $18,933,648.50 $20,207,532.30 920,355,016.59 920,608,617.70 TABLE G Project "B" ITEM NO ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS. EST. Engin eer s Estiamte Ri verside Co nstruction Inc. Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. QUAN. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOT AL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 1 PROGRESS SCHEDULE LS 1 $ 1,000 .00 $1,000 $ 500.00 $500 $ 500.00 $500 $ 250.00 $250 2 PREPARE LEAD COMPLIANCE PLAN LS 1 $ 500.00 $500 $ 1,000.00 $1,000 $ 1,000 .00 $1,000 $ 250 .00 $250 3 PREPARE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $1,000 $ 2,500.00 $2,500 $ 1,000 .00 $1,000 $ 250.00 $250 4 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS 1 $ 20,000 .00 $20,000 $ 3,500.00 $3,500 $ 4,000 .00 $4,000 $ 3,500.00 $3,500 5 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 $ 2,500 .00 $2,500 $ 3,100.00 $3,100 $ 2,100.00 $2,100 6 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM LS 1 $ 40,000.00 $40,000 $ 3,500.00 $3,500 $ 7,000.00 $7,000 $ 8,500.00 $8,500 7 CHANNELIZER (SURFACE MOUNTED) EA 65.00 $ 25.00 $1,625 $ 25.00 $1,625 $ 30 .00 $1,950 $ 50 .00 $3,250 8 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING m3 195.00 $ 18 .00 $3,510 $ 40 .00 $7,800 $ 56.00 $10,920 $ 20.00 $3,900 9 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN EA 6 $ 100 .00 $600 $ 50.00 $300 $ 105.00 $630 $ 85.00 $510 10 REMOVE TREE EA 8 $ 350.00 $2,800 $ 450 .00 $3,600 $ 525 .00 $4,200 $ 500.00 $4,000 11 REMOVE CONCRETE (CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK) m3 11. 00 $ 45.00 $495 $ 200 .00 $2,200 $ 240 .00 $2,640 $ 170 .00 $1,870 12 INSTALL MAILBOX EA 1 $ 300.00 $300 $ 200 .00 $200 $ 525.00 $525 $ 220 .00 $220 13 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN EA 4 $ 150. 00 $600 $ 150.00 $600 $ 160.00 $640 $ 150.00 $600 14 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT PER EVMWD STANDARD W-7 EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $1,500 $ 2,500.00 $2,500 $ 7,000.00 $7,000 $ 2,200 .00 $2,200 14A RECONSTRUCT CHAIN LINK FENCE m 106. 00 $ 35. 00 $3,710 $ 80.00 $8,480 $ 85.00 $9,010 $ 50.00 $5,300 15 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 5,000. 00 $5,000 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 $ 3,000.00 $3,000 $ 5,000.00 $5,000 16 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY LS 1 $ 2,500. 00 $2,500 $ 1,500.00 $1,500 $ 1,000.00 $1,000 $ 2,500 .00 $2,500 17 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST EA 18 $ 175.00 $3,150 $ 300.00 $5,400 $ 325 .00 $5,850 $ 185.00 $3,330 18 ROADWAY EXCAVATION m3 2,673.0 $ 10.00 $26,730 $ 20.00 $53,460 $ 27.00 $72,171 $ 15 .00 $40,095 19 EROSION CONTROL (TYPE D) HA 0.20 $ 10,000.00 $2,000 $ 20,000.00 $4,000 $ 4,600.00 $920 $ 7,350 .00 $1,470 20 FINISHING ROADWAY LS 1 $ 2,000. 00 $2,000 $ 3,500. 00 $3,500 $ 2,000 ,00 $2,000 $ 2,000.00 $2,000 21 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE m3 1,989.00 $ 25. 00 $49,725 $ 30.00 $59,670 $ 43.00 $85,527 $ 30.00 $59,670 22 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE A) TONNE 1,954.00 $ 40.00 $78,160 $ 42.00 $82,068 $ 40.00 $78,160 $ 39.00 $76,206 TABLE G Project "B" ITEM NO ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEAS. EST. QUAN. Engineers Estiamte Riverside Construction Inc. Griffith Company Inc. Yeager Skanska Inc. UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL 23 PLACE AC DIKE (TYPE E) m 73.00 $ 3.00 $219 $ 5.00 $365 $ 3.50 $256 $ 3.00 $219 24 PLACE AC (MISC. AREA) m2 1.20 $ 25 .00 $30 $ 450.00 $540 $ 47.00 $56 $ 400.00 $480 25 LIQUID ASPHALT (PRIME COAT) SC 250 TONNE 8.00 $ 550.00 $4,400 $ 350.00 $2,800 $ 310.00 $2,480 $ 320.00 $2,560 26 MINOR CONCRETE (HEADWALL & COLLAR) (F) m3 2 .48 $ 1,000.00 $2,480 $ 1,200.00 $2,976 $ 1,325.00 $3,286 $ 1,550 .00 $3,844 27 300 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 32.00 $ 150.00 $4,800 $ 165 .00 $5,280 $ 230 .00 $7,360 $ 180.00 $5,760 28 600 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE m 63.00 $ 200.00 $12,600 $ 125.00 $7,875 $ 235 .00 $14,805 $ 275.00 $17,325 29 900 mm ALTERNATIVE PIPE INLET m 1.20 $ 150.00 $180 $ 200.00 $240 $ 950.00 $1,140 $ 550.00 $660 30 CLASS 4 CONCRETE BACKFILL m3 9.00 $ 125.00 $1,125 $ 150 .00 $1,350 $ 450.00 $4,050 $ 125 .00 $1,125 31 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK & CURB RAMP) m3 30. 00 $ 250.00 $7,500 $ 300.00 $9,000 $ 775.00 $23,250 $ 375.00 $11,250 32 MISCELLANEOUS IRON & STEEL KG 98.00 $ 3 .00 $294 $ 3.00 $294 $ 4.75 $466 $ 3.50 $343 33 DELINEATOR (CLASS 1) EA 21.00 $ 25.00 $525 $ 35 .00 $735 $ 27.00 $567 $ 35.00 $735 34 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING AND CROSSWALK m2 79.00 $ 35.00 $2,765 $ 30.00 $2,370 $ 34.00 $2,686 $ 35.00 $2,765 35 200 mm THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE m 225. 00 $ 5.50 $1,238 $ 2.50 $563 $ 2.65 $596 $ 2 .50 $563 36 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (SPRAYABLE) m 1,558.00 $ 1.00 $1,558 $ 0.50 $779 $ 0.58 5904 $ 0.60 $935 37 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETRO- REFLECTIVE) EA 270.0 $ 2.50 $675 $ 5 .00 $1,350 $ 3 .15 $851 $ 3.00 $810 38 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION LS 1. 0 $ 140,000.00 $140,000 $ 100,000.00 $100,000 $ 111,000 .00 $111,000 $ 100,000.00 $100,000 39 MOBILIZATION (10% OF SUBTOTAL) LS 1 $ 23,229.80 $23,230 $ 25,000.00 $25,000 $ 25,000 .00 $25,000 $ 35,000.00 $35,000 SUBTOTAL $455,523.30 $416,919 .50 $501,494.79 $411,344 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement No. 04-31-031 for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 From 0.5 Km East Of Wasson Canyon Road To 7th Street, and Agreement No. 04-31-032 for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris, in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-031 for the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 From 0.5 Km East Of Wasson Canyon Road To 7th Street and Agreement No. 04-31-032 for the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris, in Riverside County. The bids for both agreements are due by 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 2004. Staff will present a summary of the bids received, a summary of staff's and legal council's review of the bids received, and staff's recommendation for award at the Committee meeting, scheduled to be held on Jan 26, 2004; 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 State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris (The Project). The Project will widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to a four (4) lane roadway, with a fourteen (14) foot paved median, and eight (8) foot paved shoulders. The Project will also realign and smooth out the horizontal and vertical roadway profile at several locations and make improvements to existing intersections, including the intersection 12 at Greenwald Avenue. The Project will be constructed in two segments. Segment I is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 11 is from approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Segment I construction was completed, except for minor punch item clean up work, in December 2003 and is open to traffic. Segment II was advertised on November 3, 2003 and consists of two separate projects Project "A" and Project "B". Project "A", Agreement No. 04-31-031, consists of the Realignment and Widening of State Route 74 From 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road To 7th Street and Project "B", Agreement No. 04-31-032, consists of the Realignment of Greenwald Avenue and the Greenwald/Meadowbrook/State Route 74 Intersection located between Lake Elsinore and Perris. The work, for both projects, generally consist of grading operations, paving, water line relocation and installation, curb and gutter construction, drainage improvements, electrical and traffic signal improvements. All prospective bidders have to submit a bid for both Project "A" and Project "B". The projects will be awarded as two (2) Contracts - one (1) for Project "A" and one (1) for Project "B" to one (1) the Bidder who is evaluated to be the lowest responsible Bidder, for the sum total of both Project "A" and Project "B", and has submitted a responsive Bid for both Projects. The bidder in conformance with these requirements will be recommended for award to the Commission. Segment II bids will be opened at 2:00pm on Tuesday, January 20, 2004. Staff will present a summary of the bids received, a summary of staff's and legal council's review of the bids received, and staff's recommendation for award at the Committee meeting, scheduled to be held on January 26, 2004. • 13 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement #04-31-047 (Amendment #6 to Agreement # RO-9954), with SC Engineering for Additional Engineering Design and Survey Services for the State Route 74 Widening Project Between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement # 04-31-047 (Amendment #6 to Agreement # RO- 9954), with SC Engineering for additional Engineering Design and Survey Services to complete the PS&E for State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, for an additional base amount of $229,305 and an additional contingency of $70,295, for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $300,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward this item to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will realign curves and widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 1 is now complete. Segment 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Segment 11 will open construction bids on January 20, 2004. At the January 13, 1999 meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9954 to SC Engineering for Final PS&E Design of the Route 74 Highway Improvement Project, between 1-15 and Wasson Canyon Road near the City of Lake Elsinore. This scope of work was limited to Segment 1. At the October 13, 1999 meeting, the Commission amended the original contract, RO-9954, with SC Engineering with 14 Amendment #1 to extend the design to include Segment 2. The contract was further amended with Amendment #2 to perform an environmental re-evaluation and provide additional right-of-way engineering for the project. At the February 14, 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission issued Amendment #3 to SC Engineering's Contract to cover the development of the PS&E for the realignment of Greenwald Avenue at its connection to State Route 74. The complete history of the contract changes is shown in Table 1. Staff is recommending that the Commission now consider Amendment No. 6 to the subject agreement. This amendment is to provide compensation for out of scope engineering design and survey services. The engineering design services include: (1) preparing plans and field work for revegetation, required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to reestablish plant communities that were disturbed by road construction; (2) field work to assist property owners in locating the right of way boundary line, in order to move their fences; (3) fieldwork to relocate utilities; (4) preparation of a geotechnical report to analyze the stability of rock slopes adjacent to the Segment 1 roadway; and (5) prepare right of way exhibits and other coordination efforts. The survey services are required due to Caltrans requirements to provide a Record of Survey, different from past projects, which includes: (1) setting right of way monuments at 443 angle points; (2) preparation of a Record of Survey document; and (3) processing the document through Riverside County. The out of scope engineering and survey services are $73,206 and $156,099, respectively. The total out of services amount is $229,305. The contract currently has $36,106 remaining in extra work. Staff believes that there will be additional future needs for extra work authorizations. In order to be able to keep the project delivery on schedule, staff is requesting that an additional $70,695 of extra work be added to this contract. The total additional extra work amount that would be available to the contract would then be $106,801 ($36,106 + $70,695). The value of this Amendment would be $300,000 ($229,305 + $70,695). The total not to exceed value of the project will increase to $4,815,983 ($4,515,983 + $300,000). • 15 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2003/2004 Amount: $300,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81102 P3001-12 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)IX€,,4,A,3,,,,,, Date: 1/20/04 Attachments: Table 1-- Contract Status Letter from S.C. Engineering dated December 19, 2003 • • TABLE 1 Co ntract RO- 9954 with SC Engineering for PS&E Design of Highway 74 between 1-15 and 7th Street Date Description New Authorization Change in Extra Work Currently Authorized Not to Exceed 1/13/1999 Original Agreement - PS&E Design $798,014 $101,609 $798,014 $899,623 5/12/1999 Amendment #1 - PS&E from Wasson to 7th $1,586,650 $0 $2,384,664 $2,486,273 10/13/1999 Amendment #2 - R/W Engineering and Enviromental Reevaluation $264,699 $0 $2,649,363 $2,750,972 5/12/1999 EW #1 - Biology Study $11,000 ($11,000) $2,660,363 $2,750,972 5/3/1999 EW #2 - CT Safety Projects $4,460 ($4,460) $2,664,823 $2,750,972 3/7/2000 EW #3 - Mitigation Parcel Studies $20,440 ($20,440) $2,685,263 $2,750,972 3/31/2000 EW #4 - Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study $10,500 ($10,500) $2,695,763 $2,750,972 8/21/2000 EW #5 - Vegetation Removal PS&E $5,920 ($5,920) $2,701,683 $2,750,972 1/17/2001 EW #6 - Vegetation Removal Contract Support (Staking and Env. Monitor) $42,236 ($42,236) $2,743,919 $2,750,972 2/14/2001 Amendment #3 - Misc. Design Services Related to Final Design $716,344 $250,000 $3,460,263 $3,717,316 1/17/2002 EW #7 - Out of Scope Misc. Design Service $216,861 ($216,861) $3,677,124 $3,717,316 2/28/2002 Restated Amendment #1 - PS&E from Wasson to 7th $0 $206,265 $3,677,124 $3,923,581 4/16/2002 EW #8 - Additional Design, R/W Engineering, and Water quality $192,979 ($192,979) $3,870,103 $3,923,581 6/6/2002 EW #9 - Burrowing Owl Surveys $5,200 ($5,200) $3,875,303 $3,923,581 8/6/2002 EW #10 - ROW Staking $16,862 ($16,862) $3,892,165 $3,923,581 6/12/2002 Amendment #4 - Additional design Services to Complete Project $265,902 $26,500 $4,158,067 $4,215,983 1/8/2003 Amendment #5 - Additional Survey Services for SR 74 $248,200 $51,800 $4,406,267 $4,515,983 7/21/2003 EW #11 - Additional Design $73,610 ($73,610) $4,479,877 $4,515,983 Current Status $4,479,877 $36,106 $4,406,267 $4,515,983 17 TRANSPORTATION - TRAFFIC - CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT December 19, 2003 Route 74 from Dexter Ave to 0.5 Km West of Wasson Canyon Rd Widen to 4 -Lanes SC File: RCTC-99-01 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attention: Mr. Brian Cundelan, PE Project Coordinator Subject: Amendment No. 6 — Record of Survey and Additional Design Services Dear Mr. Cundelan: �C�C�L�UM�R DEC 23 2003 1J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Per our meeting, itemized below are detailed description of additional items that were performed or anticipated to be perform that were not covered in any previous scope of work: 1. Right -of -Way (R/W) Engineering — Record of Survey A. Segment 1 a) Set Final R/W Monuments at all angle points b) Prepare Record of Survey c) Process Record of Survey through Riverside County d) Quality Control B. Segment 2 a) Set Final R/W Monuments at all angle points b) Prepare Record of Survey c) Process Record of Survey through Riverside County d) Quality Control 2. Additional Design Efforts A. Local Assistant Field Review Form — Segment 2 B. Mitigation Re -vegetation Plans — Segment 1 C. Flagging/Staking Mitigation Re -vegetation Locations (Total = 7) — Segment 1 D. Mitigation Re -vegetation Plans — Segment 2 E. Flagging/Staking Mitigation Re -vegetation Locations (Total = 13) — Segment 2 F. Flagging/Staking Fence RemovaVRelocation — Segment 2 G. Southern California EdisonNerizon Pole Staking — Segment 2 H. The Gas Company Relocation Staking — Segment 2 1. Construction Support -Slope Stability Report — Segment 1 J. R/W Exhibits and Coordination K. Project Management/Coordination/Meeting toing foie ¶iansposlaNlon of t& gland snob.. and d1tg&.esttf Headquarters 14318 California Av e, Suite 104 Victorville, CA'2392 7C.n.QFG_7717 £ 7C,n.agg_gian_FAY Mr. Brian Cundelan, Project Coordinator Riverside County Transportation Commission December 19, 2003 Page 2 il Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to serve RCTC and assist in the process of the approval of the necessary documents and provide a safer transportation facility in Riverside County. Should you have any question, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712. Sincerely, SC ENGINEERING Q.S.c9 c____. Sal Chavez, PE Principal/Project Manager cc: Project Files -55 Bill Hughes, RCTC/Bechtel • • 19 • STATE ROUTE410Segme nt 2 Re cord of Survey and Additional Design Servi ces TASK Estimated N o. of Sheets Estimated Hours/Sheet Estimated Hours Firm Cost 1. RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING A. Segment 1 a) Set Final R/W Monuments at all Angle Points (BCs, Ecs) - Est. 138 b) Prepare Record of Survey - 10 Sheets c) Process Record of Survey Through Riverside County d) Quality Control Subtotal B. Segment 2 a) Set Final R/W M onuments at all Angle Points (BCs, Ecs) - Est . 305 b) Prepa re Record of Survey - 18 Sheets 0) Process Record of Survey Through Riverside County d) Quality Control Subtotal Subtotal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 138 156 60 16 258 282 110 24 138 156 60 16 370 258 282 110 24 674 1,044 AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE $28,911 $13,168 $8,942 $2,603 $53,644 $58,938 $23,661 $15,951 $3,905 $102,454 $158,099 CHECK SC AE GD 138 156 60 16 370 258 282 110 24 674 1044 0 1044 0 2. ADDITIONAL DESIGN EFFORTS A. Local Assistant Field Review Form - SEGMENT 2 B. Mitigation Re -vegetation Plans - SEGMENT 1 C. Flagging/Staking M itigation Revegetation Locations (Total= 7) D. Mitigation Revegetation Plans - SEGMENT 2 E. Flagging/Staking Mitigation Revegetation Locations (Total =13) F. Flagging/Staking Fence Removal/Relocations (Total =30 Loca tions) G. Southern California EdlsonNerizon Pole Staking H. The Gas Company Relocation Staking I. Slope Stability Report - SEGMENT 1 J. R/W Exhibits/Coordination K. Project Management/Coordination/Meetings Subtotal 1 8 7 12 13 30 1 1 1 1 1 76 24 8 3 8 3 2 88 60 12 100 140 24 64 21 96 39 60 88 60 12 100 140 704 SC SC SC SC SC SC AE AE GD SC SC SC $2,029 $5,411 $1,775 $8,116 $3,297 $5,073 $15,286 $10,422 $1,504 $8,455 $11,837 $73,206 CHECK SC AE GD 24 64 21 96 39 60 88 60 12 100 140 704 544 148 12 TOTAL 1,748 SC+SUBS $229,305 1,748 544 1,192 12 SUMMARY FIRM HOURS BUDGET PERCE NT SC ENGINEERING 544 $45,993 20% ASSO CIATED ENGINEERS 1,192 3181,807 79% GROUP DELTA 12 $1,504 1% TOTAL 1,748 $229,305 100% STATE ROUTE 74, Segment 2 Record of Survey and Additional Design Services COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: SC ENGINEERING PROJECT: State Route 74 SCOPE OF WORK Record of Survey/Additional Design Services DATE REVISION December 19, 2003 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: SUMMARY DIRECT LABOR x-5 Sal Chavez Carl Sosa/Staff David Jenkins/Staff John Davis/Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Project Manager Senior Engineer Civil Engineer CMI Engineer Bridge Engineer CADD Operator/Technician Landscape Architect Project Controls 82 $ 44.38 $3,639 136 $ 40.00 $5,440 O $ 34.00 $0 163 $ 30.00 $4,890 O $ $0 163 $ 19.00 $3,097 O $ $0 O $ 15.00 $0 TOTAL HOURS' 544) 544 MULTIPLIERS $17,066 (ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE © 116.57% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) PAYROLL ADDITIVES OTHER DIRECT COST 28.43% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $ 19,894.02 $ 4,851.91 145.00% TOTAL MULTIPLIERS $24,746 E. Reproduction (Bond/Blue Prints) 1 (Actual Cost) LS $ - $0 OUTSIDE SERVICES (w/o fee) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $0 LSA ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS GROUP DELTA TYUN INTERNATIONAL AEI-CASC ADM $181,807 $1,504 $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $183,311 (SC ENGINEERING 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $ 4,18121 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS TOTAL COST $4,181 $229,305 21 • • kik Associated Engineers, Inc. Mr. Sal Chavez - SC Engineering 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorville, CA 92392 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 3311 E. SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764-4872 (909) 980-1982 FAX (909) 941-0891 December 10, 2003 Re: Segments 1 and 2, SR74 Final R/W Monumentation Survey Proposal Dear Sal: Enclosed is our cost estimate summary dated September 26, 2003 for the following task: Associated Engineers proposes setting of final RNV monuments and filing a Record of Survey for Segments 1 and 2 of SR74. All R/W angle points and BC/EC points are proposed to be set. The record of survey will include mapping all "found" monuments provided to Associated Engineers within the construction footprint as a monument preservation effort. As you know, our field crews did not participate in the landnet field surveys for these segments; other monuments may exist within the limits of construction that are at risk. It should be the construction surveyor's responsibility to perform monument preservation on those monuments as they encounter them. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. /JLE J.N. 99-138 Sincerely, ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. eromi Ay4- James L. Elliott, LS, PE ONOB-NO1999\99-138\COST Scg 1 & 2_9-26-03.DOC PLANNING DESIGNIN SURVEYING ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. AE 99-138 STATE ROUTE 74, SEGMENTS 1 AND 2 RECORD OF SURVEYS - COST PROPOSAL 09/26/03 Task 01 01.1 01. 2 01. 3 01.4 Task 02 02.1 02.2 02. 3 02. 4 TASKS Project Manager Chief Mapper Land Surveyor Survey Technician CADD Technician 3 -Man Field Crew 2 -Man Crew Chief of Surveys Clerical TOTAL HOURS ODC Costs TOTAL COST Rates: $180.95 $144 .45 $91.51 $77.55 $72.38 $310 .95. $209 .41 $98.23 $52 .35 Pre are Record of Surveys- Seg. 1 $3,566.00 $3,566.00 Set Final RNV Monument at all angle points, BCs, ECs (est. 138 each) 2 6 12 24 54 36 4 138 $28,910.90 Prepare R/S Seg. 1 (est. 10 sheets) 12 24 40 80 156 $12,822.04 Process R/S through County 4 8 16 16 16 60 $5,742.44 Quality Control 8 8 16 $2,603 .20 0 $0.00 pare Record of Surveys- Seg. 2 $6,050.00 $6,050.00 Set Final R/W Monument at all angle polnts, BCs, ECs (est. 305 each) 2 6 12 32 117 81 8 258 $58,937.52 Prepare R/S Seg. 2 (est. 18 sheets) 22 44 72 144 282 $23,210.66 Process R/S through County 6 14 30 30 30 110 $10,351.20 Quality Control 12 12 24 $3,904 .80 0 $0.00 0 $0 .00 Total Hours 34 88 138 214 270 171 117 12 0 1044 Total Costs $6,152.30 $12,711.60 $12,628 .38 $16,595 .70 $19,542 .60 $53,172.45 $24,500 .97 $1,178.76 $0.00 $156,098 .76 PhOtocpies;: .0.111el i e'Pr nts County Checking; OP S'j'c bar P. otoco "res, Bk el n'e f rinf :< Deliveries: ". CountyChecKIn ' o1Job no11988199ST-SEG 1 & 2_9.26-03.A, • • kok Associated Engineers, Inc. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 3311 E. SHELBY STREET, ONTARIO, CA 91764-4872 (909) 980-1982 FAX (909) 941-0891 December 2, 2003 Mr. Sal Chavez SC Engineering 14318 California Avenue, Suite 104 Victorville, CA 92392 Re: SR74 Construction Staking Proposal SC Edison and Verizon Utility Poles Dear Sal: Enclosed is our cost estimate summary for the following task:. 1. Provide construction stakes for approximately 137 new utility poles for SC Edison and Verizon, as requested in your November 3, 2003 email. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. /JLE J.N. 99-138cs (M.K18.1401199Sh99-13XICCVT-12-nz-03.DOC Sincerely, ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. James L. Elliott, LS, PE PLANNING' DESIGPINA4 •SURVEYING ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC. Ref AE 99-138CS SR74 Proposed Construction Staking Cost Proposal 12/02/03 TASKS Project Manager Chief Mapper Land Sur veyor Survey Technician_ CADD Technician 3 -Man Field Crew Chief of Surveys Clerical Proj Admin ODC Costs TOTAL HOURS TOTAL COST Rates: $186.38 $148.78 $96.52 $79.88 $74.55 $320.78 $101.18 $47 .93 $53.92 4 I.; ' Stake New SCE & Verizon Poles 2 20 40 5 1 65 $15,286 .18 0 $0 .00 o $0.00 0 $0 .00 o $0.00 '" o $0.00 Total Hours 0 2 0 20 0 40 5 0 1 . 68 ' �¢ , "� ' y - Total Costs $0,00 $297.56 $0.00 $1,597 .60 $0 .00 $12,831.20_ $505.90 $0.00 $53.92 $0.00 $15,28618 Ul ODC Costs: none O t4o hN o\1000\00-138\Coat-12-02-03x 1. • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Overview of the Current Measure "A" Program Status and Measure "A" Extension Project Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Measure "A" Program Status overview as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This memo provides an overview summary of current Measure "A" program delivery and efforts the Commission has undertaken towards project development for the 30 year Measure "A" extension program. ORIGINAL MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROGRAM Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley program for highway improvements included constructing Route 86 on a new alignment between Dillon Road (1-10) and Oasis. Also included in the highway program were a series of operational improvements on Route 111 and the provision of freeway call boxes. The Coachella Valley Measure "A" highway program has been very successful and project completion of the program is projected to be within anticipated revenues. As you may be aware, the Route 86 project was completed in 2001. On going are the operational improvements on Highway 111. The Commission and CVAG have worked closely on this program over the past year due to the fact that the revenue estimate used in developing the Measure "A" extension program projected a reduction in revenues used in developing the most current Measure "A" Strategic Plan Update (January 2000). 26 CVAG took action in 2003 to refine the projects and identify reserve funds to guarantee program delivery. The Commission adopted the CVAG recommendations on the revised Highway 111 program of projects in July 2003. That action identified a total of 7 projects to be delivered in accordance with the revenue estimate and identified 2 additional operational improvements on Route 86. Subsequent to the July action, the Commission had approved 3 reimbursement agreements for development of Highway 111 projects. Two agreements with the City of La Quinta (Simon Drive to Adams St; and, Adams St to Jefferson St.) and one agreement to begin reimbursement of a previously completed project in Rancho Mirage (Magnesia Falls to Fairway). (Attachment A) For your information, Measure "A" funds have never been used to install any new call boxes. The entire county -wide system was implemented using Commission SAFE program funds. Western County The current projects going to or under construction in the Western County Measure "A" highway program are: Route 60 - 60/215 to Redlands Blvd - under construction, Route 74 - Segment 1 - Project is open to the public and is in the process of final close out. Route 74 - Segment 2 - Project bid opening occurred on January 20, 2004 - recommendation for bid award will be provided to the Commission at its February meeting 60/91/215 Interchange - project in State contracting process - construction start estimated in mid to late February Even with the amount of recent success in moving projects to construction, the Western County has significant challenges to address in order to demonstrate full delivery of the original Measure "A" projects identified as deliverable in the 2000 Strategic Plan. The primary challenges are: 1) the Measure "A" revenue forecast, 2) State budget impacts on transportation funding programs and, 3) project delivery issues and costs. The remaining Western County Measure "A" projects shown as deliverable in the 2000 Strategic Plan are: • 27 • • • Highway Improvements: Route 74: Route 79: lanes Route 91: Winchester to Warren Road - curve realignment Domenigoni to Thompson (Newport to Keller) - widen to 4 Mary St. to Seventh Street - extend HOV lanes to 60/91/215 interchange Interchange Improvements: 1-15: Route 60: Route 60: Route 74: Route 91: Route 91: Route 91: Galena new interchange Frederick Ave - interchange ramp improvements Valley Way - interchange ramp improvements "G" Street to 1-215 - widen bridge and ramp improvements Adams St. - interchange improvements - La Sierra Ave - interchange improvements Van Buren Blvd - interchange improvements Most of the above noted projects have some level of project development activity going on by their respective lead agencies which include the Cities and the County. Over the next 60 days staff will be meeting with the project sponsors to update the respective project schedules and cost estimates. MEASURE ' A " EXTENSION Coachella Valley In support of Measure "A" Extension program project delivery work, CVAG is currently under way with an update of their Transportation Planning and Prioritization Study (TPPS) which will review the Coachella Valley's system of arterials and highways. They are performing the requisite traffic projections and origin and destination travel studies to update their capital improvement program. It is anticipated that the TPPS will be completed in approximately one year and it is expected that capital improvements and respective priorities for arterial and highway projects will be added to the existing program. Western County The Commission has several Measure "A" Extension project development efforts underway including the Route 79 realignment and the 1-215 North (60/91/215 interchange to the San Bernardino County Line) to add 2 lanes in each direction. The CETAP internal corridors Winchester to Temecula and the Cajalco Ramona, identified below, are Measure "A" Extension project development efforts. On top 28 of this staff has been working with OCTA on consultant selection for the Orange County — Riverside County Major Investment Study (MIS). CETAP North/South Corridor (Winchester to Temecula): The Commission has identified a significant expansion of the 1-15/1-215 (up to 10 lanes on 1-215 from Newport Road to the 1-15/215 connection and up to 14 lanes on 1-15 from the 1-15/215 connection to Route 79 south (Pala Road), including the French Valley Interchange as the Winchester to Temecula Corridor. A Record of Decision (ROD) on the Tier 1 environmental document was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 8, 2003. The consultant team is preparing to turn over the project materials to Caltrans District 08 which will then produce a Project Study Report (PSR) for the corridor. A PSR is the initial document required to make a project eligible to be programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). For this project, the PSR will serve as a scoping document to identify a more refined delineation of the corridor improvement right of way requirements in order to assist in protecting land for the project. It will take Caltrans approximately 1 year to produce the document, subject to state resources being available. CETAP East/West Corridor (Cajalco Road — Ramona Expressway Corridor (CRC)): At the June 2003, meeting the Commission directed staff to accelerate the development of the internal east/west CRC corridor. Subsequently, an RFP was issued, proposals received, interviews conducted and the Commission awarded a contract (December 2003) to Jacobs to develop the preliminary corridor work which includes environmental and preliminary design. The contract is in the process of being executed. The preliminary work will become the basis for the development of the environmental document (EIR/EIS). The Commission has a 3 year development schedule for the document which is aggressive for a 32 mile corridor project. Conclusion: The intent of this memo is to demonstrate that there is a significant amount of Measure "A" project development and delivery work going on. As we are unfortunately aware, transportation funding and local governments will likely continue to absorb significant funding reductions due to the State's financial condition. Given this brief overview staff will continue to support the on -going project development work and will, in the near term concentrate on assessing the status of the current Measure "A" Western County projects and funding options. • • • 29 • • • While the Commission has experienced a significant amount of success in delivery of the current Measure "A" program, there are still several Western County projects yet to be delivered. Staff will report back as soon as updated information can be obtained on status of the current Measure "A" projects. In looking several years in advance, one of the issues the Commission will have to address in the future is how to stage project delivery and funding. For example, just counting the project development work going on for the Measure "A" Extension program in Western County (Rte 79 Realignment/I-215 North/internal CETAP corridors) represents an estimated $1.3 billion of potential capital investment. This estimate does not include what may be recommended from the Orange County -Riverside County MIS nor the significant commuter rail extension (Perris Valley Line) work for which we are about to submit a funding application to the Federal Transit Administration for New Starts funding consideration. The reason for pointing this out is that given the current funding environment and not knowing whether or not we can count on significant federal discretionary funding participation, the Commission will need to determine how to effectively stage the delivery of major projects. Attachment: CVAG Measure "A" Project Listing 30 G .) • COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION / 15 % SLATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS PROJECTS PROGRA MMED TO RECEIVE 16° STATE HIGHWAY MEASURE "A" FUNDS SCHEDULE FOR RCTC PAYBACK BY FISCAL YEAR 02/03 -08/09 Available Funds per RCTC Plan RCTC Pay to CVAG Av ailable for Appro ved Projects CVAG Pay to Ran cho M irage CVAG Accumulated "Advances" Lead Project Revised Descriotlon Agency Cost Cost State Route 111 Protects 1- West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge CC 1,584,000 1,684,0,00 2- Jefferson St, to Madison St. IND 3,200,000 3,200,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. LQ 291,507 311,644 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St. LQ 2,433,995 1,860,636 5- West City Limits to Washington St, LQ 244,616 321,255 6- Magnesia Falls to Fairway • •• RM 6,500,000 6,100,000 7- Intersection Improve ments © Lincoln/4th COR 800,000 80,000 State Route 88 Projects 8- Left tumlane Pierce COR 100,000 100,000 9- Traffic Signal © 66th Ave. COR 271,000 271,000 Total Authorized 15,426,118 13,828,634 • FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/06 FY06/08 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 •' TOTAL 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,900 000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 12,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 6,100,000 0 600,000 800,000 900,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 6,900,000 0 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 800,000 0 0 6,100,000 0 0 600,000 1,400,000 2,300,000 2,100,000 1,100,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 200,000 400,000 300,000 300,000 400,000 300,000 484,000 1,900,000 1,584,000 3,200,000 0 0 300,000 0 200,000 111,644 311,644 0 100,000 100,000 96,101 400,000 500,000 664,534 1,860,635 321,265 0 0 100,000 121,255 100,000 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 13,828,634 FY08/09 shortfall from RCTC funds of $1,828,534 will be co vered by CVAG TUM F/Mea su re"A" funds, if necessary ••• CVAG will advance the City of Rancho Mirage protect cost ($6,100,000) In accordance with Available Funds per RCTC Plan, from TU MF/ Measure "A" funds. RCTC will r eimburse CVAG according to the RCTC Payback by Fiscal Year 02!03-08109 for the City of Rancho Mirage, shown In the table above. 1- West Cathedral Canyo n Channel Bridge: This project Is scheduled to start Design in Feb, M ar of 2003 (4-6 months) incl uding Environmental, then 2 months advertising followed by 6-8 months construction 2- Jeffe rson St. to Madison St. This project is scheduled to start Construction in January 2004. Construction will be completed in 90 days. The cost for Design Is $300,000 and construction is 52,900,000 3- Simon Dr. to Adams St. 4- Adams St. to Jefferson St. The above two La Quints Projects will be in design once the City finalizes an agreement with RCTC to secure the re imbursement. Start design In March, April 2003 for 6-8 months, constructi on for 10-12 months 6- West City Limits to Washington St. Project will start once funding is available. 6- Magnesia Falls to Fairway - --- - Project completed 7- Intersec tion Improve ments TS Lincoln/4th - County of Riverside withdrew this projec t County of Riverside did some Design, Env, & Survey work which cost $80,000, This project needs more money, $1. 6Mlllion. If there are no funds county will drop this pr oject, otherwise they would like to proceed with thls project. 8- Left turnlane © Pierce 9- Traffic Signal (d3 66th A ve. The above two County projects are waiting for the money to be available so they can start working on them. • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the increases in appropriations, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Adjustment 1 Staff is requesting a budget adjustment for the installation of traffic counter equipment at Caltrans traffic management sites. These sites are at various locations on the state highway system. This work was originally awarded in 2001 and is part of the Congestion Management Program. The contracts for Signal Maintenance Inc. and Comarco Wireless Technology to install the traffic counter equipment were not included in the original development of the FY 2003-2004 budget. Staff has indicated that $114,614 and $241,000 is needed to cover the Signal Maintenance Inc. and Comarco Wireless Technology contracts, respectively through June 30, 2004. These two budget adjustments will be reimbursable with STIP funding. Adjustment 2 Under the direction from the Property Committee, the Commission originally purchased property from MLM Properties, LLC in October 2003 for the Downtown Riverside parking and station expansion on the south side for $1,318,148. The Commission is currently in the process of purchasing additional property adjacent to the original parcel for the parking expansion and a future parking structure. The cost for the second parcel is $1,700,000. These amounts were identified in the FY2002-2003 and FY 2003-2004 Commuter Rail SRTP. Staff is requesting a budget adjustment for the purchase of the second parcel which is likely to close 32 escrow by June 30, 2004. Sufficient Measure A Rail Capital fund balance is available to cover this increase. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2003-2004 Amount: $2,055,614 Source of Funds: STIP $355,614 Measure A Fund Balance $1,700,000 Budget Adjustment: g Y GLA No.: 106-65-81301 P2132 221-33-81401 P3810 $ 355,614 $1,700,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \y , Date: 1/20/04 • 33 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 04-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-006, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF).", and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • BACKGROUND INFORMATION: • LAIF began in 1977 as a voluntary alternative for California's local governments and special districts under the administration of the State Treasurer. The enabling legislation is Section 16429.1,2,3 of the California Government Code. It has been determined that the State of California cannot declare bankruptcy under Federal regulations, thereby allowing the Government Code Section 16429.3 to stand. This section states that "money placed with the State Treasurer for deposit in the LAIF shall not be subject to either: (a) transfer or loan pursuant to Sections 16310, 16312, or 16313, or (b) impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency." On April 10, 2002 the Commission adopted Resolution No. 02-013 to participate in LAIF. The adoption allowed the Commission another alternative as it invests its cash for safety, liquidity and yield. The adoption also designated the Commission's Executive Director, Eric Haley and Chief Financial Officer, Ivan Chand authorization to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the LAIF. The Commission's Chief Financial Officer, Ivan Chand resigned on October 16, 2003. Resolution No. 04- 006 removes Ivan Chand from the existing resolution and designates Theresia A. Trevino as the Commission's Chief Financial Officer. Additionally, the new resolution appoints the future successors to the Executive Director and Chief 34 Financial Officer the authorization to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the LAIF. Attachment: Resolution No. 04-006 • • 35 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-006 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY FUND WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976, Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein is in the best interests of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92502, Telephone No. (909) 787-7141. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners hereby authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of Riverside County Transportation Commission monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein, and verification by the State Treasurer's Office of all banking information provided in that regard. 36 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Riverside County TransportatiS Commission's Executive Director, Eric A. Haley and Chief Financial Officer, Theresia A. Trevino, or their successors shall be individually authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at its meeting on Wednesday, February 11, 2004. BY: Roy Wilson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: BY: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board 37 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; 2) Approve the budget adjustments to RCTC Administration, RCTC Planning and SCAG Planning to reflect the Local Transportation Funds (LTF) revenue and expenditures, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the beginning of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the revenue received from Measure A and LTF funds. Staff has tracked these revenues on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF revenues are about 12% higher at the end of the second quarter compared to this time last year. The Inland Empire's local economy and in particular, Riverside County has continued to perform better than the rest of the State of California. The local economy's strength appears to be attributable to continued growth in population, taxable retail sales and home sales. The local economists are not projecting a recession for Southern California; however they are cautious and continue to project moderate growth in Riverside County. Based on the economic data and current trends, staff is recommending that the Commission increase the current year revenue projections by 4%. This increase in current year projections will be an overall increase of 8% from last years revised projection. The LTF audit was completed and financial statements were issued in December 2003. Staff has revised the original projections to include the carryover that is now available to the local governments and transit agencies. The revised projections include budget adjustments to RCTC Administration for $75,000 to accommodate increases primarily related to auditing costs, RCTC Planning for $59,627 which is entitled to 3% of revenues, SB 821 for $87,304 which is 38 entitled to 2% of the available balance, and SCAG Planning for $4,300 to reflect its revised allocation. Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary local governments and transit agencies. Attachment: Mid -Year Revenue Projections • • 39 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2003-2004 APPORTIONMENT Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Less: Auditor Less: RCTC Administration Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) Less: SCAG Planning BALANCE Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) BALANCE AVAILABLE Western 411) Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Population Population % of Total 1,270,036 77.24% 346,797 21.09% 27,508 1.67% 1,644,341 100.00% Budget FY 2003-2004 Original Projection $0 49,689,458 49,689,458 12,000 600,000 1,490,684 101,000 47,485,774 949,715 $46,536,059 Budget FY 2003-2004 Apportionment $35,942,952 9,814,610 778,497 $46,536,059 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change Budget FY 2003-2004 Revised Projection $2,516,518 51,677, 036 54,193,554 12,000 675,000 1,550,311 105,300 51,850,943 1,037,019 $50,813,924 Budget FY 2003-2004 Revised Apportionment $39,247,037 10, 716, 826 850,061 $50,813,924 V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\02 February\Budget & Imp! \Trevino - Mid Year Rev Proj Attachment 40 1/20/20044:41 PM • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Projections for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act legislation that created LTF requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and claimant allocation. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for the Commission staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on their respective populations. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission and SCAG) and set asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%). 41 Attached is the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of $53,744,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The estimate is based on revenues to date projected to the end of the year and then inflated by 4.0% Attachment: Local Transportation Fund Projection for FY 2004-2005 • 42 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2004-2005 APPORTIONMENT Budget FY 2004-2005 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts 53,744,000 TOTAL 53,744,000 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 675,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 1,612,320 Less: SCAG Planning 106,300 BALANCE 51,338,380 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,026,768 BALANCE AVAILABLE $50,311,612 Budget Population FY 2004-2005 Population % of Total Apportionment Western 1,322,192 77.52% $39,003,324 Coachella Valley 355,287 20.83% 10,480,606 Palo Verde Valley 28,058 1.65% 827,683 1,705,537 100.00% $50,311,612 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2004\02 February\Budget & Impl\Trevino - LTF FY 2004-2005 Apport Attachment 1/20/20044:40 PM 43 • AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Riverside County SAFE CaII Box Program Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Accept the Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan for the Riverside County SAFE Call Box program; 2) Authorize staff to proceed with the recommendations outlined in the report, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC staff has undertaken the development of a Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan for the CaII Box program in order to address important policy issues, identify future needs, and provide recommended strategies to continue and improve the Call Box program in Riverside County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) in August 1986 after the County Board of Supervisors and the cities in the county approved resolutions establishing the SAFE in Riverside County. The SAFE was formed under the 1985 call box legislation (Senate Bill 1199) and 1986 legislation (SB 202) which permitted county transportation commissions to serve as SAFEs. The legislation established the funding source ($1 annual vehicle registration fee) to develop and manage a motorist aid system of roadside call boxes along the County's state highway system. The RCTC SAFE Program is operated in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and RCTC SAFE's private sector contractors, AT&T Cellular, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Professional Communications Network (PCN), and TeleTran Tek Services. The RCTC SAFE currently has approximately 1,149 call boxes which cover 657 highways miles and generates approximately 28,400 calls per year or an average of 78 calls per day. The call box system covers Interstates (I) 10, 15, and 215, 44 United States (U.S.) Route 95, and State Routes (SR) 31, 33, 60, 62, 71, 74, 78, 79, 86, 86S, 91, 1 1 1, 177, 243, and 371, as well as several Park -n -Ride Tots, and two Metrolink stations. Eighty-seven of the call boxes were temporarily removed as of November 2003 because of Caltrans construction. In addition, in June 1993, RCTC implemented a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on four segments or beats of SR -91/I-215. The roving tow trucks provide service during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, to remove disabled vehicles from the freeway and reduce traffic congestion. The service is provided at no cost to the motorists, and is funded through an allocation from Caltrans with a required 25% local match. The local match is funded through SAFE DMV (call box) fees. Currently, the FSP program operates 15 tow trucks through contracts with three private tow companies, and service has been expanded to cover sections of SR -60 and 1-15. The RCTC SAFE is the seventh largest call box agency in the state. As previously mentioned, the program is funded by a $1 fee included with the annual vehicle registration fee. The stream of DMV revenues has increased an average of 4.3% over the past five years (a 21.48% increase since 1998). For the purpose of this report, staff has taken a conservative approach and projects that DMV revenues will increase at only 3.0% per year over the next five years. Now that the RCTC SAFE call box system has matured, there are several policy issues of sufficient importance and fiscal impact that the Commission should address. The issues and recommendations listed below impact the fundamental nature and extent of the call box and FSP programs and are described in detail in the Five -Year Strategic and Financial Plan. Decisions on the issues and recommendations are necessary both now and on an ongoing basis because of regulatory requirements. A. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (pages 11 — 18): Staff recommends that in FY 2004-05 the Commission authorize the installation of ADA enhancements to site accessibility at an estimated cost of $347,700, and the installation of 5'x5' pads, if required, at a cost of $465,000 beginning in FY 2005- 06. Further, staff recommends the Commission place on hold for a minimum of twelve months consideration of enhanced access for persons with speech and/or hearing disabilities in order to allow SAFE staff sufficient time to analyze the functionality and durability of TTY/TDD-equipped call boxes and other alternatives. B. Site Design Issues (pages 18 — 20): Staff recommends that in FY 2004-05 the Commission authorize the retrofit of all "B" (cut) and "C" (fill) sites to meet Caltrans' new design requirements for sites with transverse walls at an estimated cost of $440,700. • • • 45 • • • C. Cellular Technology (pages 20 — 22): Staff recommends that in FY 2004-05 the Commission establish a reserve fund to finance the conversion from analog to digital technology at an estimated cost of $690,000 spread over two fiscal years. Cellular service providers will not be required to provide analog service after July 2007. It will, therefore, become necessary to convert the call boxes to digital cellular service. D. Decreasing Call Volume (pages 22 -23): Staff recommends that in FY 2005- 06 the Commission authorize the increase in spacing between call boxes to a minimum of 1/2 mile, realizing a savings of approximately $239,000 over the remaining three years of the plan. The increased use of cellular telephones has dramatically reduced call box call volumes for the Riverside County call box program, as well as SAFE programs throughout California. The only freeway where call boxes are spaced at ' mile intervals is on SR -91 where the Commission currently operates three Freeway Service Patrol beats during the morning and afternoon commute hours. Staff is recommending that the call box spacing be moved from '/4 mile to 1/2 mile along SR -91 to reduce on -going operational costs. Staff's financial projections of anticipated revenue and expenditures over the next five years indicate that the DMV revenue stream is sufficient to support the maintenance and operations of the existing 1,149 call boxes, the FSP program, and recommendations A thru D above. The fiscal impacts of the recommendations are outlined in Financial Scenario IV presented in Appendix C-5 of the Plan. Given the projected fiscal impact, this Strategic Plan presents a relatively conservative set of strategies designed to refine and enhance the current baseline system, so that it may be operated in the most cost-effective and safe manner. A restructuring or wholesale change to the motorist aid system in Riverside County does not appear warranted at this time. Staff's conservative approach ensures the continued operation of the FSP's existing routes. It is possible in the future given the State's budget crisis and the desire of other agencies join the program that RCTC's "share" of the state FSP funds may be decreased. At that point, the Commission may need to decide whether the program should be continued as currently constituted, restructured to provide greater coverage to other congested freeways, or otherwise changed as a result of increasing costs or match requirements. Staff will continue to track actual revenue and costs against all of the Strategic Plan's assumptions. Should any substantive changes in the Plan's fiscal year recommendations be warranted over the next five years, Staff will present revised recommendations to the Commission for its consideration. Attachment: Draft SAFE Call Box Program 5 -Year Strategic and Financial Plan • • Riverside County Transportation Commission SAFE Call Box Program Riverside County Transportation Commission Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies RCTC SAFE CALL BOX PROGRAM 5 -YEAR STRATEGIC AND FINANCIAL PLAN • January 26, 2004 RCTC SAFE Call Box Program Five Year Strategic and Financial Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT CALL BOX SYSTEM 4 A. Description of the Current System 4 B. Site Designs 5 C. Funding 7 D. Partnerships 7 E. Call Box Operations 8 F. Operational Statistics 9 III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF THE CALL BOX SYSTEM 11 A. Americans with Disabilities Act 11 B. Site Designs 18 C. Cellular Technology 20 D. Decreasing Ca11 Volume 22 IV. CALL BOX FINANCIAL PLAN 24 A. Financial Plan Methodology 24 B. Revenues 24 C. Expenditures 24 D. Financial Plans 25 E. Conclusion 26 APPENDICES Appendix A - Description of the Current Call Box System 1) Riverside County SAFE & Calls by Highway 2) SAFE Partnerships 3) System Operations 4) Call Box Statistics for June 2003 5) Ca11 Box Calls for FY 1999 through FY 2003 • • • 48 • • Appendix B — Needs Assessment of the Call Box System 1) Map of Existing Smart Call Box Locations Appendix C — Financial Plan/Information 1) Actual Revenues & Expenditures for FY 1999 through 2003 2) Scenario I — Status Quo with No Improvements 3) Scenario II — ADA & Site Improvements 4) Scenario HI — Increased Spacing & Digital Conversion 5) Scenario IV — Installation of 5' x 5' Pads 6) Scenario V — ADA & Site Improvements and 5' x 5' Pad Table 1 Table 2 TABLES Cost Estimates on ADA Approach Cost Estimates on "B" and "C" Site Mitigation RCTC SAFE Call Box Program 5 -Year Strategic and Financial Plan I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Historical Background The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) was designated as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) in August 1986 after the County Board of Supervisors and the cities in the county approved resolutions establishing the SAFE in Riverside County. The SAFE was formed under the 1985 call box legislation - Senate Bill (SB) 1199 and 1986 legislation — SB 202 which permitted county transportation commissions to serve as SAFEs. The legislation established the funding source ($1 annual vehicle registration fee) to develop and manage a motorist aid system of roadside call boxes along the County's state highway system. The RCTC SAFE Program is operated in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and its private sector contractors, AT&T Cellular, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Professional Communications Network (PCN), and TeleTran Tek Services. The RCTC SAFE currently has approximately 1,149 call boxes which cover 657 highways miles and generates approximately 28,400 calls per year or an average of 78 calls per day. The call box system covers Interstates (I) 10, 15, and 215, United States (U.S.) Route 95, and State Routes (SR) 31, 33, 60, 62, 71, 74, 78, 79, 86, 86S, 91, 111, 177, 243, and 371, as well as several Park -n -Ride lots, and two Metrolink stations. Eighty-seven of the call boxes were temporarily removed as of November 2003 because of Caltrans construction. In addition, in June 1993, RCTC implemented a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on four segments or beats of SR -91/I-215. The roving tow trucks provide service during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, to remove disabled vehicles from the freeway and reduce traffic congestion. The service is provided at no costs to the motorists, and is funded through an allocation from Caltrans with a required 25% local match. Currently, the FSP program operates 15 tow trucks through contracts with three private tow companies, and service has been expanded to also cover sections of SR -60 and I-15. Issues Now that the RCTC SAFE call box system has matured, there are several policy issues of sufficient importance and fiscal impact that the Commission should address. The issues described below impact the fundamental nature and extent of the call box and FSP programs, and decisions on them are necessary both now and on an ongoing basis because of regulatory requirements. A. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Providing enhanced access to motorist aid - services for persons with physical, speech and/or hearing disabilities under the rather ambiguous requirements of the ADA may create both a significant challenge and substantial retrofit cost. • • • • • • B. Site Design Issues: Caltrans' revised site design guidelines for sites with transverse wall ("B Cut" and "C Fill" sites) require retrofits to a significant number of existing sites. C. Cellular Technology: Cellular service providers will not be required to provide analog service after July 2007. It may therefore become necessary to convert the call boxes to digital cellular service. D. Decreasing Ca11 Volume: Both the increased use of cellular telephones and stricter vehicle registration requirements has dramatically reduced call box call volumes for the Riverside County SAFE call box program, as well as SAFE programs throughout California. Depending on the financial impact of the Commission's decisions on these call box issues, the Commission may also need to reevaluate the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program, which is partially funded from call box revenue. FSP issues may include, among others, whether the program should be continued as currently constituted, restructured to provide greater coverage to other congested freeways, or otherwise changed as a result of increasing costs. Financial Plan The RCTC SAFE is the seventh largest call box agency in the state. As previously mentioned, the program is funded by a $1 fee included with the annual vehicle registration fee. The stream of DMV revenues has increased an average of 4.3% over the past five years (a 21.48% increase since 1998). For the purpose of this report, staff has taken a conservative approach and projects that DMV revenues will increase at only 3.0% per year over the next five years. Based on financial projections of anticipated revenue and expenditures over the next five years, the DMV revenue stream is sufficient to support the maintenance and operations of the existing 1,149 call boxes. Unfortunately, the program's fiscal viability could be compromised if other types of expenditures (e.g. ADA and site upgrades) are budgeted on top of the ongoing basic operations and maintenance. If these extra expenditures were included, SAFE reserves would be decreased significantly (53.6% or a reduction of $2,118,000). Given the projected fiscal impact of the issues at hand, this Strategic Plan presents a relatively conservative set of strategies designed to refine and enhance the current baseline system, so that it may be operated in the most cost-effective and safe manner. A restructuring or wholesale change to the motorist aid system in Riverside County does not appear warranted. Staff Recommendations Based on the Financial Plan and resulting analysis, staff recommends that the Commission authorized SAFE staff to implement the following strategies, the fiscal impacts of which are outlined in Financial Scenario IV presented in Appendix C-5 of the Plan: .. A. FY 2004-05: Install ADA enhancements to site accessibility at an estimated cost of $347,700. 2 51 B. FY 2004-05: Retrofit all "B" and "C" sites to meet Caltrans' new design requirements at an estimated cost of $440,700. C. FY 2004-05: Establishes a reserve fund to finance the conversion to digital technology at an estimated cost of $690,000 spread over two fiscal years. D. FY 2005-06: Increase the spacing between call boxes to a minimum of Y2 mile, a savings of approximately $239,000 over the remaining three years of the plan. E. FY 2005-06: Install 5'x5' pads, if required by regulatory agency, at a cost of $465,000. • 3 52 • • • II. DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT CALL BOX SYSTEM A. Description of the Current System As the seventh largest system in the state, the RCTC SAFE will operate a total of 1,149 call boxes by the end of FY 2002-03. These call boxes are placed on the following highways: • 679 call boxes placed on Interstates 10, 15, and 215, • 7 call boxes placed on U.S. 95, and • 402 call boxes placed on State Routes 31, 33, 60, 62, 71, 74, 78, 79, 86, 86S, 91, 111, 177, 243, and 371 • 61 call boxes temporarily removed from service due to construction Appendix A-1 contains a chart that breaks out the number of call boxes per highway, and provides maps of the existing system. The RCTC SAFE is a mature Call Box System, with call boxes installed on all existing interstates and state highways within Riverside County. These call boxes have been installed according to the following standards: • Urban call boxes on divided highways and state routes with four or more lanes range in spacing at either one -quarter or one-half mile intervals in pairs on opposite sides of the highway. • Rural call boxes on divided highways and state routes with four or more lanes range in spacing from one-half mile to several miles, depending on the availability of cellular signal and availability of a location meeting safety standards. • Call boxes on two-lane highway are generally installed as single boxes, with sites alternating on opposite sides of the highway. The CHP/Caltrans Call Box and Motorist Aid Guidelines (the Guidelines) under which call box programs operate, provide direction on call box siting and spacing. In general, the Guidelines standards take into consideration traffic volume along the roadway segment, measured in average daily traffic counts (ADTs) and safety issues when making spacing recommendations. For example, where the ADT exceeds 100,000 vehicles and the segment generally experiences significant congestion during peak hours, accidents and the number of stranded motorists increase. That in turn leads to more accidents and even more congestion. Therefore, the Guidelines recommend that in high -congested corridors the call box spacing should be 1/4 mile instead of one- half mile (a recommendation, not a requirement). Because the call box system is essentially built out, further system expansion does not appear warranted at this time. Possible expansion opportunities include: 1. Rural In -Filling: Additional call boxes could be installed between existing sites to develop closer spacing if better cellular coverage becomes available in those areas. 4 53 2. County Road System: Call boxes could be placed on higher volume county roads within Riverside County. The Los Angeles County and San Diego SAFES have installed call boxes on selected county road locations, and recent changes to SAFE legislation authorize, but do not mandate, this action for all SAFEs. This Strategic Plan does not include installation of either rural in -fills or county road call boxes, primarily because funding to do so is not readily available. Should the Commission want to consider rural in -fills or county road call boxes, SAFE staff would need to revise the Strategic Plan accordingly. A new generation of call boxes, commonly referred to as smart call boxes, have been developed, tested, and implemented. The RCTC SAFE System currently deploys 65 smart call boxes throughout its system. The smart call boxes take advantage of the basic call box configuration as a remotely programmable, solar -powered cellular telephone and expand on it, to potentially allow for remote communication with and control of various sensing devices. Among them are traffic counters, vehicle classification sensors, weather and fog detection devices, changeable or extinguishable message signs, and closed circuit television cameras. The San Bernardino County SAFE also has twenty smart call box sites installed and several other SAFEs are looking to install smart call boxes. Smart call box technology appears to have great potential to help state, regional and local transportation agencies comply with federal CMS requirements. Appendix B-2 provides a map of the existing smart call box locations in Riverside County. B. Site Designs To accommodate the variety of terrain, other physical and roadway design conditions that exists alongside California highways, Caltrans has developed a number of standard call box sites designs. The current Guidelines contain ten distinct site types as follows: SITE TYPE I! DESCRIPTION • 5 54 • • • C Installed in fill (downhill) slope, with retaining walls D Directly mounted onto a sound or retaining wall E Installed behind a barrier wall (None in Riverside County) F Installed behind a guard rail G Installed on a paved median H Mounted on top of a barrier wall L NEW SITE TYPE: Mounted behind a dike with call box lowered and turned 90 degrees to face traffic 6 55 SITE TYPE I DESCRIPTION M NEW SITE TYPE: Same as L; site without dike in front of site (None in Riverside County) PICTURE No pictures available C. Funding The primary revenue source for the RCTC SAFE is the $1.00 annual vehicle registration fee, collected by the California DMV on behalf of the SAFEs throughout the state. The $1 fee is included in the annual vehicle registration fee of all vehicles registered in the county and is forwarded to the Commission monthly by the DMV. The annual $1 DMV fee is supplemented by any revenue not utilized in the year it was collected (known as Fund Balance), the interest earned on the fund balance, and reimbursements from motorists who damage call boxes. D. Partnerships In order for this complex system to operate smoothly and safely, the RCTC SAFE is operated in close coordination with a variety of public and private partners: • The CHP operates dispatch centers to which pre-screened calls are transferred by the private call answering center. Those dispatch centers include Inland (City of San Bernardino, contracted through San Bernardino SAFE), Indio, and Border (San Diego County). As necessary, CHP dispatches public safety assistance such as law enforcement, paramedics, and fire in response to these transferred calls. • Caltrans is responsible for operating and maintaining California's interstate freeways and state highways. The RCTC SAFE works closely with Caltrans District 8, which is responsible for reviewing and permitting call box site locations, installations, and maintenance. In order to assure that all call box sites throughout the state have similar standards, Caltrans' Headquarters in Sacramento provides overall guidance and support for call box programs. • The California DMV collects the $1 vehicle registration fee from vehicles registered in Riverside County and forwards the net proceeds to the SAFE for use in operating the call box program. • The California SAFE Committee is an association of California call box authorities. - Known to members as Ca1SAFE, the organization provides a forum to share information and discuss common issues. Program Managers from the SAFEs meet on a quarterly basis to deal with issues such as call box equipment and maintenance costs, access for disabled motorists to call boxes, technical improvements to call box equipment, safety matters, and extending call box coverage to rural counties. • 7 56 • • • Other operational aspects of the program could not be implemented without further assistance from the private sector. The RCTC SAFE competitively bids the following activities out to the private sector: • Professional Communications Network (PCN) is the private call answering center that answers all incoming call box calls for both the Riverside and San Bernardino SAFEs. PCN contracts directly with San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE pays its proportionate share of costs based on its number of calls compared to the total calls answered. PCN transfers designated calls such as accident reports, crime reports, fires and requests for medical assistance immediately to the CHP for the appropriate action, and handles all other calls by arranging for the needed assistance from roadside assistance programs like AAA or from the caller's employer, friends or family. • The AT&T Wireless Services provides the cellular service for each call box. • Comarco Wireless Technologies is the system's equipment and maintenance contractor. • TeleTran Tek Services (T-3) provides overall system management support, coordination with other public and private contractors, and special projects as needed. Appendix A-2 (SAFE Partnerships) presents a chart showing these contractual and partnering relationships. E. Call Box Operations Each call box is a battery powered, solar charged roadside terminal with a microprocessor and built-in cellular telephone. Call box terminals are attached to steel poles mounted on slip bases designed to minimize damage to the call box and to a vehicle in the event of a knockdown. Motorists need only open the front of the unit and pick up the handset and push a large red button to be connected to a PCN operator. At that point, voice communications between the motorist and the PCN operator are like any other voice telephone communications. Once the motorist is connected to the call answer center, the call box operator responds to the request by (1) routing designated calls such as accident reports, crime reports, fires and requests for medical assistance to CHP for the appropriate services or (2) providing a direct connection to routine service through auto clubs or other private tow and service providers. All call boxes in California use an Automatic Number Identification (ANI) feature which informs the operator, through a data base look -up, of the exact location of the caller. This feature expedites service requests and is particularly important in critical situations or when motorists are otherwise unable to discern their locations. Appendix A-3 (System Operations) describes the process from the moment a motorist generates a call to its conclusion when assistance has been delivered to that motorist. The call box system is designed to provide loud and clear communication in a noisy freeway environment through handsets that incorporate special noise canceling capabilities and dispatcher - 8 57 operated volume controls. The handsets work well with acoustic coupler devices such as those found on Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs) and are also hearing aid compatible. Additionally, each call box terminal contains a placard with special operating instructions in English and in Spanish. Bilingual call takers/dispatchers are available at the call answering center (PCN) and all CHP Dispatch Centers, as are translation services for most languages. Call boxes receive scheduled preventative and as -needed corrective maintenance to keep them operating at a high state of readiness. The units are designed to operate in extreme temperatures and in all types of weather conditions. Additionally, the call boxes are capable of initiating special alarm calls to the RCTC SAFE's maintenance contractor (Comarco) in the event of a malfunction, knockdown, or vandalism. Each call box automatically reports its operational status at regular intervals (every 72 hours), reporting items such as: battery voltage, electrical components continuity, etc. If a critical item malfunctions in between routine status report calls, the call box initiates an immediate alarm call to the Comarco maintenance center. Some immediate alarms also are routed directly to the call answering center, where the operator receives either a synthesized voice call or a hard copy printout. F. Operational Statistics The number of motorist aid calls generated from the county's call boxes during the period of 1990 to June, 2003 exceeded 817,500 calls. These calls are broken down by highway in Appendix A-1. Of the 1,149 call boxes that were in the system in June, 2003, approximately 61 boxes were not in operation due to temporary removals for construction. During the month of June 2003, 2,390 calls were made from the 1,088 call boxes in operation, which averaged 2.2 calls generated per call box for the month. Ca11 box calls have decreased approximately 57% over the past five years, apparently as a result of motorist use of portable cell phones. The number of 911 cell phone calls during the same period has increased substantially. The CHP reported that cellular 911 calls into the Inland and Indio Communications Centers increased 289% from 1997 to 2002. These trends can be expected to continue. As more motorists obtain and use portable cell phones, there will be less reliance on call boxes. Appendix A-5 presents a summary of the annual call history for the last five years. By way of example, the three most active call box corridors during the month of June, 2003 were as follows: • The 80 active call boxes on SR -91, averaged 4.8 calls per box; • The 72 active call boxes on the I-215, averaged 4.6 calls per box; and • The 170 active call boxes along the I-15, averaged 4.4 calls per box. The winter months produce the lowest call volume. There were 7,266 calls during December, January and February 2003, an average of 2,087 calls per month. During the 2002 summer months (June through August), the average number of calls for the entire system was approximately 3,081 per month. The average number of calls for calendar year 2002 was 2,878 calls per month. • • • 9 58 • • • For the month of June 2003, the average length of a call to the PCN call answering centers was five minutes and 24 seconds. Calls generated by the Riverside system that require a transfer to the CHP are diverted to one of the following two CHP Dispatch Centers: 1. The Inland CHP Dispatch Center typically handles the highest volume of calls system wide. (53% of the June 2003 calls, for example). Data for this Dispatch Center includes calls routed to CHP Border Division in San Diego since the Temecula CHP office, which normally handles those calls, is under its jurisdiction. The Inland CHP Dispatch Center is located in the City of San Bernardino, and the San Bernardino SAFE provides the contract oversight. 2. The Indio CHP Dispatch Center typically handles less of the Riverside calls (47% of the June 2003 calls). Appendix A-4 provides excerpts from the RCTC SAFE June 2003 Monthly Report generated by TeleTran Tek Services. 10 59 III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF THE CALL BOX SYSTEM The Riverside Ca11 Box System will face many challenges over the next five years. Staff continues to evaluate upgrades needed to the existing system based on changing requirements at Federal and State levels. Some of these upgrades may be completed during the course of this plan. A. Americans with Disabilities Act Background The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 20, 1990, and provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. An important ADA concern for call box programs is the accessibility of call box sites to mobility - impaired individuals. A number of potential barriers may exist in the highway environment, as constructed or later modified, into which the call boxes are installed. These barriers include, among others, drainage dikes, slopes and pathways that are difficult to traverse. Since call box programs have no control over highway design or construction, they have had great difficulty in identifying potential call box sites with no such barriers. At a minimum, fully accessible sites are seldom available in sufficient proximity to each other to allow for desired call box spacing. The Call Box Guidelines currently include little specific guidance on how to make call box sites accessible. Section I.C.3 indicates that the highest operable part of the call box may not exceed 1.4 meters (54") in height, and that the handset cord must be at least 736 mm (29") in length. Otherwise, the only guidance on accessibility is found in California Streets and Highways Code Section 2557(e), which requires that call box systems meet the "applicable standards" of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and regulations promulgated under it. Unfortunately, the ADA provides no direct guidance on compliance of call box sites. The Draft ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) promulgated in the early 1990's indicated that no barrier, such as a drainage dike, should impair access to call box sites. ADAAG as it relates to call boxes was not formally adopted, and therefore provides only anecdotal guidance on the subject. A new set of Draft ADA Accessibility Guidelines was promulgated in 2002 for discussion, with substantially the same requirements for mobility -impaired access. Final adoption of these Guidelines, if any, is not expected until perhaps 2005, according to staff at the federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Access Board (Access Board) that developed the Draft Guidelines. Since none of the Draft ADA Guidelines concerning call boxes have been adopted by any agency, there are no stated requirements for what must be done to make call boxes accessible to mobility - impaired individuals. California call box programs have nevertheless derived some informal characteristics of an accessible site from the Draft ADA Guidelines that can be applied to new or rebuilt call box sites: • There should be no barrier to access blocking the pathway to the call box site. Caltrans drainage dikes are the most common barriers, although large rocks or debris could also provide barriers. • 11 60 • • • • The call box should be installed in a manner that puts the portion of the handset just above the mouthpiece (called the "highest operable part" in ADA terms) no higher than 54" where the side reach from a wheelchair to that point is 10" or less, and no higher than 46" where that reach is up to 24". • Requirements for pad size are unclear. While a number of 30" x 30" and 36" x 36" pads remain on older sites, the standard pad size in recent years has been 36" x 48", which complies with the older 1990's Draft ADA Guidelines. Many RCTC SAFE sites have 36" x 48" wide pads. The newest Draft ADA Guidelines appear to require a 60" x 60" turning area, and Caltrans has indicated informally that it may impose the same requirement when the newest Call Box Guidelines are developed. At this point, however, 36" x 48" pads meet generally accepted practice, to the extent that one exists. In addition to standard solutions such as relocating the call box to an "A" site with no drainage dike or an "F" site behind a guardrail, three new solutions have been developed to provide greater access for individuals with mobility impairments: • The Los Angeles curb cut approach; • The "Behind the Dike" approach proposed by the San Diego and MTC SAFEs; and • Lowering the call box on the pole where the handset is set at a height above 54", and no other barrier to access exists. The Los Angeles Curb Cut Solution: In the settlement agreement reached in the Thalheimer lawsuit, the LA SAFE agreed to develop, and Caltrans agreed to approve, site designs for creating a "curb cut" through the dike to a concrete pad surrounded by concrete dike, next to which the call box would be installed. Caltrans in fact did approve a number of variations on this "Los Angeles" ADA site design. Caltrans has subsequently, however, stated that these designs are approved for installation in Los Angeles County only, and may not be used by other SAFEs. Caltrans has indicated a preference against the "Los Angeles" walled designs. The Los Angeles SAFE has reported that the cost to retrofit an existing call box site to the "Los Angeles" concrete design has ranged from $1,500 to $15,000 per site, depending on the remoteness and terrain of the site. The average cost per site to date reported by the LA SAFE has been $3,885. Behind the Dike Solutions: In response to the design concerns and unreasonably high costs for the Los Angeles approach, the San Diego and MTC SAFEs proposed a different solution that relocates call boxes at inaccessible sites to directly behind the drainage dike without cutting it, with the call box facing out to the road. Its proponents originally referred to this solution as the "Behind the Dike" site design. The 90 -degree turn of the call box allows for a side (parallel) reach by an individual in a wheel chair over the dike to the call box door and handset. The bottom of the handset grip is lowered from the current 54" to between 44" and 54", depending upon the parallel reach. The latter, measured from the front toe of the drainage dike to the handset, is set between 10" and 22". These parameters meet the height/reach requirements included in ADAAG for analogous locations such as telephones and ATM machines. The 22" reach and 44" height parameters were selected instead of the ADA 24" and 46" parameters to allow some leeway during field installation of call box sites, which like most field work is not an exact science. 12 61 In August 2001, the "Behind the Dike" design passed both the slow (20 mph) and fast (60 mph) crash tests conducted under the CalSAFE Safety Study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). Caltrans has now divided the "Behind the Dike" solution into two site designs as follows: • ` L " Site: This site design applies where the site is installed behind a drainage dike (no matter which type). It may be used whether there is fill behind the dike or not, as long as the point where the auger is buried in the ground is not lower than 10" below the plane of the point where the roadway shoulder and the front toe of the dike meet. Both Caltrans and FHWA have approved the "L" site design for implementation. • "M" Site: This site design applies where there is no drainage dike, but where use of the Behind the Dike design would eliminate a "B" Site, "C" site or inaccessible path. Both Caltrans and FHWA have approved the "M" site design for implementation. "L" Site in San Diego County A particular advantage of the "L" and "M" designs is their ability to solve both ADA and transverse wall concerns at the same time for many sites. By moving the call box pole and foundation forward to just behind the dike, many sites will no longer need to be cut into or filled up to slopes. This in turn would make the "L" and "M" site designs more cost-effective approaches than the "Los Angeles" dike cut concrete design. Preliminary cost estimates to retrofit to an "L" or "M" design range from $500 to $1,315 per site. In addition, the "L" and "M" solutions do not require a pedestrian pad, and therefore eliminate the need to increase pad size to 36" x 48" or 60" x 60". Installation of the latter pad size is estimated at $750 per site. At the request of the San Diego SAFE, Caltrans and TTI have advised that installing the call box pole closer to the dike than as originally approved (33") would not pose a safety hazard should the pole be struck by a vehicle. If so, there may be a few sites where the existing auger can be reused in place, thus making the cost of the "L" or "M" retrofit move toward the lower end of the cost range. According to the approved "L" and "M" site designs, the call box pole may be placed where desired, as long as the leading edge of the call box sign is not closer than 8' from the traveled way. • 13 62 • • • Since most call box locations have at least 8' of shoulder (except on 2 -lane rural highways), this requirement should be easy to meet, and may be waived by Caltrans if necessary to maintain spacing. Lower Call Box on Pole: The third new approach to providing access is to lower the call box to the 44" handset height at the existing location, using the existing auger. This approach would also work for "F" sites where the height -to -reach parameter is exceeded. There are two options for the lowering approach: • Purchase a new pole with the holes predrilled at the 90 -degree location on the pole; or • Reuse the existing pole, with new holes drilled at the 90 -degree location and plugs placed in the old holes. Where a new pole is purchased, the cost to lower the call box on the pole is estimated to average $800 for parts and labor per site. Where the existing pole is redrilled, the cost is estimated at $600. The Ventura County SAFE recently installed its first "L" site using the redrilling in the field option. There is the down the road possibility that Caltrans might install new drainage dike in front of these sites, necessitating a later retrofit to the "L" site type. Other California Call Box Agencies' Approaches to ADA Despite the lack of clear guidelines or requirements on how to provide access to call box sites for persons with disabilities, most call box agencies have been proactive by performing physical and photographic surveys to inventory site access characteristics and develop a retrofit plan for addressing accessibility issues. Many SAFE agencies have involved local members of disabled communities to assist in evaluating feasible improvement options. The following summarizes the major efforts undertaken by them. San Diego County SAFE Beginning in the mid -1990s, all new call box sites and all replaced call box sites in the San Diego SAFE system were built with 36" by 48" pads. San Diego SAFE call boxes already had handset cords of 27 inches in length and were installed at a maximum of 54" from the highest operable part (the handset grip). New sites were not installed behind Caltrans drainage dikes unless absolutely necessary for spacing continuity. In the late 1990s, the San Diego SAFE was one. of the first call box programs to retrofit call box sites that were not behind drainage dikes with new 60" by 60" pads. This first project was referred to as Phase 1 Accessibility Retrofits, and included approximately 300 call box sites. San Diego SAFE had also planned a Phase 2 project through which the approximately 900 sites - behind drainage dikes would be retrofitted to allow access through the dikes for mobility impaired individuals. The San Diego SAFE delayed implementation of the Phase 2 project pending a determination by Caltrans on whether it would allow dike cuts to afford such accessibility. 14 63 The San Diego SAFE has not yet made a decision on what method to use to provide enhanced access to call box service for persons with speech and/or hearing disabilities. Ventura County SAFE In 1994, the Ventura County SAFE Board of Directors approved the distribution of cellular telephones to qualified disabled drivers despite the Access Board determination that such a program did not provide sufficient alternative access. Approximately 500 cellular telephones have been distributed under that program. In addition, the Ventura SAFE contracted with Denbridge Digital to install text telephones on the faceplate of its 500 plus call boxes. Those TTY call boxes have been in operation since that time. Technical upgrades to call boxes will be installed during 2004. The California Highway Patrol has reported that it has received very few TTY calls from these call boxes since their installation. The Ventura County SAFE has recently had a site survey completed by T -Cubed and will make a decision in 2004 on what method to use to provide enhanced access to call box service for persons with mobility disabilities. . Los Angeles County SAFE The Los Angeles County SAFE was sued during the 1990s under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to provide access to call boxes to both mobility and hearing -impaired individuals. The lawsuit was ultimately settled and required the Los Angeles SAFE to replace each of its 4,400 call boxes with TTY call boxes. The TTY boxes were procured from Comarco Wireless Technologies. The settlement also required the Los Angeles SAFE, as well as Caltrans, to retrofit call box sites behind drainage dikes with various dike cuts and concrete pad designs. The latter effort is currently in progress. To date, the average cost for retrofitting each call box site using the dike cut design has been $3,885. The total cost to the Los Angeles SAFE for all of these accessibility efforts exceeds $12.5 million. The lawsuit against L. A. County SAFE was filed by members of the disabled community under the ADA. Although it is not binding on any of the other SAFEs, similar suits could be filed against any SAFE not complying with the federal regulations. The L. A. County SAFE has experienced noticeable difficulties with the operation of the TTY call boxes. Improperly installed rubber rings around the message screen allowed water to damage some internal components. In addition, the cable used to extend and withdraw the TTY keypad sometimes was bent during that operation, causing the TTY keypad to freeze up. The Los Angeles SAFE has undertaken repair of these problems on its own. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) SAFE The MTC SAFE in the San Francisco Bay Area completed a Phase I retrofit involving improvements to the pathway from the roadway to the call box pad. The work, which involved site clean up, vegetation removal, and slope modifications as well as path construction, involved approximately 1,500 of the 3,500 MTC call box sites at a cost of $1,050,000. MTC SAFE also developed a new call box design for providing enhanced access to call box services for persons with speech and/or hearing disabilities. Called the "Yes/No" call box, this design incorporates a display screen on the faceplate of the call box, onto which preprogrammed questions are shown. The caller's answers to the questions, by pressing either the "Yes" or "No" • 15 64 • • • button, leads the call taker to understand the caller's needs and dispatch appropriate assistance. There is no keypad on the call box by which the caller could converse with the call taker, as there is on the Los Angeles or Ventura TTY call boxes. 250 Yes/No call boxes have been in place for several years now as a test, and the MTC SAFE Board has approved retrofitting existing call boxes with the Yes/No design, which costs less than TTY alternatives. Orange County SAFE During the winter of 2002, the Orange County SAFE undertook the installation of TTY devices in each of its call boxes. According to Comarco Wireless Technologies, corrections for the problems associated with the Los Angeles SAFE TTY call boxes have been incorporated in the TTY call boxes being installed in Orange County. It is too soon to determine whether these corrections will work over time. Speech and Hearing Impaired In an effort to provide greater access to call boxes for hearing and speech impaired motorists and passengers, the Riverside SAFE has three options available: call connected lights (CCL), yes/no call boxes, and tele-type/telecommunications devices for the deaf (TTY/TDDs) call boxes. Tel/Advisor, a consultant for CalSAFE, prepared a report on the Evaluation of Call Box Access Options for Hearing/Speech Impaired Users in May 2000. Call connected light (CCL) equipped call boxes provide written directions to the user to pick up the handset and tap on the mouthpiece (or tap it against the box). When the call is acknowledged by the operator, the operator activated the CCL, causing the light on the internal face of the box to flash. Because two-way conversation is very limited using CCLs, CHP dispatchers are instructed to send an officer to any call box if a handset is removed and there is tapping at the other end or simply no voice communication from the caller. Riverside SAFE had CCLs installed on all of its call boxes during its upgrade project completed in November 2001. Yes/No Call Box TTY Call Box As noted earlier, Yes/No devices provide better two-way communications than regular call boxes _ with CCL, allowing the caller to respond to questions displayed on a screen on the interior face of the box. Operators can activate custom as well as pre -scripted questions to display on the screen. The questions allow for yes -or -no answers, which the caller registers by pushing a yes or no button. This option could be made available for approximately $1,400 per box. 16 65 A TTY/TDD provides the user with a small display screen and keyboard onto which messages can be typed and then transmitted to another TTY/TDD at the other end of a telephone or cellular phone line. The operator, upon receiving notification that the TTY is in use, can activate pre - scripted and custom text to determine the nature of the caller's request. Denbridge Digital and Comarco Wireless Technologies manufacture a TTY device. This option could be available for approximately $1,700 per box. Denbridge Digital has installed approximately 500 TTY call boxes in Ventura County for the Ventura SAFE. These devices have been in operation for over eight years. The Los Angeles County SAFE has installed the Comarco TTY in over 4,400 of its call boxes, and Orange County will be installing TTYs in their 1,600 call boxes by the end of 2002. The remaining California SAFEs have indicated their intent to wait until the TTY/TDD-equipped call boxes have proven functional and durable before considering their implementation. Staff recommendation: that the Commission place on hold for a minimum of twelve months consideration of enhanced access for persons with speech and/or hearing disabilities in order to allow SAFE staff sufficient time to analyze the functionality and durability of TTY/TDD-equipped call boxes and other alternatives. Efforts of the Riverside SAFE to Provide Enhanced Access to Call Boxes for Persons with Mobility Disabilities In prior years when the ADA issues became apparent, RCTC SAFE explored the feasibility of issuing cellular telephones to disabled motorists in Riverside County. In November 1993, staff was directed to proceed with developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for cellular 911 telephones to provide telecommunications capability to the motoring public with disabilities. Portable cellular telephones would be issued to county residents who drive but cannot use the roadside call boxes due to mobility impairments. Staff prepared and issued the RFP in January 1994, and received bids from eight vendors to provide the cellular phones and related equipment. The bids received were higher than anticipated and ranged in price from $352.00 to $743.00, including all optional equipment. An Ad -hoc committee comprised of three members from the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Riverside Transit Agency, Sunline Transit Agency, Commission staff, and Titan, our call box consultant, evaluated the proposals and interviewed three vendors. Afterwards, the vendors were asked to submit a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) for consideration. Unfortunately, the BAFOs were no better than the original proposals. Ultimately, the Commission rejected all of the bids submitted and directed staff to work with other call box agencies in the development of alternate technologies to allow mobility -impaired motorists access to the call box system. Like other call box programs, the RCTC SAFE has delayed its site retrofit program until a clear direction on how to do so was received from Caltrans and FHWA. With the approval of the "L" and "M" site designs and the availability of other cost-effective retrofit solutions, SAFE staff directed TeleTran Tek to perform a field survey and accessibility analysis of its call box sites. The following is a summary of the results: • • 17 66 • • • 1. No Modification - At the time the RCTC SAFE performed its analysis, 462 sites were determined not to require modification. In many cases, no dike has been placed in front of the site and the handset is within acceptable parameters. In other cases, the site is currently an "F" site with an acceptable height -to -reach ratio. 2. Possible Modification — 601 or 52.3% of the sites could require modification. This includes 83 "B" sites, 216 "C" sites, and 86 temporary removals. The analysis, conducted by our consultant TeleTran Tek Services, with possible modifications to the RCTC SAFE call boxes and estimated costs are indicated on Table 1. Table 1 Cost Estimates on Riverside's ADA Approach Solution # of Ca11 Boxes % of System Estimated Cost No Modification 462 40.2% $0 Relocate to "A" site 2 0.2% $2,550 Relocate to "B" site 1 0.1% $1,850 Relocate to "F" site behind guardrail 3 0.3% $3,900 Replace Pad 3 0.3% $1,950 Lower Ca11 Box on Pole 14 1.2% $12,250 Replace with "L" site 126 11.0% $179,550 Replace with "M" site 80 6.9% $114,000 Other Action * 441 38.3% $0 Exempt 17 1.5% $0 TOTALS 1,149 100.0% $316,050 * Includes 83 "B" sites and 216 "C" sites to be addressed later and 86 temporary removals. If a 10% overage for unforeseen circumstances and changes to the recommended action during fieldwork is allowed, the estimated cost increases to $347,700. A related matter that could require substantial additional expense to RCTC SAFE involves the size of the call box pads. The State Architect has suggested that pads should be increased to 5'x5' and none of the pads in the Riverside system are currently that size. If enlargement is required, the estimated cost for approximately 620 sites would be $465,000. Staff recommendation: That the Commission authorizes the installation of accessibility site improvements to the call box system at a total cost of $347, 700 in FY 2004-05, and the installation of 5 'x5 'pads, if required, at a cost of $465,000 beginning in FY 2005-06. B. Site Design Issues Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration have expressed concern that the transverse retaining wall of a "B" or "C" site could act as a deceleration barrier should a vehicle impact the site, and could therefore be a potential aggravating factor in such a collision. For that reason, these regulatory agencies, in conjunction with the California SAFE Committee, developed the Interim 18 67 Call Box Retaining Wall Policy (Annex E to the May 1999 edition of the Guidelines) to deal with sites where the retaining wall height exceeds 300 mm (about 12"). • Type "B" sites are cut into a slope or hillside. In order to keep water and debris from spilling onto the concrete pad and call box area, two transverse walls (one on either side of the call box and pad) extend out from the hill a few feet, with a back wall between them. The transverse walls can be as low as four inches and as high as several feet. • Type "C" sites extend over a down slope. Two transverse walls and one back wall are needed below the site to keep the site stable against the hill. These sites also have handrails behind the call box so that the motorist does not fall down the hill. The transverse walls can. be as low as four inches and as high as several feet. series of potential The Interim Call box Retaining Wall Policy laid out a prioritized call box program to consider in eliminating "B" and "C" site where possible: 1. Convert the site to an "A" site by grading the surrounding area; 2. If grading is not possible, move the site to an acceptable location up or down the road; solutions for a 3. If no acceptable site is available, or the distance to the proposed new site would adversely affect desired call box spacing, consider eliminating the site and its companion site, if any, across the highway; 4. If eliminating site is not feasible, relocate the site to a "B" or "C" site with retaining wall less than 4" in height; and 5. If none of the above is feasible, leave the site as is and request an exemption through - the local Caltrans District. Caltrans agreed to allow "B" and "C" sites up to 12" to remain pending crash analysis and/or crash testing of "B" and "C" sites during the Safety Study conducted cooperatively by Caltrans and the California SAFE Committee. In the meantime, call box programs were required to submit to Caltrans a list of "B" and "C" sites with a proposed retrofit solution for each site, and undertake the retrofits. However, many SAFEs, including the RCTC SAFE, delayed submitting the retrofit plan while awaiting approval for the "L" and "M" site designs, since these if approved would resolve most transverse wall and ADA site issues at the same time, and at a substantially lower cost than available alternatives. The Safety Study crash tests were conducted between 2000 and 2003, and produced the following results: • • 19 68 • • • • "B" sites with transverse walls up to 12" were approved by Caltrans and FHWA; and • "C" sites would only be allowed with transverse walls up to 4". These parameters for "B" and "C" sites have been approved by Caltrans and FHWA, and are currently under discussion among Ca1SAFE, Caltrans and CHP for inclusion in the Call Box Guidelines. The analysis conducted by our consultant, TeleTran Tek Services, with possible modifications to the RCTC SAFE call boxes to comply with Caltrans' "B" and "C" requirements and estimated costs are indicated on Table 2. Table 2 Cost Estimates on Riverside's "B" and "C" Site Mitigation Recommended Action # of Call Boxes Unit Cost Total Cost Relocate to "A" site 1 $1,250 $1,250 Relocate to "B" site 1 $1,850 $1,850 Relocate to "F" site behind guardrail 1 $1,300 $1,300 Lower Box on Pole 1 $ 850 $ 850 Replace with "L" site 148 $1,410 $208,680 Replace with "M" site 129 $1,410 $181,890 Other Action 6 $ 800 $ 4,800 No Action Required 12 $0 $0 Totals 299 $400,620 If a 10% overage for unforeseen circumstances and changes to the recommended action during fieldwork is allowed, the estimated cost increases to $440,700. Staff recommendation: that the Commission authorizes the improvement of approximately 299 "B" and "C" sites to comply with Caltrans' transverse wall requirements at an estimated cost of $440,700. C. Cellular Technology The basic specifications and operation of analog cellular call boxes remain very similar to those of the original General Telephone (GTE) call boxes installed at the beginning of the RCTC SAFE Call Box Program in 1990. Motorists still open the call box door, push the red button, and, once connected, speak with a call box operator/CHP dispatcher to request any necessary assistance. Although largely transparent to the motorist, a number of technological improvements have been made by the call box manufacturer over time. These improved versions of the call box have been installed when new call boxes were placed on highways within Riverside County, or as existing call boxes were replaced after knockdown. Furthermore, the Riverside system was upgraded in 20 69 411) November 2001 to provide new controller -boards, transceivers, batteries, and harnesses to 930 of its call boxes. When the RCTC SAFE conducted its initial procurement, call boxes meeting the California specifications were available from two sources: GTE Communications (which sold call boxes manufactured by Comarco Wireless Technologies) and the Cubic Corporation. RCTC, along with SANBAG, selected GTE call boxes for installation on the Riverside System, and GTE call boxes have been purchased since the initial purchase. During 1996, Comarco Wireless Technologies purchased the call box operations from both GTE Communications and the Cubic Corporation, making Comarco Wireless Technologies the de facto sole source for call box purchases at the current time. Recent advances in communications technology may provide other opportunities for enhancing contributions from call box programs. Digital and Personal Computer System (PCS) communications services are now available in many urban areas, and geographic coverage by providers of these technologies is growing rapidly. Digital and PCS providers advertise the ability to transmit both voice and data communications quickly and efficiently with unlimited access. In comparison, the current analog cellular service has only limited data transmission capabilities. In fact, the cellular companies have stated that they are no longer installing towers to provider any additional analog service. Furthermore, a recent FCC ruling requires the analog service providers to maintain their systems for only five more years, or until July 31, 2007. That ruling, however, only requires that analog service be maintained, but does not require that a particular level of analog service be maintained during that period. Experience to date shows that most cellular carriers are reducing analog service significantly, with the result that the availability and quality of the cellular signal to the call box has been diminished. Given the above, many call box programs in California are looking closely at converting from analog to digital cellular signal, either all at once or on a phased program. The switch from analog to digital cellular signal involves a number of interrelated, and often confusing, issues: • Digital cellular technology is currently going through several stages of technological improvements to its capacity and speed. These are often referred to as the 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 stages. Each stage involves a different transceiver technology, and may or may not be backwardly compatible. The major improvements among the 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 stages involved the speed with which data can be sent across the digital network, and not be quality of voice service. Therefore, since the SAFE is primarily concerned with voice rather than data service, utilizing the more advanced stage of digital service would not of itself seem necessary. However, since cellular providers will over time devote more of their bandwidth to the new stages, it may make sense for the RCTC SAFE to select the newest digital technology available simply to extend the time that acceptable signal levels for that technology remain available. • Different cellular service providers have selected different digital cellular technologies for use in their systems. Each technology requires a different transceiver in the call box. For this reason, the choice of the type of digital cellular technology by default limits the number of cellular service providers that can offer the cellular service. Stated another way, selecting the • • 21 70 • • • digital technology to go in the call box limits the choice of cellular service providers. Further, that choice of digital technology will limit the choice of cellular providers, and perhaps competition among them, down the road, since a change to a cellular provider using a different digital technology would require replacing the transceivers in all of the call boxes. Even with enhanced data transmission capabilities, these new technologies need to overcome the coverage area hurdle and the SAFE must consider the retrofit cost as they look to any future conversion to digital service. The current cellular contract between the RCTC SAFE and AT&T Wireless Services runs through June 30, 2005. At that time, the SAFE may be forced to convert to digital technology if no vendor is willing to provide analog cellular service. Staff has contacted AT&T to determine if they would be willing to extend the current contract at the existing rates. They replied that they would be willing to extend the contract, but only on a year to year basis. The California SAFE Committee is working with major cellular vendors to develop acceptable pricing plans for digital cellular service. The cost to convert from an analog to a digital call box technology is not yet established, but has been estimated at $600 per call box for the digital transceiver, cabling, digital antenna and labor. The estimated cost to convert all Riverside SAFE call boxes to digital technology is therefore estimated at $690,000. SAFE staff believes this effort can be performed over two years by working with the cellular service and maintenance providers to determine phasing based on analog signal degradation. Staff recommendation: That the Commission establishes a reserve account to fund the conversion to digital technology at an estimated cost of $690,000 spread over two fiscal years beginning in FY 2004-05. D. Decreasing Call Volume As noted earlier, the Riverside call box system, along with all the other call box systems in the State, has experienced a dramatic decrease in call volume. Calls have decreased approximately 57% since FY 1998-99, from a high of 66,701 calls to 28,401 in FY 2002-03. It is believed that there are two reasons for the decrease in calls; 1) the increased usage of portable cell phones, and 2) stricter DMV registration requirements. California law requires proof of insurance not only at the time a motorist submits their registration documentation to the DMV, but also when stopped by law enforcement officers. These requirements have affected the amount of revenue collected as motorists decline to register their vehicles because they cannot afford or elect not to maintain insurance. This has an affect on the number of call box calls since fewer older, dilapidated vehicles are on the road. However, the call box system continues to provide a safety net for those motorists without a cell phone and is generally more reliable than hand held cellular phones. They are continuously recharging their batteries so they are never "low" on power, and they perform a self -diagnostic check at regular intervals to report its operational status. Most importantly, the call box automatically identifies its location to help aid both the motorist and the CHP in sending the 22 71 appropriate assistance to the correct location. Also, if the motorist is severely injured or ill and unable to communicate with the call answering center, it is CHP's policy to send a patrol unit out to the scene to make sure there is no one in trouble. The Riverside call box system is a mature system and no expansion is planned in the near future. The Commission may, however, consider increasing the spacing between call boxes in the urban areas and redeploying boxes to the more rural areas of the County as cellular service to previously un-served areas becomes available. The Commission may recall that 29 call boxes were removed from SR -91 in downtown Riverside and installed on the newly constructed SR -86S in the Coachella Valley. Furthermore, the entire SR -91 is served by the Commission's Freeway Service Patrol program during the morning and afternoon commute hours, so other motorist assistance is available on SR -91. Any call boxes removed as a result of the increased spacing and not redeployed elsewhere would be placed in inventory and used to replace knockdowns or vandalized boxes as they occur. This increased spacing approach has already been adopted by the MTC SAFE in the San Francisco Bay Area and is being considered by the San Diego SAFE Board in early 2004. The MTC SAFE will be removing about 960 of its 3,200 call boxes from its system over the next two years. Staff recommendation: That the Commission authorizes the increase in spacing between call boxes to a minimum of % mile on SR -91 which will generate an estimated savings of $239,000 over the remaining three years of the plan. • 23 72 • • • IV. CALL BOX FINANCIAL PLAN A. Financial Plan Methodology The plan's financial history has been gathered from RCTC's Finance Department, outlining by line item revenues and expenditures for the prior year, FY 2002-03. Other records maintained by the SAFE management consultant were also gathered which provided additional information on call box maintenance work and costs. The historical information and current Fiscal Year budget were evaluated to identity trends in revenues received and expenditures made. Actual program revenues and costs for fiscal years 1998-99 through 2002-03 are provided in Appendix C-1 of this plan. B. Revenues Funding for the SAFE Call Box Program is provided by a $1 per vehicle annual registration surcharge imposed in each SAFE county. The surcharge is collected by the DMV as part of the normal vehicle registration process. The net proceeds (less 0.5% DMV administrative fee) are primarily used to finance the purchase, maintenance and ongoing operations of the Call Box System. As seen on Appendix C-1, DMV revenues averaged a 7.4% increase from 1997-98 to 2000-01. However, revenues decreased by 0.7% in FY 2002, and averaged 4.3% over the past five years. Staff is assuming a conservative 3.0% increase in revenues during the five years of the plan. The DMV revenues may also be used for other motorist aid improvements such as Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) and ITS enhancements and projects. Other revenues that support the Riverside Call Box Program are as follows: 1. Fund balance from prior year revenues collected but not expended; 2. Interest earned on DMV Fund Balance; and 3. Monies collected from motorists involved in traffic accidents that disable call boxes. These accidents which damage the call boxes (knockdowns) do not always result in a return of " revenue to the program because of unreported accidents and other collection -related issues. The actual amount of DMV revenue collected during FY 2002-03 was $1,332,707 and the interest earned on the fund balance was $54,017. The actual amount of recovery from damaged call boxes in that same Fiscal Year was $18,851. The total annual revenue from the combined funding sources for FY 2002-03 totaled $1,405,575. Please refer to Appendix C-1 which provides a detail of all revenue and expenditures for the past five fiscal years. C. Expenditures Expenditures generated from operating and maintaining the Riverside Call Box System can be divided into three general categories: 24 73 1. Administrative. These expenses are generated primarily by RCTC staff for the administration and oversight of the contractors, partners, and the system. These expenses include labor, benefits, overhead, travel, printing, and any professional services contracts. On average, RCTC administrative expenses only make up 12.1% of the total call box program expenditures. This small proportion is due to the fact that historically the SAFE has contracted out most of the operational and management duties. It must be noted that as the seventh largest SAFE in the state, the Riverside SAFE has operated extremely efficiently and has dedicated one of the fewest staff hours (1.00 FTE) to its system in the state. 2. Call Box Operations. These expenses are for contracts to oversee and operate the system and include the contract for the current call box management consultant (TeleTran Tek Services), communications (AT&T Wireless), maintenance, equipment, and installations (Comarco), and call answering/dispatch (PCN & CHP). 3. Capital Programs. These projects are outside of the day to day system operations and include the purchase of new call boxes for in -filling and system expansion and upgrades to the existing system needed to comply with ADA and Caltrans site designs requirements. The total expenses related to the call box program for FY 2002-03 were $1,116,601. Specifically, $254,300 was expended on program administration, and $862,301 on operations. In addition to the expenditures related from the call box program, the $1 DMV fee has in the past been utilized to support other RCTC programs (as permitted by law). In FY 2002-03, the DMV revenues provided $240,600 in funding for the Freeway Service Patrol program. D. Financial Plans Based on the financial information gathered on past revenues and expenses, five scenarios of revenue and expenditures have been developed and brought forward for consideration. These scenarios identify historical financial information by line item and project revenues and expenditures through FY 2008/09. Please note that in determining future expenditures, staff took a - very conservative approach so that as many cost-effective measures as possible can be realized early on. Where expenditures cannot be decreased, efforts have been taken to at least control the rate of expenditure growth. Scenario I - Appendix C-2: Status Quo with No Improvements This plan identifies the current revenue sources available to fund the call box program, and the expenditure plan includes all expenses necessary to maintain the existing call box network. With the existing revenue stream (including the Fund Balance) and current operating expenditures, sufficient revenues exist to fund the Call Box System through FY 2008-09. The year-end fund balance increases from an estimated $2,382,000 at June 30, 2003, to $3,950,000 at June 30, 2009. • • • 25 74 • • • Scenario II - Appendix C-3: ADA and Site Improvements This model contains the same expenditures as outlined in Scenario I; the primary difference between the two scenarios is that Appendix. C-3 proposes to install ADA as well as "B" and "C" site improvements to 614 of the existing 1,149 call box sites at an estimated cost of $788,400. In this scenario, the year-end fund balance declines to $2,060,000 at June 30, 2005, and increases to $3,079,000 by the end of FY 2009. Scenario III - Appendix C-4: Increase Spacing to a Minimum of 1/2 Mile and Digital Conversion This scenario again contains the same expenditures as outlined in Scenarios I and II, but assumes that spacing between call boxes is increased, where appropriate, to a minimum of %2 mile beginning in FY 2005. This projects an overall 4% reduction in the number of call boxes over the term of the plan or a reduction of 46 of the 1,149 call boxes currently in the system. It is estimated that the reduction in the number of call boxes will reduce operating costs by approximately $239,000 (net of $7,000 to remove the boxes). In addition, a reserve of $690,000 is established for the conversion to digital technology. The -reserve is funded over two years. In this scenario, the year-end fund balance is $1,717,000 at June 30, 2005, and increases to $2,600,000 at the end of FY 2009. Scenario IV - Appendix C-5: Install 5' x 5' Pad This scenario contains the same expenditures outlined in Scenario III, but also includes the installation of 5'x5' pads, if required, at 620 of the existing sites in FY 2006 at an estimated cost of $465,000. By waiting two fiscal years before implementing this scenario, it is hoped a decision will be made by Access Board on whether these pads will be required. The year-end fund balance in this scenario decreased to $1,213,000 in FY 2006, but rebounds and increases to $2,150,000 by June 30, 2009. Scenario V — Appendix C-6: No Adjustment in Spacing This scenario again contains the same expenditures outlined in Scenario IV; with the exception that spacing between call boxes in not increased. Without the reduction in the number of call boxes, the fund balance decreases from $2,382,000 in FY 2003 to $1,831,000 by June 30, 2009. E. Conclusions In comparing the revenues to expenses, the first impression drawn is that the annual revenues exceed the annual expenses. The available program revenue (DMV vehicle registration fees, projected interest and reimbursements) will be sufficient to sustain projected expenditures for the basic call box program over the next five years. However, with the pending requirements for ADA and site improvements, along with conversion to digital technology, the program will begin to spend more than it receives within a short period of time. Some adjustments to the system will be necessary and the most obvious and simplest is to reduce the number of call boxes by increasing the spacing to a minimum of 1/2 mile. This would only affect SR -91, where the Commission _ currently operates a Freeway Service Patrol program, and would eliminate approximately 46 call boxes from the system. 26 75 • Appendix A-1 • • .. �.. i 5 � � . County' Commission Rl�erside .Count Transportation Co P Total. Caii Box Calls by Highway !k � ��-' 'F?" ti d � f �'�.` �'�: ;x( .r .. , .. �. ..,iw �. rN -,;�° ha . .. ,A .. ,b„ e ... .Y.a+S d ( June -2003 Iti i.:1�,. ..r ,j y. � ..�. .. ,- .. �:, . ... ( v' ,� �� � A "Y Et ,. 4tCe, ..�3 '.: d... ,n �I .+ � ., . , 4f:Anv isv4.: J�.l Ilffl I Calls to Avg Highway Cali Boxes Aid Calls/Box Average Calls per box by Highway RV -033 } : - ;y ,�y,e5 Iv+ 'i1 S. �f N. �1�k°�,) i• t+� 39 {fy(, y y,.�^ wW[y�"�w,,� }j �, 4�k�'� k,�:. } R F"nk . '''' '' " � .. a �"''-',.V'.':. f','i.I. , . l�(s I'i'�f�id .� X44 A'.4Y .,",, .J{ iM1 L iiiexti 1{' C F �1V•Q } 1100}0 ,,oi , S'�rW'Ipi1 It: 3 .0 2 6 3.0 RV -015 <( Jr, . w f " � �, L ;r � 1 .. y� �<" � , ,',,�'r;>,>io ' ._-- : its ��J ,„„�,'., 3.0 rS� P�X Y .�, i4 Y fi i � �? YrT i �. t s . x !G iF '� �l. � � � ^�A"P aN5, V NrS':CEa:: . 199 595 3.0 RV -215 1 ; 2.8 LF '. .rtxvGl 'l `�- °� . d ,��,: yf,4y�� .g %ytni"4`'M r� ,} "4 'fir` ti 's'ri +`'}"f'1 '(7 i,y�•Ky 'lh4,y�', •f !k [YY , '0 .4: , `' 2 80 224 2 .8 RV -060 rJ 1 M iN > i ", J x 4 � .- � ,d ., di H f Y 3, E\ i�SY k (- k� .�. .11flu d f i t a .7Y ni 4lW l�$�'.J M1°:A�I'll 2.6 >� -L ' ! s w h V V M d � d . Y,�.l\ . 1 v� 77 197 2 .6 RV -010 yy �lui 54 '"'�.v 1J2 M Ll� � it A` y'Y". y�i `%,y iiW ' 1 " M1�^' tq� � k 4 .;r53 YYhf :.,. 2 .3 W s �E J L �' 397 901 2 .3 RV -091 4 y� .r �� ''',..i!,:77 i2 tp 40.4.1,,,,.:V°'''.. ,, A, iMl ' LLa#� 2.2 } K:"t.sr .-'' YY I Lf �;w .. �y�t"''^(rR '2�,nrt wit f+.5t., 111 242 2.2 „y"; RV -062 i I �� tM r^Y . ?� i �rki�,�J'yM �iry�n , .` i " Amf�+af�t{�d : 1yti F 6i"'' .:P 1. 7 ' ,L, �) ' kk.; �^ ?3;: .i r i "' ,:' ..� N_ ..A„ R .l .xz.,� , a.,¢�4r�&ri ,. ,', 1.7 27 45 RV -031 ! 1. 6 ,r� X13. *}. FN , �. .. >a. ` �y z�b .,'� yam`. s: .�", >,; 3� ;' 1.6 5 8 RV -371 1.3 12 15 1.3 Ziaf... .,` ;r`'' g'{. ix ,,°' , *> I,' ^.': r RV -111 14 15 1.1 o wvM 4 t . ; , ; ; sir ; ,,. a:; ; ,' 1.1 RV -074 r���� dA 31 32 1. 0 ' ."r`, $, ' .� f . s .. �h.� :. as}t, 1.0 RV -243 14 14 1. 0 LA ' ., :. ;: ''' 1,,, ,.. 1 .0 RV -079 29 28 1.0 RV -86S 40 37 0. 9 1.40* at i g -N L,35 k,,,0 0.9 RV -177 26 23 0.9 i10 4:':k"!:';::'' ', a .:° F'{ T,;. L -!:!k* 0.9 RV 11 5 0. 5 Vit_..:%:..h.A. ..Y,': 0. 5 -086 RV 8 3 0. 4 A * L:. -095 RV -071 0 0 0.0 RV -078 7 0 0.0 O3.:44. 1. 090 2;390 :; 2:2i Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services • • Data Source: AT&T Wireless • • Appendix A-2 • • SAFE Partnerships STATE AGENCIES CHP Statewide Coordinator Local Dispatch Operations Caltrans Statewide Coordinator Roadway Engineering Board of Directors City / County Elected Officials SAFE Staff DMV Revenue Collection RCTC / Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies CaII Box Vendor Cellular Carrier PRIVATE SECTOR • • • 80 • Appendix A-3 • • 81 • 1111 Cellular Call Bo x When a user lifts the receiver and activates a call box, the transceiver uses solar -generated power stored in a rechargeable battery to send a signal to the nearest cellular radio site, or " cell site". 6 Assistance Once the call -taker has assessed the situation, he or she will dispatch routine motorist -aid service (Freeway Service Patrol - if available - or private tow service). • System Operations ElCellular Radi o Site Cell sites are the gateways into the networks operated by cellular service providers. A call generated from a call box in the form of a cellular radio signal is received by a cell site and relayed to a mobil switching office via land -based telephone trunk lines . Telephone Trunk Lines 6 1 Cc-- HIP Highway Patro l The CHP operates dispatch centers throughout California. CHP dispatchers are responsible for answering all cellular 911 calls, other la w enforcement -related calls, and emergency call box calls. ElMobile Switching Office A mobile switching office receives calls from various cell sites and reroutes them to a central switching center . The connection from the mobile switching center to the central switching center is via hard -wire trunk lines . .. Standard Telephone Lines © Private Call Center The private call center answers all call box calls and determines whether the call should be routed to CHP (about 30%) or to other motorist aid assistance (about 70%) . This frees up CHP to focus on emergency situations and requests for Freeway Service Patrol or rotational tow truck services. 4 Telephone Trunk Lines Central Switching C enter The Central Switching Center is the location where radio signals are converted into standard telephone signals and then sent into the standard telephone network. After call box calls reach the switching center, they are routed to the private call center via st andard telephone lines . • Appendix A-4 • • Total active call boxes 1,090 100% Active boxes used to call for aid 772 71% Active boxes that did not call for aid 318 29% RUNNING CALL TOTAL SINCE INCEPTION (May 1990) Average calls for aid per call box used 3 Average time per call for aid 5:24 Average Call Delay to Aid Maximum Call Delay to Aid Calls by call length Call length 0 to 1 minute 1 to 3 minutes 3 to 5 minutes 5 to 7 minutes 7 to 9 minutes Over 9 minutes Length not available* TOTAL Calls for AID Calls to MAINT 9 seconds 20 seconds Calls to OTHER TOTAL Calls 268 11,792 49 12,109 564 19 38 621 525 0 2 527 423 0 2 425 248 0 0 248 359 0 2 361 3 28 0 31 2,390 11,839 *Usually a result of roaming Calls by shift Dispatch shift A Shift (06am-02pm) B Shift (02pm-10pm) C Shift (lopm-06am) Shift not available* TOTAL Calls for AID Calls to MAINT 93 Calls to OTHER 14,322 TOTAL Calls 849 243 90 1,182 1,157 2994 3 4,154 381 8574 0 8,955 3 28 0 31 2,390 11,839 'Usually a result of roaming 93 14,322 Minutes used to call aid 12,877 75.1% Minutes used to call maintenance 4,142 24.1% Minutes used to call other destinations 132 0.8% Total minutes used 17,151 100.0% Calls for Aid 4000 - 3500 - 3000 - -.-- -. 2500 - 2000 - 1500- 1000 - 500- 0 2980 Allotted minutes of cellular time 38,150 100% Total minutes used 17,151 45% Minutes remaining 20,999 55% 3050 1653 3214 817,594 Calls for Aid by call length 24% 11% 22% 18% 10% 0-1 1-3 3-5 5-7 7-9 Minutes 15% 9+ Percent of calls for aid by Shift 48% 16% 36% 10pm-6am 2pm-10pm Gam-10am Operator Shifts 11 24%01 Minutes Remaining Minutes Used Call box calls for aid by month (Grey=Indio, White=Inland) 2329 2380 1400 Jun -02 Jul -02 Aug -02 Sep -02 Oct -02 2329 1230 2226 1315 1706 974 1991 1942 2361 2390 1139 1098 1265 1258 Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 Mar -03 Apr -03 May -03 Jun -03 • • • Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 84 Data Source: AT&T Wireless • • • Ri��ersde�Contyranspofa�io � �'EF -_ � �Cel�ularAnalsls � � .ar - z+` --- '3`V4.' �'2 ri s,�i'" Y'ti�' -. :f : .- <, s June 5� 2003 �� - — - v o�mmssroy F� - •liu,+i ¢� -"� Ravi f tT- ---133 ... r f.�.- �/_ 'is{ V C 3y�{�S 0;n -,f �,: i :? S8 1,090 Call boxes 35 minutes/call box 38,150 Minutes Active CaII Boxes X Allocated minutes per call box = Aggregate Allocation Allocated 38,150 100% Used 17,151 45% "4-- Used to call.. Cellular Minutes ...Dispatch 12,877 75% ... Maintenance 4,142 24% Remaining 20,999 55% ... Other Numbers 132 1% 17,151 100% R , igsr *_ ��� s lv � ssE Cellular Remaining cellular time t ��� USed `- m DISPATCH ❑Remaining cell time ❑DISPATCH ❑MAINT �. MAINT. ❑OTHER OTHER kz .. XClose up Calls to Despatch �_ ��� 4� ° n' _„_, , Y+ , s5cr..'. "".. .'..:; _ `-- .FtS .\l -% 3- -.4, � t�:i?-'h r,, .',..: .i... Call Length Number of calls Percent of calls 0 to 1 min 268 -- a;1, ...., 11% 1 to 3 min 564 kVA , -W _ ,: Vs •;_-- .y, K ,, - 24% 3 to 5 min 525 ir:;..m= a . .. _ -'� Y^v 5 to 7 min 423 f ,. r ;__. .:,, w .==:i,> 18% 7 to 9 min 248 F,m- . -'417 : 10% over 9 min 359 {r am n 15% Not available* 3 1 0% Total 2,390 Usually a result of roaming as foaming calls do not record call length 100% — z —t Mal tenance Close tJ x f � . , ..3..P � ;, , OtherG�al( Chose up Number of calls Expected* 10,900 Actual 11,839 Too Many D_ tt - 93 Cali box calls were made to "Other" Too Many 939 v Expected F destinations 'Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month) 4% Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Data Source: AT&T Wireless 85 • Appendix A-5 • • • • • Appendix A-5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX PROGRAM MONTHLY CALLS FOR FY 1999 THRU 2003 Number of Calls Month 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 July 7,804 5,666 5,281 3,573 3,050 August 7,673 6,164 4,840 3,670 3,214 September 5,621 4,871 4,051 2,931 2,486 October 5,477 4,971 3,525 2,741 2,329 November 4,951 4,498 3,256 2,590 2,380 December 5,360 4,238 3,493 2,701 2,329 January 4,849 3,846 3,042 2,355 2,226 February 4,286 3,481 2,560 2,210 1,706 March 4,623 4,111 3,297 2,660 1,991 April 4,793 4,314 3,368 2,384 1,942 May 5,114 4,880 3,664 2,935 2,361 June 6,230 4,740 3,781 2,980 2,390 Total 66,781 55,780 44,158 33,730 28,404 Annual % Change -16.47% -20.84% -23.62% -15.79% JR: 11/19/03 • Appendix B-1 • • SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT 1A LEGEND New Smart Call Bo x SitesUsing Ne w Loop Detectors © New Sma rt C all Box Site s Using Existing Caltrans Lo op De tec tors • New Smart Call Box Across From A Regular Ca ll Box Necessary For Safety New Coun t Station Sites Using New Loop Detectors N ew C ount St ation Sites Usi ng Existing Caltrans L oop Detectors Existing Smart Ca ll Bo x Sites from 1997 & 1999 Pilot Programs N NOT TO SC ALE • • • • • SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN COACHELLA VALLEY EXHIBIT 1B -1-rCC:r I NC }LOC:r I .S LEGEND ® Ne w Smart Ca ll Bo x SltesUsin g New Lo op De tecto rs 0 Ne w Sma rt Call Bo x Site s Using Existing Ca tirans Loop Detec tors ® New Coun t Sta tion Sites Using New Loo p Detecto rs N ew C ount Stati on Sit es Using Existing Caltrans L oop Detectors New Smart Call Box Across From A Regular Call Box Neces sary For Safety * Existing Smart Call Box Sites from 1997 & 1999 Pilot Progr ams NOTTC SCAL E j SMART CALL BOX IMPLEMENTATION SITES IN EASTERN RIVERSIDE EXHIBIT 1C YJPA- ' Ie:(::1 I N Cif ,CH.: IL' S LEG END ® New Smart Call Box SitesUsing Ne w Loo p Dete ctors © New Smart Ca li Box Site s Usin g Existing Ca fta ns Loop Dete cto rs New Smart Ca ll Box Acros s From A Regular Call Box Necessary Fo r Safety ® Ne w Co unt Sta tio n Sites Using New Loop Detec to rs Existin g Smart Call Box Sites from New Count Station Sit es Using aisting Caltr ans Loop Dete ctors 1997 & 1999 Pilot Progr ams N E NOT TO SCALE • • • Appendix C-1 • • • • Revenue Fund Balan ce Interest Other Misc. Revenues Vehicle Reven ue Total Revenues Expenses System Expansion/Installations Access Charges Line/Toll Chrg. (Est. ) Equipmen t Maintenance Preventive Maint. Correctiv e Maint. Knockdown s Vandalism Other Misc. Damage In surance Prof. Serv ices - RMSL (T-3) RCTC Charges CHP Operations Freeway Svc. Patrol Special Studies / ITS (IVHS) Total Ex penses Surplus (Deficit) Rev enues Over Expen ses RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX S YSTEM ACTUAL PROGRAM C OSTS FY 1999 THRU 2003 APPENDIX C-1 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 % Change FY 00/01 % Cha nge FY 01/02 % Cha nge FY 02/03 $2,214,435 $2,265,190 $2,441,258 $2,568,480 $2,092,919 $98,271 $111,504 13.47% $194,194 74.16% $78,589 -59 .53% $54,017 $17,672 $1,731 -90 .20% $73 -95 .78% $6,506 8799.52% $18,851 $1,118 .965 $1,189,662 6 .32% $1,297,474 9 .06% $1,288,656 -0.68% $1.332,707 $3,449,343 $3,568,088 $3,932,999 $3,942,231 $3,498,494 $66,065 $132,621 $2,664 $0 $81,2I6 $116,899 $78,765 $13,052 $13,647 $3,553 $62,303 $144,669 $239,615 $159,075 $70,009 $1,184,153 $0 $147,105 $2,299 $0 $74,088 $119,462 $135,060 $27,215 $14,742 $3,453 $39,916 $166,548 $194,478 $202,463 $0 $1,126,830 $2,265,190 $2,441,258 % Change -31.27% 189.77% 3.42% N/ A $0 N/A $0 N/ A $0 N/A 10.92% $112,357 -23.62% $111,140 -1.08% $107,162 -3 .58% -13 .72% $1,896 -17 .51% $1,622 -14.49 % $563 -65.28 % N/A $595,902 N/A $1,105,777 85.56% $330,708 -70 .09% -8 .78% $0 -100.00% $1,354 N/ A $1,689 24.72% 2 .19% $0 -100.00 % $1,354 N/ A $1,689 24:72% 71 .47% $9,706 -92.81% $1,663 -82.87% $7,441 347.53% 108.52% $1,253 -95.39% $0 -100.00% $0 N/A 8 .03% $354 -97.60% $593 67 .57 % ($553) -193.27% -2.79 % $1,774 -48.63% $5,280 I97.60% $0 -100 .00% -35.93% $42,067 5.39% $36,804 -12 .51% $34,538 -6.16% 15 .12% $163,118 -2.06 % $178,241 9 .27% $254,300 42.67% -18.84% $223,119 14 .73 % $189,784 -14.94% $138,464 -27 .04% 27.28% $212,973 5 .19% $215,699 . 1 .28% $240,600 11.54% N/A IQ N/A $0 N/A '• 59. N/A -4. 84% $1,364,519 21.09% $1,849,312 35.53% $1,116,601 -39 .62% $2,568,480 All amounts per General Ledger Reports by fiscal year obtained from Accounting Dept. JR: 9/04/03 $2,092,919 $2,381,893 • Appendix C-2 • • • REVENUES Fund Balan ce Interest (est. 2.5%) Misc. Revenues (1) Vehicle Rev enue Total Rev enu e EXPEN SES System Refurbishment Cellular Access Charges (2) Lin e/Toll Charges Equ ip. Maint. (3) Corrective Mainten ance Prev entiv e Main ten ance Cn Knockdowns (3) Vandalism (3) Graffit & Other Misc. (3) Prof. Services - T -Cubed Prof. Serv ices - Other RCTC Charges (4) CHP/PCN Operations (4) Freeway Service Patrol (4) Total Expenses Surplus (Deficit) Revenu es Over Expenses FOOTNOTES: (1) Misc. Revenues (2) Cellu lar Access Cha rge (3) PM/CM & Repair Charges (4) RCTC, CHP & FSP RIVE RSI DE ARTY C ALL BOX SYSTEM FI VE YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST FY 2004-05 TH RU FY 2008-2009 ST ATUS Q UO - NO IMPROVEME NTS Actual Estimated Budgeted Projected. Projected Projected FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 $2,568,480 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $2,848,473 $3,108,778 $78,589 $54,017 $59,547 $64,945 $71,212 $77,719 $6,506 $18,851 519,417 $19,999 $20,599 $21,217 $1,288,656 $1,332,707 $1,372,688 $1,413,869 $1,456,285 $1,499,973 $3,942,231 $3,498,495 $3,833,546 $4,096,593 $4,396,569 $4,707,688 APPE NDIX CO Projected Projected FY 07/08 FY 08/09 $3,378,924 $3,659,141 $84,473 $91,479 $21,853 $22,509 $1,544,973 $1,591,322 $5,030,224 $5,364,451 $566,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,140 $107,162 $111,000 $111,000 $114,330 $117,760 $12I,293 $124,931 $1,622 $563 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $539,177 $330,708 $361,215 $373,858 $386,943 $400,486 $414,503 $429,010 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,663 $7,441 $18,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $593 ($553) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $36,804 $34,538 $54,598 $42,000 $43,260 $44,558 $45,895 $47,271 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $183,522 $254,300 $261,929 $269,787 $277,880 $286,217 $294,803 $303,647 $189,784 $138,464 $142,618 $146,896 $151,303 $155,842 5160,518 $165,333 $215,699 $240,600 $260,405 $269,519 $278,952 $288,716 $298,821 $309,279 $1,849,312 $1,116,601 $1,235,765 $1,248,120 $1,287,791 $1,328,764 $1,371,083 $1,414,792 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $2,848,473 $3,108,778 $3,378,924 $3,659,141 $3,949,659 Scenario I In suran ce recov eries for knockdowns, subject to 3% escalation per year. Fixed at $7. 50/box/month thru 04/05; then estimated at +3. 5% per yr. $290/box/yr. thru FY 04/05; subject to annual CPI increase (est. 3. 5%). "Smart" call boxes billed at T&M rate per UPL. Costs subject to 3.5% escalation. JR: 9/04/03 Rev. 12/16/03 • Appendix C-3 • • R EVENUES Fun d Balance Interest (est. 2.5%) Misc. Revenu es (1) Vehicle Revenue Total Revenue EXPENSE System Refu rbishmen t Cellular A ccess Charges (2) Line/Toll Charges Equip. Maint. (3) Corrective Maintenance Preventive Mainten ance Knockdowns (3) V andalism (3) Graffit & Other Misc. (3) Prof. Serv ices - T -Cubed Prof. Serv ices - Other RCTC Charges (4) CHP/PCN Operations (4) Freeway Service Patrol (4) ADA / Site Improvements (5) Total Expenses Surplu s (D eficit) R evenu es Over Expenses FOOTNOTES: (1) Misc. Revenu es (2) Cellular Access Charge (3) PM/CM & Repair Charges (4) RCTC, CHP & FSP (5) ADA & Site Improvements illJR: 9/04/03 Rev. 12/16/03 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY C ALL BOX SYSTEM FIVE YE AR FINANCIAL FOREC AST FY 2004-05 TH RU FY 2008-2009 ADA & SITE IMP ROV EME NTS APPE NDIX C-3 Actual Estim ated B udgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 $2,568,480 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $2,060,073 $2,300,668 $2,550,612 $2,810,121 $78,589 $54,017 $59,547 $64,945 $51,502 $57,517 $63,765 $70,253 $6,506 $18,851 $19,417 $19,999 $20,599 $21,217 $21,853 $22,509 $1,288,656 $1,332,707 $1,372,688 $1,413,869 $1,456,285 $1,499,973 $1,544,973 $1,591,322 $3,942,231 $3,498,495 $3,833,546 $4,096,593 $3,588,459 $3,879,375 $4,181,203 $4,494,204 $566,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,140 $107,162 $111,000 $111,000 $114,330 $117,760 $121,293 $124,931 $1,622 $563 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $539,177 $330,708 $361,215 $373,858 $386,943 $400,486 $414,503 $429,010 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,663 $7,441 $18,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $593 ($553) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $36,804 $34,538 $54,598 $42,000 $43,260 $44,558 $45,895 $47,271 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $183,522 $254,300 $261,929 $269,787 $277,880 $286,217 $294,803 $303,647 $189,784 $138,464 $142,618 $146,896 $151,303 $155,842 $160,518 $165,333 $215,699 $240,600 $260,405 $269,519 $278,952 $288,716 $298,821 $309,279 $0 $0 $0 $788,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,849,312 $1,116,601 $1,235,765 $2,036,520 $1,287,791 $1,328,764 $1,371,083 $1,414,792 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $2,060,073 $2,300,668 $2,550,612 $2,810,121 83,079,413 Scenario II Insurance recoveries for knockdowns, subject to 3% escalation per year . Fixed at $7.50/box/mon th thru 04/05; then estimated at +3.5% per yr. $290/box/yr. thru FY 04/05; subject to an nual CPI increase (est. 3. 5%). "Smart " call boxes billed at T& M rate per UPL . Costs subject to 3. 5% escalation. Estimate fo r 263 A DA boxes at $347,700 plus 299 "B" & "C" sites at $440,700. • • • Appendix C-4 • • • REVENUES Fund Balance Interest (est. 2.5%) Misc. Revenues (1) V ehicle Revenue Total Revenue EXPENSES System Refurbishmen t Cellular Access Charges (2) (6) Line/Toll Charges Equip. Maint. (3) (6) Corrective Maintenance Prev entive Main tenance Knockdowns (3) Vandalism (3) Graffit & Other Misc. (3) Prof. Services - T -Cubed Prof. Services - Other RCTC Charges (4) CHP/PCN Operations (4) Freeway Svc. Patrol (4) ADA/ Site Improvements (5) Reserve for Digital Conversion Total Ex penses Surplus (Deficit) Revenues Over Expenses FOOTNOTES: (1) Misc. R even ues (2) Cellular Access Charge (3) PM/CM & Repair Charges (4) RCTC, CHP & FSP (5) ADA & Site Improvemen ts (6) Spacing Increased (7) Digitalleonversion JR: 9/04/03 Rev. 12/16/03 (7) RIVE RSIDE COUIK CALL BOX S YSTEM APPENDIX C-4• FIVE YEAR FnipCIAL FORECAST FY 2004-05 THRU FY 2008-2009 Sce nario III AD A & SITE IMP ROVEMENT, INCREASED SPACIN G AND DIGITAL CON VERSIO N Actual Estimated B udgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 $2,568,480 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $1,717,073 $1,666,870 $1,965,360 $78,589 $54,017 $59,547 $64,945 $42,927 $41,672 $49,134 $6,506 $18,851 $19,417 $19,999 $20,599 $21,217 $21,853 $1,288,656 $1,332,707 $1,372,688 $1,413,869 $1,456,285 $1,499,973 $1,544,973 $3,942,231 $3,498,495 $3,833,546 $4,096,593 $3,236,884 $3,229,732 $3,581,320 $566,600 $111,140 $1,622 $539,177 $1,354 $1,354 $1,663 $0 $593 $36,804 $0 $183,522 $189,784 $215,699 $0 $0 $1,849,312 Projected FY 08/09 $2,276,284 $56,907 $22,509 $1,591,322 $3,947,022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,162 $111,000 $111,000 $97,342 $100,749 $104,275 $107,925 $563 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $330,708 $361,215 $373,858 $343,214 $355,227 $367,660 $380,528 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $7,441 $18,000 $12,000 $12,000. $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 ($553) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $34,538 $54,598 $40,000 $41,200 $42,436 $43,709 $45,020 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $254,300 $261,929 $269,787 $277,880 $286,217 $294,803 $303,647 $138,464 $142,618 $146,896 $151,303 $155,842 $160,518 $165,333 $240,600 $260,405 $269,519, $278,952 $288,716 $298,821 $309,279 $0 $0 $788,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,000 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,116,601 $1,235,765 $2,379,520 $1,570,014 $1,264,372 $1,305,037 $1,347,051 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $1,717,073 $1,666,870 $1,965,360 $2,276,284 $2,599,970 Insurance recov eries for kn ockdowns, subject to 3% escalation per year. Fixed at $7.50/bo x/mo nth thru 04/05; then estimated at + 3.5% per yr. $290/box/yr. thru FY 04/05; subject to an nu al CPI increase (est. 3. 5%). "Smart" call boxes billed at T&M rate per UPL . Costs subject to 3.5% escalation. Estimate fo r 263 ADA boxes at $347,700 plus 299 "B" & "C" sites at $440,700. In creased spacing on SR -91 to no less than 1/2 mi. eliminating 46 boxes. (also reduces Access Chrgs. & Eq . Maint. costs) Funds reserved for two (2) years to convert all boxes to digital once AT&T contract expires on 6/30/05 • Appendix C-5 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BO X SYSTEM APPENDIX C-5 FI VE YEAR FIN ANCIAL FORECAST FY 2004-05 TH RU FY 2008-2009 Scenario IV ADA & SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCRE ASED SP ACI NG, DIGITAL CO NVE RSITIO N & PAD R EVENUES Fund Balance Interest (est. 2. 5%) Misc. Revenues (1) Vehicle Revenue Total Revenue EXPENSES System Refurbishment Cellular Access Charges (2) (6) Line/Toll Charges Equip. Maint. (3) (6) Corrective Main ten ance Preventive Mainten ance Knockdowns (3) V andalism (3) Graffit & Other Misc. (3) Prof. Serv ices - T -Cubed Prof. Services - Other RCTC Charges (4) CHP/PCN Operations (4) Freeway Service Patrol (4) ADA / Site Improvements (5) Reserve for Digital Con version (7) Installation of 5' x 5' Pads (8) Total Expenses Surplus (Deficit) R evenues Over Expenses FOOTNOTES: (1) Misc. Reven ues (2) Cellular Access Charge (3) PM/CM & Repair Charges (4) RCTC, CHP & FSP (5) A DA & Site Improv ements (6) Spacing tlicreased Digital Conversion 0 3) 5' x 5' Pad Installation Act ual Estimated Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 $2,568,480 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $1,717,073 $1,213,476 $1,512,644 $1,824,683 $78,589 $54,017 $59,547 $64,945 $42,927 $30,337 $37,816 $45,617 $6,506 $18,851 $19,417 $19,999 $20,599 $21,217 $21,853 $22,509 $1,288,656 $1,332,707 $1,372,688 $1,413,869 $1,456,285 $1,499,973 $1,544,973 $1,591,322 $3,942,231 $3,498,495 $3,833,546 $4,096,593 $3,236,884 $2,765,003 $3,117,286 $3,484,131 $566,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,140 $107,162 $111,000 $111,000 $97,342 $100,749 $104,275 $107,925 $1,622 $563 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $539,177 $330,708 $361,215 $373,858 $331,608 $343,214 $355,227 $367,660 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,663 $7,441 $18,000 $12,000 $12,000 . $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $593 ($553) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $36,804 $34,538 $54,598 $40,000 $41,200 $42,436 $43,709 $45,020 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $183,522 $254,300 $261,929 $269,787 $277,880 $286,217 $294,803 $303,647 $189,784 $138,464 $142,618 $146,896 $151,303 $155,842 $160,518 $165,333 $215,699 $240,600 $260,405 $269,519 $278,952 $288,716 $298,821 $309,279 $0 $0 $0 $788,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,000 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $465,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,849,312 $1,116,601 $1,235,765 $2,379,520 $2,023,408 $1,252,359 $1,292,604 $1,334,183 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $1,717,073 $1,213,476 $1,512,644 $1,824,683 $2,149,947 Insuran ce recoveries for knockdowns, subject to 3% escalation per year. Fixed at $7. 50/box/month thru 04/05; then estimated at + 3.5% per yr. $290/box/yr. thru FY 04/05; subject to annual CPI increase (est. 3. 5% ). " Smart" call boxes billed at T &M rate per UPL . Co sts subject to 3.5% escalation. Estimate for 263 AD A boxes at $347,700 plus 299 "B" & " C" sites at $440,700. Increased spacing on SR -91 to no less than 1/2 mi. eliminating 46 boxes. (also reduces Access Chrgs . & Eq. Maint. costs) Funds reserved for two (2) years to convert boxes to digital once AT&T contract expires on 6/30/05 Estimated at $750 per site for 620 sites. JR; 9/04/03 Rev . 12/16/03 e • Appendix C-6 • • • R EV ENUES Fund Balance Interest (est. 2.5%) Misc. Revenues (1) V ehicle Revenue To tal Revenu e EX PENSES System Refurbishment Cellular Access Charges (2) Line/Toll Charges Equip. Maint. (3) Corrective Main ten ance Preventive Maintenance Knockdowns (3) Vandalism (3) Graffit & Other Misc. (3) Prof. Services - T -Cubed Prof. Services - Other RCTC Charges (4) CHP/PCN Opera tions (4) Freeway Service Patrol (4) ADA / Site Improvements (5) Reserve for Digital Conversion (6) Installation (4 5' x 5' Pads (7) Total Expenses Surplus (Deficit) Revenues Over Expenses FOOTNOTES: (1) Misc. R evenues (2) Cellular Access Charge (3) PM/CM & Repair Charges (4) RCTC, CHP & FSP (5) ADA.& Site Improvements (6) Digital Conversion (7) 5' x 5' Pad Installation RIVE RSIDE COUN ALL BOX SYSTEM FIVE YEAR FIN CIAL FOREC AST FY 2004-05 TH RU FY 2008-2009 ADA & SITE IMPROVEM ENT, AND 5' x5'PAD Actual Estimated FY 01/02 FY 02/03 $2,568,480 $2,092,920 $78,589 $54,017 $6,506 $18,851 $1,288,656 $1,332,707 $3,942,231 $3,498,495 Budgeted Projected FY 03/04 FY 04/05 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $59,547 $64,945 $19,417 $19,999 $1,372,688 $1,413,869 $3,833,546 $4,096,593 Projected FY 05/06 $1,717,073 $42,927 $20,599 $1,456,285 $3,236,884 Projected FY 06/07 $1,140,598 $28,515 $,21,217 $1,499,973 $2,690,304 $566,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,140 $107,162 $111,000 $111,000 $1I4,885 $118,906 $1,622 $563 $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $539,177 $330,708 $361,215 $373,858 $386,943 $400,486 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,354 $1,689 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 . $3,000 $1,663 $7,441 $18,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $593 ($553) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $36,804 $34,538 $54,598 $40,000 $41,200 $42,436 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $183,522 $254,300 $261,929 $269,787 $277,880 $286,217 $189,784 $138,464 $142,618 $146,896 $151,303 $155,842 $215,699 $240,600 $260,405 $269,519 $278,952 $288,716 $0 $0 $0 $788,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $345,000 $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $465,000 $0 $1,849,312 $1,116,601 $1,235,765 $2,379,520 $2,096,286 $1,327,788 Projected FY 07/08 $1,362,516 $34,063 $21,853 $1,544,973 $2,963,405 $0 $123,068 $2,251 $414,503 $3,000 $3,000 $12,000 $3,000 $2,000 $43,709 $10,000 $294,803 $160,518 $298,821 $0 $0 $0 $1,370,672 APPE NDIX C-6 • Projected FY 08/09 $1,592,733 $39,818 $22,509 $1,591,322 $3,246,382 $0 $127,375 $2,319 $429,010 $3,000 $3,000 $12,000 $3,000 $2,000 $45,020 $10,000 $303,647 $165,333 $309,279 $0 $0 $0 $1,414,984 $2,092,920 $2,381,894 $2,597,781 $1,717,073 $1,140,598 $1,362,,516 $1,592,733 $1,831,398 Sce nario V Insuran ce recoveries fo r knockdown s, subject to 3% escalation per year. Fixed at $7.50/box/month thru 04/05; then estimated at +3. 5% per yr. $290/box/yr. thru FY 04/05; subject to annu al CPI increase (est. 3.5% ). "Smart" call boxes billed at T &M rate per UPL. Costs su bject to 3.5% escalation. Estimate for 263 ADA boxes at $347,700 plus 299 "B" & "C" sites at $440,700. Funds reserved for two (2) years to convert all boxes to digital once AT&T contract expires on 6/30/05 Estimated at $750 per site for 620 sites. JR: 9/04/03 R ev. 12/16/03 • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TUMF Top Priority Corridors STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt a list of eight priority arterial corridors that will be designated as the Commission's top arterial candidates for TUMF funding; 2) Approve the allocation of $1 million in TUMF funding for project development work (preliminary design and environmental review) for the widening of State Route 79 between Thompson and Hunter Roads, and 3) Forward to the Commission for consideration. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Voter approval of a 30 -year extension of the Measure A sales tax program in 2002 also mandated the establishment of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in Western Riverside County. Last year, the county and cities throughout Western Riverside County, approved the implementation of the TUMF program which is administered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Per the terms of the voter -approved Measure A ordinance, the first $400 million of TUMF revenue is guaranteed to the Riverside County Transportation Commission to be split evenly for regional arterials and CETAP corridors. While the intent of ensuring that TUMF dollars be spent on these two items was clear, the onset of the Measure A extension created an ambiguity on how TUMF dollars were to be spent before the Measure A extension took effect in 2009. In short, the TUMF program started collecting fees in 2003 but the Measure A extension becomes effective in 2009. While RCTC was guaranteed the first $400 million, how would the TUMF dollars be handled until 2009? 104 TUMF Memorandum of Understanding The Commission and Western Riverside Council of Governments acted decisively in July of last year with the approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in order to govern the allocation of the $400 million amount to be returned to RCTC and address the expenditure of TUMF funds until March 31, 2009. The solution is the following allocation of revenue until March 31, 2009. a) 48.1 percent to RCTC for regional arterials and CETAP development b) 48.1 percent shall be allocated to the five TUMF Improvement Zones which are outlined in the WRCOG TUMF Administrative Plan c) 3.8 percent for regional transit The approved agreement specifies that funds received by RCTC are eligible for the development of regional arterials or for CETAP development needs including mitigation, although funding would be precluded from being spent on CETAP corridors that are not designated on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The allocation for regional public transit use is an outgrowth of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study which provides funding for public transit needs. The MOU covers the period between now and March 31, 2009, however once the $400 million responsibility is satisfied, the requirements of the MOU will cease. Conversely, if the $400 million responsibility is not satisfied by March 31, 2009, all TUMF revenues would revert to RCTC until the $400 million is satisfied. To this point, RCTC's 48.1 percent share of TUMF revenue collected is approximately $11.5 million. In -Kind Improvements This action was approved by the Commission last July with the understanding that staff would return with a list of six to eight high priority arterials. The priority list would be important because of the issue of in -kind improvements. In limited cases, in -kind improvements or dedications of land could be used in lieu of actual cash payments to satisfy TUMF requirements. The MOU allow in -kind credits only when the improvements are made on any of six to eight designated high priority regional arterials. As part of the Commission's action in July, staff was directed by the Commission to return within eight months of the approval of the MOU with a proposed arterial list. This process was established to ensure that in -kind improvements complement and assist the Commission's overall strategic direction. The amount of in -kind improvements is capped at $200 million. • 105 • • • The MOU also states that RCTC and WRCOG will discuss in good faith once every three years lowering the maximum credit to an amount less than $200 million based on the actual percentage of in -lieu TUMF facilities created by developers on the entire TUMF system. WRCOG Actions The issue of prioritizing regional arterials for TUMF consideration has also been a priority for the Western Riverside Council of Governments. In November of 2003, the WRCOG Executive Committee approved a listing of nine priority arterial corridors. This action is the first step in developing a TUMF 10 -Year Strategic Plan. The MOU is also clear in stating that RCTC is solely responsible for programming the $400 million that is transferred to the Commission. While the MOU states that RCTC shall consider project priorities established in the TUMF 10 - Year Strategic Plan adopted by WRCOG's Executive Committee, the Commission is not bound by this requirement. In addition to the $200 million for regional arterials and $200 million for CETAP corridors from the TUMF program, the Measure A extension allocates $300 million for regional arterials and $370 million for the development of new corridors. While RCTC is not bound to follow WRCOG's top priority list, a great deal of important analysis of the TUMF Backbone Network has been conducted by WRCOG and their consulting team. Modeling analyses have been conducted regarding traffic projections in 2025, congestion impacts that are likely between now and that time and system continuity. The effort to create the priority list was overseen by a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of Public Works Directors throughout the county and included participation by RCTC staff. Based on these criteria, WRCOG Executive Committee approved the following list of top priority corridors: (Listed in alphabetical order) • Cajalco/Ramona Expressway from 1-15 to SR 79 • Clinton Keith Road from SR 79 to 1-215 • Green River Road from Dominguez Ranch Road to SR 91 • Newport/Railroad Canyon from SR 79 to 1-215 • Reche Canyon/Reche Vista Road from Heacock to the County Line • Schliesman Road from the County Line to Arlington Avenue • Scott Road from SR 79 to 1-215 • SR 79 from 1-10 to 1-15 including Potrero Road • Van Buren Boulevard from SR 60 to 1-215 This priority list does not assume a numerical order within the top priority corridors. This was prudent because funding all of these projects will cost more than the $200 million that will be allocated to RCTC for regional arterials. Given this reality, it should be understood that adopting a priority list is not tantamount to committing actual dollars. The decision to provide funding for any project requires Commission consideration and approval. After reviewing the priority list established by WRCOG, Commission staff concurs with these nine priority corridors. Still it is likely that over time, priorities have the possibility of changing. As a result, RCTC staff considers this a preliminary priority list that might see additional refinements in the future. Moreover, RCTC staff recognizes that there are a number of other important arterials throughout Western Riverside County which are not intended to be slighted by the adoption of this list. The TUMF program also provides funding for each TUMF Zone area on a return to source basis which could be used to fund locally important projects or to supplement funding of the top regional arterials. Setting of Priorities Establishing a top priority list is only a first step in determining how projects should be funded. In fact, the main impetus for adopting a top priority list is the need to determine eligibility for in -kind credit as was directed by the Commission in July and included in the MOU. The process to fund individual projects will require close cooperation among the Commission, WRCOG and local jurisdictions. Much of the continuing work will be developed in cooperation with the Commission's own Technical Advisory Committee. As a general practice, all Commission -administered capital projects funding programs include criteria that create incentives to attract local funding participation. Ideally, the TUMF program, like every other source of funding that the Commission receives or allocates should be leveraged in a way to fund as many improvements as possible. In order to receive TUMF funding, it is advisable that other sources of funding be identified whether these sources are generated from state or local programs. Federal funding could also be used although there are times when federal dollars should be excluded from funding some projects when it is advantageous to obtain environmental clearance under CEQA. The Commission has already taken steps consistent with this direction with its first TUMF funding allocation. In December, the Commission allocated $5 million in TUMF funding for project development work on the Cajalco/Ramona Corridor. Cajalco/Ramona is included in the proposed Top Priority list and it is also a CETAP corridor. Because it is a CETAP corridor it also is eligible and has received funding • 107 • • • from state and federal sources, which then enhances the buying power of the TUMF funds. The Commission might also consider project readiness and economic impact. TUMF funds could also be used to replace lost state funding that has been eroded as part of the state's fiscal crisis and suspension of Proposition 42. An opportunity to establish a clearer direction will come later this year after the April meeting of the California Transportation Commission when more information regarding the STIP and state policy direction might be available. State Route 79 In the case of State Route 79 between Thompson and Hunter Roads, additional funding from the County of Riverside is available and has been committed for preliminary project work to widen the arterial to four lanes. Supervisor Venable has committed $1 million in Third District Developer Agreement Funds. Last month, the Commission approved transferring the lead agency designation for this project to the County Transportation Department. The need to improve State Route 79 is unquestioned. Traffic has overwhelmed the two-lane road causing significant congestion and safety concerns. The County is already working to construct a number of short-term safety improvements in the area which include signals and intersection widenings. The County is also pursuing the development of a Community Facilities District with landowners/developers to fund construction. The intent of this approach is to expand this segment of Route 79 to a continuous four -lane facility. Once established this would replace $21 million of STIP dollars which have been programmed, but are not available at this time due to the diversion of state highway dollars into the state's general fund. Overall, the effort to improve State Route 79 might exceed $30 million, although that figure will be refined after the completion of preliminary design and environmental work. With a price tag of $2 million identified for this project development work, allocating $1 million in TUMF dollars to match the County's contribution would ensure that the project would be ready to access dollars once they are made available. Given the acute need for improvements to Route 79, staff recommends allocating the $1 million to keep the project on track. • AGENDA ITEM 16 • • REVISED AGENDA ITEM #16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 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) Adopt the following bill position and associated policy stance: SUPPORT — ACA 21 (Bogh and Spitzer R- Riverside County) as introduced 5/22/03 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update The President's State of the Union address sets the stage for Congressional action during the next few months. During his speech President Bush called for an expansion in defense and homeland security spending and pledged support for a comprehensive job training program that would involve community colleges. He also pledged to make recently -approved short-term tax cuts permanent. The address did not venture into the issue transportation funding or the reauthorization of the transportation bill. The combination of other spending priorities, a commitment to additional tax cuts and pressure to reign in federal spending is not good news for proponents of Congressman Don Young's (R -Alaska) Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEALU). Young is continuing to support a hike in federal gas taxes which has not been supported by the Administration. Among this backdrop, Senate Committees are beginning to work on their version of the transportation bill (S. 1072). In order to shape a unified California lobbying effort on the reauthorization of the transportation bill, the Schwarzenegger Administration has drafted a position letter that will be sent to the State's Congressional Delegation. The letter urges support for the highest responsible level of funding for transportation programs, addressing ethanol taxation and additional efforts to speed environmental streamlining. The draft letter is attached as part of this staff report. State Update Once again, next year's budget in Sacramento will include a suspension of Proposition 42. Proposition 42 was approved by voters in March 2002 by an overwhelming margin and requires that the sales tax revenue collected from the sale of vehicle fuels be deposited in the Transportation Investment Fund. The same proposition allows the Legislature to suspend the provision under certain circumstances when the state is experiencing significant budget problems. In order to do this, the Governor must issue a proclamation and the Legislature must enact a statute by a 2/3rds vote. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 21 (ACA 21) has been introduced by Assemblyman Russ Bogh and Todd Spitzer to make it even harder to suspend Proposition 42 by raising the limit to 4/5ths.. Both Spitzer and Bogh represent portions of Riverside County and have introduced the bill in response to the continued diversion in loans and transfers of transportation dollars into the General Fund. While this bill is likely to find an uphill road to approval, staff recommends Commission support for the effort. A SUPPORT position would be consistent with a previous SUPPORT position taken by the Commission for SCA 7 (Murray D -Los Angeles) that would require that all loans of transportation dollars to the General Fund be repaid with interest. ACA 21 was introduced in January and according to Legislative rules, cannot be heard in Committee until February 7. Attachments: Revised State Legislative Matrix ACA 21 Draft Letter to California Congressional Delegation regarding TEA 21 Reauthorization RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION -POSITIONS ON STATE LE GISL ATION — Legislation) uthorp escription „ ' �. � � . .. � � � � - � � .. � � F �; = Bill � �- Status P osition I Date of Board Ad option AB 496 Correa Creates the Santa Ana River Conservancy to direct the management of public lands along the river . This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Passed Assembly 52- 24, passed Senate Natural Resources 5-3. Referred to Senate Appropriations . OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 6/10/03 ACA 7 Dutra Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales tax measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly El ections and Appropriations Committees SUPPORT ACA 9 Levine Allows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote . The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees ACA 11 Levine Lowers the vo ter threshold to 55 p ercent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects. Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations Committees ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special taxes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects. Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee A CA 21 Bogh & Spitzer Raises Legislative threshold for the suspension of Proposition 42 to a 4/5ths vote Introduced STAFF RECOMMENDS SUPPORT SB 18 Burton Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Failed Passage in the Assembly — Reconsideration Granted OPPOSE 7/28/03 SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula. Passed Senate 40-0 Returned to Assembly for Further Action SUPPORT 6/10/03 SB 380 McClintock and Murray Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified crite ria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic model study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not do ing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File . SB 541 Torlakson Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it increases with inflatio n. Failed passage in Senate Transportation . Reconsideration has been granted. F:\users\preprint\j s\legmat. doc Legislation/ uth or rk' Description e�> u7 `"6 Bill Status" Position Date of Board Adopti on SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Signed by the Governor SUPPORT 10/8/03 SCA 2 Torlakson Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the revenues be spent on "smart growth planning ." Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Am endments Committees . SEEK AMENDMENTS SCA 7 Murray Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT 5/14/03 F:\u sers\preprin t\j s\legmat. doc 1 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE -2003-04 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 21 Introduced by Assembly Members Bogh and Spitzer January 7, 2004 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 21—A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending subdivision (d) of Section 1 of Article XIX B thereof, relating to transportation. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST ACA 21, as introduced, Bogh. Motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenue. Existing provisions of the California Constitution require that sales taxes on motor vehicle fuel that are deposited into the General Fund be transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund and used for transportation purposes, but allow the transfer of these revenues to be suspended in whole or in part for a fiscal year under specified circumstances by a statute enacted by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This measure would change the vote requirement to 4/5 of the membership of each house of the Legislature in order to enact a statute suspending in whole or in part the transfer of this particular revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State -mandated local program: no. 1 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the 2 Legislature of the State of California at its 2003-04 Regular 3 Session commencing on the second day of December 2002, 99 P ACA 21 —2- 1 two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby 2 proposes to the people of the State of California that the 3 Constitution of the State be amended by amending subdivision (d) 4 of Section 1 of Article XIX B thereof, to read: 5 (d) The transfer of revenues from the General Fund of the State 6 to the Transportation Investment Fund pursuant to subdivision (a) 7 may be suspended, in whole or in part, for a fiscal year if both of 8 the following conditions are met: 9 (1) The Governor has issued a proclamation that declares that 10 the transfer of revenues pursuant to subdivision (a) will result in 11 a significant negative fiscal impact on the range of functions of 12 government funded by the General Fund of the State. 13 (2) The Legislature enacts by statute, pursuant to a bill passed 14 in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the 15 journal, two thirds four -fifths of the membership of each house 16 concurring, a suspension for that fiscal year of the transfer of 17 revenues pursuant to subdivision (a), provided that the bill does 18 not contain any other unrelated provision. 0 99 P DRAFT Dear Member of California Delegation: We have been working with a broad coalition of California's transportation, local government, business and labor stakeholders who share a concern over our competitiveness, the continued wellbeing of our transportation system and the role it plays in the national economy. Our state's transportation system supports the movement of over 40% of the container traffic in the nation. Although California accounts for 13.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and 12 percent of its population (and growing by 600,000 persons per year) we receive a much smaller share of federal transportation programs. Reauthorization of TEA 21 represents a critical opportunity to maintain our State and national economic competitiveness, the integrity of our transportation systems and Californians' quality of life. That is why, on behalf of the stakeholder groups listed below, I am urging you to work as a united California delegation, to support legislation only if it addresses the following key issues. Of course, we will work together to provide our input on the more specific issues and proposals as the Congressional process proceeds. It is our strong intention to provide support for your efforts on our behalf in Washington, DC. • Funding: Support for the highest responsible level of funding for national transportation programs. While the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee proposed funding levels of $375 billion over 6 years would allow us to better meet our critical needs, we ask that you not retreat below the estimated Senate level of $310 billion over 6 years. Support enactment of programmatic formulas that recognize the critical role that our State plays in the national economy and global trading system. • Ethanol Additive Fuels End the loss of funding to the Highway Trust Fund caused by the preferential tax treatment for gasohol and diversion of revenues collected for ethanol fuels. Whether through flexibility in oxygenate requirements while adhering to Clean Air Act standards, elimination of the tax preference and diversion of gas tax revenues, federal general fund backfill of lost transportation revenues or some other creative solution, California cannot sustain the loss of $2.6 billion in transportation revenues over the next five years. These numbers will grow here and across the nation as more states shift to Oxygenated Fuels, the market for which is already mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. • Modal Programs Enact well -funded, stable and continuous modal programs that support the State's urban and rural needs, reduce congestion and improve air quality. As you know, California does well under current federal needs -based rules. Transit caps or formulas that ignore historic needs -based fund distributions will diminish California's share and force regional and local decision -makers to use the flexibility in federal law to shift funds from highway accounts to replace reduced transit revenues in order to meet Clean Air Act requirements. California Congressional Delegation January 22, 2004 PAGE TWO • Program Structure The basic program structure enacted in ISTEA and TEA -21 is sound and serves state and regional governments well. The proposal of any new programs or the extension of eligibility in existing programs must, however, be accompanied by a commensurate increase in resources, without impacting core programs, in order for our transportation professionals to meet their mobility and air quality goals. We would ask for flexibility for our regional agencies as they try to meet new standards under the Clean Air Act. Conformity is an incredibly complicated process and standards must be respected. However, the options selected by the EPA must provide the most flexibility for regions to both enhance air quality and maintain the flow of federal transportation funds. • Environmental Process Streamlining Especially during these difficult fiscal times, State and regional agencies need to optimize the impact of scarce resources. We would ask Congress to mandate early participation by federal transportation and regulatory agencies in the environmental process and assurance that they coordinate and cooperate with other responsible federal and state agencies. This effort can in now way sacrifice continuing progress on our environmental standards, but can save time and money lost in process -oriented delays. California's inclusion in a pilot program which delegates some federal process authorities, and provides resources to administer federal responsibilities, would help California to streamline the environmental process while respecting our strong State and federal environmental standards. As a state, we can wield a tremendous influence in the process. I commit to you, on behalf of California's transportation stakeholder community, to do all in my power to support your efforts to forward California's quality of life, environmental and people and goods movement interests. We realize that, especially in the House of Representatives where we have almost one -quarter of the votes needed to pass or defeat a bill, only a united California delegation can effectively forward our interests. We support you in your efforts to do so and strongly urge that you vote only for a program that responds to our State's critical needs. Sincerely The California Partnership for Consensus on the Reauthorization of TEA 21 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 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 staff report as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff will provide an oral report on state and federal legislative issues which will also include a review of the legislative matrix and positions that were taken by the Commission last year. Attachment: State Legislative Matrix Federal Legislative Matrix RIVERS! OUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION COMMISSION - POSITION STATE LEGISLATION — UPDATED October 31, 2003 AB Correa ACA 7 Dutra 496 Creates the Santa Ana River Conser vancy to direct the management of public lands along the river. This could impact potential transportation projects on Routes 71 and 91. Reduces voter threshold for transportation sales ta x measures to 55 percent Passed Assembly 52- 24, passed Senate Natural Resources 5- 3. Referred to Senate Appropriations. Passed Assembly Elections and Appropriations Committees OPPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SUPPORT 6/10/03 A CA 9 Levine A llows local jurisdictions to approve special taxes for infrastructure projects with only a majority vote. The bill includes a number of restrictions and specifications on how this could be imposed. Passed Assembly Local Go vernment and Appropriations C ommittees ACA 11 Lev ine Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local bond measures for specified infrastructure projects . Passed Assembly Local Government and Appropriations C ommittees ACA 14 Steinberg Lowers the voter threshold to 55 percent for local special ta xes for either general infrastructure needs or specified housing, open space and neighborhood enhancement projects. Passed Assembly Local Government Appropriations Committee SB 18 Burton Establishes changes to the CEQA project for traditional tribal cultural sites Failed Passage in the Assembly — Reconsideration Granted OPPOSE 7/28/03 SB 87 Hollingsworth Would relinquish part of State Route 79 to the City of Temecula . Passed Senate 40-0 Returned to Assembly for Further Action SUPPORT 6/10/03 SB 380 McClintock and Murray SB 541 Torlakson Requires Caltrans to evaluate and establish standards for all existing HOV lanes in accordance with specified criteria. Furthermore Caltrans would be required to conduct a traffic mo del study comparing the alternatives of establishing an HOV lane, establishing a HOT Lane, adding a mixed flow lane or not doing anything at all when considering new HOV Lanes. Indexes the state gas tax to ensure that it incre ases with inflation. Passed Senate Transportation Committee and is now Senate Appropriations Suspense File. Failed passage in Senate Transportation. Reconsideration has been granted. F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc 110 SB 1055 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee SCA 2 Torlakson SCA 7 Murray Restores some truck weight fees and allocates the revenue to the State Highway Account Would lower the threshold on half -cent sales tax measures to a simple majority but would require that at least 25 percent of the re venues be spent on "smart growth planning ." Would require that all loans made to the General Fund from transportation sources such as the STIP be repaid with interest Signed by the Go vernor Passed Senate Transportation and Constitutional Amendments Committees. Senate Appropriations — Hearing date pending SUPPORT SEEK AMENDMENTS SUPPORT 10/8/03 5/14/03 F:\users\prilps\legmat. doc 01 RIVERSI OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITION* FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDATED Aug . 25, 2003 H. R. 697 Millender- M cDonald (Los Angeles) H. R. 1150 Miller (Brea) H. R. 1617 Lipinski (Illinois) H. R. 2180 M cGovern (Mass.) H. R. 3350 Young (Alaska) S 821 Harkin (Iowa) S 1072 Inhofe (Oklahoma) S 1140 Lautenberg (New Jersey) Designates 1-710 as a new high -priority transportation corridor in ISTEA Directs the Secretary of Transportation to award grants to OCTA for the purchase of 46 buses for intercounty express bus service. Two of the identified routes serve Riverside County. Establishes a National Rail Infrastructure Program to provide grants for railroad infrastructure that could include grade separations. Grants would be financed by excise taxes on railroad equipment and rail passenger tickets. Enacts the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act which would keep intact current federal restrictions on triple trucks and other longer combination vehicles on Interstate Highways and e xtend the restrictions to the entire Nation Highway System. Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or TEA-LU — House Version of the Federal Transportation Act Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003 — pro vides additional funding for Tribal transportation needs. Establishes the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Act of 2003. Would authorize federal grants to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cells Safe Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act or SAFETEA . Senate Version of the Federal Transportation Bill Enacts the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preserv ation Act which would keep intact current federal restrictions on triple trucks and other longer combinatio n vehicles on Interstate Highways and ex tend the restrictions to the entire Nation Highway System. F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc Referred to H ouse Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Coauthored by Rep. Calvert - Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Ways and Means Committee Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Introduced Referred to Committee on Indian Affairs Referred to Committee on Natural Resources Introduced Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works SUPPORT WATCH WATCH SUPPORT January 2004 January 2004 112 1ek857 ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004 2:30 P.M. NAME /e,eev 4,J ms's 9 A 4J .0 REPRESENTING LA CR) , ..J-1-ta can o, -Rc-EQ 5 op iv;tiSi TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL # ` iveQN12SD •J/cT0,1d 4D) e .7-,,ee >/e C - 7d-2 %e ' s ,7 ex