The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About06 June 28, 1999 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • • • TIME: DATE: LOCATION: BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA 2:30 p.m. Monday, June 28, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Ogb7�S RECORDS City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location) 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room Budget and Implementation Committee Members Jim Venable / County of Riverside, Chairman Ron Roberts / City of Temecula. Vice Chair John Hunt / L:ity of b'c ring Gregory S. Pettis / City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Andrea Puga / City of Corona John Pena / City of La Quinta Kevin Pape / City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / City of Moreno Valley Don Yokaitis / City of Rancho Mirage Alex Clifford / City of Riverside Tom Mullen / County of Riverside John Tavaglione / County of Riverside Jim Smedley / City of San Jacinto Eric Haley, Executive Director Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 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, SB 821, SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol and Other Areas as may be prescribed by the Commission) Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Committee. TT, 36 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org 3560 University A venue - Riverside, CA 92501 Conference Room A PARKING 1S AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999 Video Conference Location - City of La Quinta AGENDA* • *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (MAY 24, 1999) 4. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion less 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. 4A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - P. 001 Status report of financial condition. 4B. QUARTERLY Y2K STATUS REPORT - P. 006 Receive and file. 4C. SMART CALL BOX PROJECT/BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - P. 008 Approve a FY 1998-99 Budget Adjustment to support the Smart CaII Box Pilot Program. June 28 - Page 2 Budget & Implementation 4D. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 009 Receive and file. 5. FY 2000-2003 CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (4 Min) - P. 013 Approve the proposed list of projects for CMAQ. 6. FY 1990-00 SB 821 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (2 Min) - P. 019 Approve the SB 821 allocations as shown in the attached schedule 7. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (2 Min) - P. 025 Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive project and approve time extensions as requested. 8. TEA CALL FOR PROJECTS (3 Min) - P. 027 Direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects; designate the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee as the Evaluation Committee. 9. FY 2000-2004 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS (5 Min) - P. 029 Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans as submitted. 10. PROPOSED CHANGES TO AUDIT SCOPE (2 Min) - P.113 Receive and file. • • • June 28 - Page 3 Budget & Implementation 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (7 Min) - P. 114 • Adopt AB 102 - change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose;" SB 928 - "Support." Receive and file Legislative Update. 12. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR RCTC/SANBAG SHARED STATE AND FEDERAL ADVOCATES (3 Min) - P. 131 Approve 2 RFP's: 1) for RCTC and SANBAG shared State advocacy services; and 2) for RCTC and SANBAG shared Federal advocacy services. 13. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT (2 Min) - P. 135 Approve: 1) entering into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates; and 2) allocation of $25,000 for the work effort 14. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-006, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DECLARING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98, LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE." (3 Min) - P. 143 That the Commission make the necessary findings, as stated in the agenda report, and Adopt Resolution No. 99-006. 15. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE (7 Min) - P. 149 Award a the three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25. • June 28 - Page 4 Budget & Implementation 16. AWARD OF AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9832 FOR NINYO & MOORE TO PROVIDE ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE gur 1999/2000 FISCAL YEAR. (2 Min) - P. 159 Authorize the award of Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO-9832. 17. AMENDMENT TO FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (3 Min) P. 189 Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont. 18. SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONSULTANTS (1 Min) - P. 190 Approve the attached Schedule of Recurring Consultants 19. ADJOURNMENT -The Commission is DARK in August. The Budget & Implementation Committee WILL NOT meet in July. The next Committee meeting will be held on Monday, August 23, 1999, 2:30 p.m., at the RCTC offices. • • • AGENDA ITEM 3 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE May 24, 1999 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order at 2:45 p.m. by Chairman Jim Venable, at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Riverside and by video conference at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta. Self -introductions followed. Members Present: Members Absent: Alex Clifford Jeff Comerchero Juan DeLara* John Hunt Tom Mullen Kevin Pape John Pena* Andrea Puga Jim Smedley John Tavaglione Jim Venable Don Yokaitis Gregory S. Pettis* Frank West *By Video Conference 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no public comments at this time. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (APRIL 26, 1999). M/S/C) approve the minutes dated April 26, 1999 as submitted. 4. COMMITTEE CONSENT CALENDAR. M/S/C that staff in developing the agenda for the Budget and Implementation Committee include a Consent Calendar agenda. 5. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY ENDING JUNE 2000. The following points were made during deliberation of this item: ♦ By telephone, Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, presented few changes made to the budget since the Committee's last review of the budget, which includes: 1) Inclusion of a letter designed to focus on the major issues that the budget covers including the Commission's commitment to completing Measure A and beyond, citing CETAP as an example; the continued focus on building a regional approach to looking at various transportation issues; 2) The addition to the summary of a brief introductory statement, as well as, a statement that discusses the short term operational and financial factors that impacted the development of this budget; 3) The previous rendition at the April meeting showed a total of $103 million in expenditures and this budget shows a total of $111 million in expenditures. The primary areas of increased funding were highway and rail programs. An additional $6 million was added into the budget for the construction of soundwalls on Route 91, as well as, construction and right - a -way for the Van Buren interchange. Also, an additional $1 million was added into the budget for the Rail Program for ADA work, and the southside platform in Riverside and funding has been set aside for the overcrossings at La Sierra and West Corona; 4) Under capital outlay, there is a $30,000 increase that includes the purchase of a clean fuel vehicle; and, 5) Included were workload and performance indicators for each of the departments. Currently these indicators measure workload; in the future they will be developing indicators that will measure efficiency and effectiveness. The budget also recognizes the importance of a well -trained staff and devotes additional resources to that end. M/S/C that the Commission approve the proposed budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. 6. MONTHLY COST & SCHEDULE REPORTS. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the monthly cost and schedule reports for the period ending April 30, 1999. 7. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE. M/SIC that the SAFE Board receive and file the quarterly call box update. 8. CITY OF HEMET'S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TRANSIT RELATED DEVELOPMENT. The following points were made during deliberation of this item: ♦ Eric Haley, Executive Director, reported that the Committee's Property Development Ad Hoc Committee met prior to this meeting regarding the City of Hemet's proposal and unanimously came to the position of recommending that the Executive Director and Legal Counsel begin discussions with the City of Hemet over the use of pdtentially excess property adjacent to the rail line. The discussions focused on the need not only to preserve the right-of-way, but also RCTC's long term options to build a commuter rail station at that site and the liability for the right-of-way. Any agreement will specifically ensure RCTC the option of building a commuter rail facility on that site in the out years. In all likelihood, the Hemet/San Jacinto line will be several decades away from its ultimate completion as a full commuter service facility and, in the interim, some transit related uses of this property will not only enhance their Downtown area, but also provide some intermediate transit benefits to the Commission. M/SIC to receive and file the report from the ad hoc committee on the progress to date on the City of Hemet's request to participate in transit related development. 9. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE. The following points were made during deliberation of this item: + Commissioner Tom Mullen said that the City of Riverside is moving toward a quiet city model in the area of rail. The main problem though has been that even after jurisdictions expend the funds for necessary warning devices people still drive around them and the city and the railroads are still held liable. He asked if AB 923 continues to move whether an amendment • • • • • • can be offered that if jurisdictions have installed the appropriate waming devices that some relief from liability would be provided . David Shepherd, Director of Intergovemmental Relations, said that he will communicate this to the author's office and report back to the Committee on the status of the proposal. ♦ Dave Barnhart, Director of Transportation for the County of Riverside, informed the Committee that the League and CSAC will not support AB 1612 if it affects STIP projects. The $1.8 billion balance in the state highway,account is an issue as it will be difficult to go to the voters in the next two years to request an extension of the gas tax with this huge balance in the state highway account. To oppose AB 1612 sends the wrong message, he suggested supporting it subject to it not affecting any STIP projects and put the money to work. ♦ Eric Haley commented that the analysis used to make the argument in support of AB 1612 is based on cash flow and the amount of money projected to be available in that account. It is also a fact that every, dollar in the state highway account has been committed to a project, so at some point there will be a reckoning. The other issue is that taking this money "off the top" takes these funds out of the process that puts this Commission, as well as its counterparts, in the decision making role and this is very significant. The loan bill, AB 1012, is moving forward and, if approved, will assist in reducing the balance of the state highway account by $800 million and the key difference is that it will be paid back. ♦ Commissioner Alex Clifford said that a lot of issues related to the high balance in state highway account stems from Caftans unions and their success to date in opposing contracting out of work causing some difficulty in getting the project on the road and spending the money down. Given what has happened in the last couple of years with several raids attempted on that fund, he asked if there is any effort to bring about any change to free up some room for contracting out. ♦ David Shepherd replied, that under the current administration, there is quite a bit of support for the union. The private sector version of PEGG is putting forth some legislation that will make some changes in that area, but he does not expect much of a change from the current environment. M/S/C (Hunt/Clifford) that the Commission adopt the following bill positions: Change from Oppose to Watch - AB 74; Support - AB 923; Oppose - AB 1475; AB 1612 and SB1277. 10. REQUEST 'F IVFPROPOSAL FOR THE PEDLEY STATION SECURITY SYSTEM DESIGN. M/S/C that the Commission direct staff to reject the proposals received under the present request for proposals and reissue the RFP for the security system at the Pedley Metrolink Station. A selection panel will be established to review the proposals received, short list the firms that submit proposals if necessary, and report back to the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to complete the work. The selection panel will consist of RCTC, Bechtel staff and any other interested agency participants. 11. NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO START THE PROCESS TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (TCE'S) BY EMINENT DOMAIN ALONG AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON STREET & MONROE STREETS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. M/S/C that the Commission authorize staff to proceed with a Notice of Intent (NO1) to start the process to acquire the Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) by Eminent Domain required for the construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. Staff will continue with the negotiation process with each of the property owners to make every effort to obtain the Temporary Construction Easements by voluntary acquisition. If negotiations with the property owner cannot be concluded to allow the project to start in a timely manner, staff will then request that the Commission consider adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire these Temporary Construction Easements by eminent domain. 12. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF BANNING, CATHEDRAL CITY, CORONA, MORENO VALLEY, PALM SPRINGS, RIVERSIDE AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. M/S/C that the Commission grant the Cities of Banning, Cathedral City, Corona, Moreno valley, palm Springs, Riverside and the County time extensions, as requested, to complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects. 13. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR OPERATIONAL AND STATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATION. M/S/C that the Commission authorize staff to advertise for construction of the station improvements identified for the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. After bids are received and evaluated, staff will return with a recommendation for award to Commission. 14. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR CALL BOX SUPPORT SERVICES. M/S/C that the Commission award the contract for call box support services to Teletran Tek Services in the amount of $62,924 for fiscal year 1999-2000 along with four (4) one- year options to review. 15. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE. The following points were made during deliberation of this item: ♦ Mike Rivera, Our Boyz Towing, stated that his company submitted the lowest bid to provide this service. His father-in-law who has 30 years of experience in preparing bids for govemment work was the person who prepared a detailed spreadsheet that explained in detail how they are able to provide this service at such a competitive price. R -Boys Towing has been in business for two years, but that he, personally, has 25 years experience in the business. ♦ Manual Parrish, Mr. T's Towing Inc., said that he has been in business for the past nine years and his company submitted the second lowest bid for this service. His company has 12 trucks and does well over a $1 million in business every year, with five offices and 22 employees. He felt that the staff involved in awarding this bid were not interested in looking at information but that they only wanted to award this contract to one company. He also noted that he did not receive a notice in time to attend the pre -award mandatory meeting and, therefore, they submitted their bid based on the best information that was available to them. He asked the members to either award the bid to the lowest proper bidder or put the contract back out for bid because he felt that the process was not done correctly. ♦ Officer Marsh Little, Califomia Highway Patrol and Freeway Patrol Supervisor, said that in the last six years of this program, they have found that the average bid statewide is between $38 - • • • • • • $40 per hour. Their experience has been that a company bidding below the amount does not have the capability to provide the level of service required. All of the companies who submitted bids were investigated and a cost analysis was done on the number submitted by R -Boys Towing. At the end of the three-year period, the company would be in the hole approximately $23,000. + Commissioner Tavaglione said that he is all for going with the low bid when possible, but there are several factors that go into this - one is the issue of being able to respond in a reasonable period of time, and the other being able to clear the freeway as quickly as possible. In his opinion, the Commission would want companies that are efficient and have a good track record to provide this service on a major highway. + Commissioner John Hunt asked the possibility using agencies such as AAA or Allstate to provide the statistics needed to make an appropriate analysis. + Commissioner Don Yokaitis requested that this item be continued until the next meeting at which time staff could provide a written analysis and the basis for the recommended awards. + Commissioner Jeff Comerchero said that there is a broader philosophical question if the Commission is going to continually categorically eliminate bids that are that far below the average and, thus, allowing for prudent management. It is incumbent of staff that when this type of issue develops to go to the lowest bidder and that a question be posed why they feel that they can provide this service at a price that is that far below the state average. + Commissioner Alex Clifford added that when you run into a situation of this type it is symptomatic that something is unclear in the process. Perhaps in the next bid process, a written policy be developed on the criteria to be considered, how each criteria will be weighed, and how the contract will be awarded covering cases when it is not awarded to the lowest bidder. M/S/C: 1) To continue this item next Budget & Implementation Committee Meeting; and, 2) For staff to present information, including criteria and the basis for the recommending award for the service. 16. EVALUATION/SAVINGS OF RCTC/SANBAG DUE TO SHARED DIRECTOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS. M/S/C that the Commission approve continuation of the shared position of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. 17. PROPERTY FOR SALE AT HEMET RYAN AIRPORT. This item was pulled from the agenda. 18. TEA 21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAM M/S/C that the Commission approve the TEA 21 Surface Transportation Program Local Program for fiscal years 99100-02/03, and to include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 19. SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDMENT #10 TO AGREEMENT RO 9337 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR STATE ROUTE 74 SHOPP PROJECTS. M/S/C that the Commission approve an additional $195,610 for Amendment No. 10 for the County of Riverside to provide right-of-way acquisition services for 40 additional SHOPP project parcels on State Route 74 between 1-15 and 7" Street in the City of Perris. The total value of Amendment No. 10 would be $595,610. The $31,260 contingency established under Amendment No. 8 would be retained to cover any further additional expenses should they arise. A standard amendment will be used for this action subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. 20. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Funds Balances (unaudited) and the highway and rail projects quarterly budget reports for the quarter ending March 31, 1999. 21, SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the period ending April 30, 1999. 22. GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD. M/S/C that the Commission receive and file the GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. 23. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjoumed at 4:25 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, June 28, 1999 at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. ectfully submitted, Naty Kopen aver Clerk of tb Boa • • • ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MAY 24, 1999 - 2:45 P.M. • NAME IL( /wit r,, Ge/1e. g6vy•Lo' 414a,-5 /Vt.( 4 • REPRESENTING C106.3-7\1 e c 1 f -v 4/S/ trn r 2 <= 60,LO/14., Pte. /Jeer./ C/!,1.1 -n CfJ L � M cS� e�� TELEPHONE AND FAX NO - /- la? 6?y3// 917 7 - • 3d 6 - l y3') -909 si/2-2,9/ 7 37 7 (2 9 - 7Fz-sue/ �G 77G -a -t zz 9,-7/ 9W- ,z--) 760, - 2 9-6'// )4 arc,/ 76'1— S2 0 73s --2-/9a ' .c) -may 6 y/( • AGENDA ITEM 4 • • • AGENDA ITEM 4-A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for the Nine Months Ending March 31, 1999 Attached is the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - General, Special Revenue, and Capital Projects Funds for the Nine Month Period Ending March 31, 1999 along with explanations for significant variances and other items of general interest. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 063001 Other Financin g Sources(Uses) • • Description REVENUES Sales Tax Re venues Measure A Other Sales Tax Re venu es Fed State Local & Other Go vern In terest Income Other Revenu es TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits Ge neral Legal Services Prof Se rvice s (Exclu des Legal) Office Lease General Admin Expenses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Benefits General Legal Serv ices Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highway Engineering Highway Constru ction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail En gineering Rail Construction Rail ROW SCRRA Capital Contribution Commuter Assistance Region al Arterial Streets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Project Maintenance Pro ject Operations Project Towin g STA Distributions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS In tergovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,173,431.00 BUDGET 68,500,001 .00 5,448,179 .00 6,969,920 .00 3,060,565.00 6,642,989.00 90,621,654.00 606,214.00 92,500.00 865,020.00 220,000.00 716,960.00 2,500,694.00 1,311,656.00 232,500.00 598,650.00 1,693,900. 00 1,877,738. 00 5,048,000.00 758,188.00 250,000.00 266,539.00 3,506,300.00 22,352.00 1,150,000.00 1,378,920. 00 10,068,505.00 26,579,715. 00 5,915,461. 00 550,094. 00 1,129,787.00 657,800.00 2,186,116.00 65,182,221.00 397,295. 00 93,221.00 ACTUALS 51,313,449 .72 4,466,199.00 3,901,142.38 2,172,978.01 3,064,873.87 64,918,642.98 507,943.83 52,884.30 586,588 .05 163,246.30 489,783.38 1,800,445.86 786,942.24 181,978.13 252,116.02 1,001,114 .60 419,415 .76 3,465,467.79 323,344.85 90,966.47 221,894.53 2,819,387.03 14,902.00 150,318. 00 808,158.53 1,705,671. 67 19,905,252.27 5,113,148.00 459,051.93 507,265.18 441,515.71 1,022,732.00 39,690,642. 71 397,295. 00 62,089.02 41,950,472.59 Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Qtr For Period Ending: 03/31/99 06/22/99 REMAINING BALANCE 17,186,551.28 981,980.00 3,068,777 .62 887,586.99 3,578,115.13 25,703,011.02 98,270.17 39,615.70 278,431.95 56,753 .70 227,176.62 700,248.14 524,713.76 50,521.87 346,533.98 692,785.40 1,458,322 .24 1,582,532.21 434,843.15 159,033.53 44,644.47 686,912.97 7,450.00 999,682.00 570,761 .47 8,362,833 .33 6,674,462 .73 802,313.00 91,042.07 622,521.82 216,284.29 1,163,384.00 25,491,578. 29 0. 00 31,131.98 PERCENT UTILIZATION 74.91 81.97 55.97 70.99 46.13 71 .63 83.78 57.17 67.81 74.20 68 .31 71.99 59.99 78.27 42.11 59 .10 22.33 68 .65 42.64 36.38 83.25 80.40 66 .66 13.07 58.60 16.94 74 .88 86.43 83.44 44.89 67.12 46.78 60.89 100 .00 66.60 26,222,958.41 61.53 QTRAF Description Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers Out Debt Serv ice Issuance Costs Total Other Financing Sources Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Reve nues And Other Financing Sources Over(Under)Expenditures And Other Financing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998 FUND BALANCE March 31, 1999 CD C C) C G) Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Qtr For Peri od Ending: 03/31/99 06/22/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 688,715 .00 31,067,628 .00 0.00 1,150,272 .00 25,179,742.67 0 .00 30,378,913.00 24,029,470.67 (7,930,690 .00) (1,061,300 .28) 95,642,832.55 95,642,832.55 87,712,142.55 94,581,532.27 (461,557 .00) 5,887,885.33 0.00 167 .01 81.04 0 .00 6,349,442 .33 79.09 (6,869,389.72) 13.38 0.00 100 .00 (6,869,389.72) 107.83 QTRAF • • • Riverside Cou nty Tr ansportat fission OTRBF0 ACTUALS BY FUND 3/31 For Period Ending: 03/31/99 06/22/99 Description STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY GENERAL WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING FUND FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL EVENUES Sales Ta x Revenu es Measure A 1,250,000 .00 0.00 36,314,952.95 13,748,496 .77 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51,313,449.72 Othe r Sales Tax Re venues 4,466,199.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 4,466,199.00 Fed State Local & other Govern 335,740 .50 6,356.27 3,550,193.78 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 8,851 .83 0 .00 3,901,142.38 Interest Incom e 160,053.34 84,382 .47 573,913.17 269,233.81 78,393 .41 287,952 .22 652,434.75 66,614 .84 2,172,978.01 Other Revenues 318,336 .07 986,487 .05 0.00 0 .00 1,197,833 .00 0.00 562,217.75 0 .00 3,064,873 .87 TOTAL REVENUES 6,530,328.91 1,077,225 .79 40,439,059 .90 14,017,730.58 1,276,7 .26.41 287,952 .22 1,223,504.33 66,614.84 64,918,642.98 XPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Ben efits 476,750 .82 31,193.01 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 507,943 .83 General Legal Se rvice s 51,678 .87 1,205.43 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 52,884.30 Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 569,745.86 16,842.19 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 586,588.05 Office Lease 153,451.52 9,794 .78 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 163,246 .30 General Adm in Expen ses 462,633 .27 27,150 .11 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 489,783 .38 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Ben efits General Le gal Serv ices Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highwa y Engine ering Highway Constru ction Highw ays ROW Spec ial Stu dies Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail ROW SCRRA Capital Contribution Comm uter Assistance Region al Arterial Streets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Project Mainten ance Project Operations Proje ct Towing STA Distribution s TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Intergove rn Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES ether Financin g Sources(Use s) 1,714,260.34 86,185.52 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 1,800,445 .86 435,784. 61 79,174 .12 271,983.51 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 786,942.24 37,387. 71 2,033 .80 131,541 .94 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 11,014.68 0.00 181,978.13 164,172.94 46,140.89 41,802 .19 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 252,116 .02 0. 00 0.00 945,675 .15 55,439.45 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 1,001,114 .60 0.00 0.00 21,866 .12 2,404.79 0 .00 0 .00 32,959.35 362,185 .50 419,415 .76 79.00 0.00 39,380 .99 290,000 .00 0 .00 518,457.70 2,321,601 .36 295,948 .74 3,465,467.79 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 253,063.91 0 .00 70,280.94 323,344.85 20,688.91 70,008.95 268 .61 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 90,966 .47 118,263.43 0. 00 103,631 .10 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 221,894 .53 0.00 0. 00 2,819,387 .03 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,819,387 .03 0. 00 0. 00 14,902 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 14,902 .00 150,318. 00 0. 00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 150,318.00 119. 31 1,830.31 806,208.91 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 808,158.53 0.00 0.00 0 .00 920,741.98 0.00 784,929.69 0 .00 0.00 1,705,671.67 0. 00 0.00 14,771,639.63 5,133,612 .64 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 19,905,252.27 2,862,900. 00 0.00 931,865.00 1,318,383.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 5,113,148.00 248,385.69 208,512. 52 1,972.53 0.00 0 .00 0.00 181 .19 0 .00 459,051 .93 282,282.15 224,983. 03 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 507,265 .18 0.00 441,515.71 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 441,515.71 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,022,732 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 1,022,732.00 4,320,381.75 1,074,199. 33 20,902,124. 71 7,720,581.86 1,022,732.00 1,556,451.30 2,365,756 .58 728,415.18 39,690,642 .71 397,295. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 397,295.00 24,336.54 37,752.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 62,089.02 6,456,273.63 1,198,137.33 20,902,124. 71 7,720,581. 66 1,022,732 .00 1,556,451.30 2,365,756 .58 728,415.18 41,950,472 .59 Ri versid e County Tr ansportation Commis sion OTRBF 06/22/99 ACTUALS BY FUND 3/31/99 For Period E nding: 03/31/99 06/22/99 Des cription Operating Transfe rs In Operating Transfe rs Ou t Debt Service Issu anc e Costs Total Other Fin ancing Sou rces Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues And Other Financin g Sources Over(Under)Expenditures An d Other Finan cing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998 FUND BALANCE December 31, 1998 STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUNTY GENERAL WESTERN EASTERN TRANSIT CVAG COUNTY COMMERCIAL COMBINING FUND FSP/SAFE COUNTY COUNTY ASSISTANCE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION PAPER TOTAL 0 .00 159,075.00 0.00 159,075.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 74,055 .28 (120,911 .54) 991,197.00 16,988,759.37 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 1,150,272.00 5,923,371.06 0.00 293,985.03 1,814,552 .21 0 .00 25,179,742.67 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 15,997,562 .37 5,923,371 .06 0.00 293,985.03 1,814,552 .21 0 .00 24,029,470.67 3,539,372.82 373,777.66 253,494 .41 (1,562,484 .11) (2,956,804 .46) (661,800.34) (1,061,300.28) 3,859,266.24 2,459,243.12 20,611,011 .33 12,869,417.21 2,604,573 .32 9,867,747.69 39,716,130.87 3,655,442 .77 95,642,832.55 3,933,321 .52 2,338,331.58 24,150,384 .15 13,243,194.87 2,858,067 .73 8,305,263.58 36,759,326 .41 2,993,642.43 94,581,532.27 • • • AGENDA ITEM 4-B • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Y2K Status Report At the October 14, 1998 Commission meeting, the Commission adopted a policy to address the potential of problems occurring relating to the manner in which computer hardware and software handle the century information. In the past, when memory was limited, programers used only the last two digits of the year to indicate the date of a transaction. The two digit year shortcut will fail to correctly identify the date after the turn of the century. This failure could result in any number of problems occurring that could adversely impact the ability of RCTC correctly process information. The Commission adopted a plan to address the potential problem that included the following general activities: 1. Inventory and Assessment of impacted hardware, software, and outside agencies doing business with RCTC. 2. Renovation Phase 3. Validation and Testing Phase 4. Training/instruction of RCTC Staff on how to avoid future problems related to Y2K. The adopted Compliance Schedule is as follows: Compliance Activity Complete inventory and assessment of systems Identify compliant/non-compliant systems Renovate or replace non -compliant systems Complete test of all systems Certify systems as compliant Monitor systems Target Completion Date By November 1998 By December 1998 By March 1999 By June 1999 By August 1999 Through December 1999 0vvUUU To date the following activities have been completed: 1. All RCTC hardware systems have been inventoried and tested for Y2K compliance. Non -compliant systems have been made compliant by either updating the system bios or adding a program that will correct the century designation to the full four digits on boot -up. 2. Software in use by RCTC Staff is currently under review. Non -compliant software packages will either be updated to a version that is Y2K compliant or deleted from the RCTC LAN servers and workstations if no longer needed. Staff has determined that all mission critical software is now Y2K compliant. 3. A list of all outside vendors/agencies, that RCTC deals with, was prepared and letters were sent out to each of them in January to confirm that they will be Y2K compliant prior to January 1, 2000 so that they will not impact our operations. Second notices were sent in March to vendors/agencies that had not responded to the first letter of inquiry. A third and final notice will be mailed by the 30th of June. Overall progress is on track to provide Y2K compliance on the target date of August 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 4-C • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Smart Call Box - Budget Adjustment The Commission approved the Smart Call Box Pilot Program in September 1997. The project was deployed in February through April 1999. The Commission received the Pilot Program evaluation at their June 2, 1999 meeting and approved further deployment of Smart Call Boxes. Due to an oversight, staff did not include the Smart CaII Box Pilot Program in the 1998-99 budget or the mid -year budget revision. This action requests approval of an adjustment to the 1998-99 Budget to include $65,000 of unallocated Service Authority for Freeway Emergency (SAFE) funds for the Smart CaII Box Pilot Program. This oversight was recently discovered and staff cannot process payment for this work until a budget adjustment is in place. Financial Assessment Project Cost $65,000 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget SAFE N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Programmed 1998-99 Approved Allocation N Year of Allocation 1998-99 Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve a FY 1998-99 Budget Adjustment to include $65,000 of unallocated SAFE funds to support the Smart CaII Box Pilot Program. • AGENDA ITEM 4-D • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, 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 May 31, 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Attachments QULJUUJ PROJECT DESCRIPTI ON ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Park 'n' Ride Lot Final Design (R09738) Park 'n' Ride Lot Construction (R09928,9832) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R09337 9954,9966) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./R O W (R09111,9301,9302, 9306,9337,9735, 9329,9737) Project Is Comple te. Performing proje ct close- out tasks and consultant performing on -going environmental inspections. SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 RO UTE 111 PRO JECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design and construction (R09101, 9337,9827,9847,9861, 9848) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Soundwall Landscaping (R09848, 9933) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL 1-216 RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHWAY R OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE CO MMISSION C ONTRACTURAL AUTHORIZED C OM MITMENTS ALLOCATION TO DATE $62,157 $325,000 $387,157 $6,508,900 $6,508,900 $9,696,360 $9,696,360 $15,933,909 $15,933,909 $5,048,508 $2,300,000 $833,450 $8,181,958 $6,726,504 36,726,504 $62,15 $304,51; $366,67( $6,508,90C $6,508,900 $9,696,360 $9,696,360 $15,933,909 $15,933,909 $4,796,083 $2,300,000 $748,291 $7,844,374 $5,878,173 $5,878,173 Page 1 of 3 % C OM MITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES A GAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION M ay 31, 1999 TO DATE CO MMIT MNTS TO DATE 100 .0 % 93.7% 94 .7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 % 100 .0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0 % 89.8% 96.9% 87.4% 87.4% $7,997 57,997 $90,981 590,981 $0 $0 $176,840 $81,759 $268,599 $0 $62,020 $177,848 5239,868 $177,677 $177,677 $9,639,126 $9,639,126 $8,646,161 $8,646,161 $3,973,374 $1,229,442 $180,706 $6,383,622 $5,697,757 $5,697,757 99.8% 58.4% 65 .4% 2 .7% 2.7% 99 .4% 99.4% 54 .3% 54.3% 82.8% 53.5 % 24.1% 68.6% 96.9% 96.9% RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PR OJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTH ORIZED • CO MMIT MENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE ALL OCATI ON May 31, 1999 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE INTERCHANGE IMPROV . PROGRAM Yuma IC Final Design (PS&E) (R09428) Yuma IC Landscaping (R 09926,9946) SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE PROJECT & CONSTR. MGM T SERV . (RO 9900) SUBTOTAL BECHTEL PRO GRAM PLAN & SERVICES Special Study (ITS Plan - R09727) SUBTO TAL PROGRAM PLAN & SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROG RAM (RO 9740-9742) 9859 (9901-9915) (9813) SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE COM MUTER RAIL Studie s/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (R00000,9920,9836,9843,9845,9953,9957,9953) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL TOTALS $1,383,877 $350,000 51,733,877 $1,600,000 31,600,000 $450,000 3450,000 $3,075,200 33,075,200 $1,548,600 $9,350,502 810,899,102 858,684,067 $1,383,877 $304,000 51,687,877 $1,456,568 31,456,568 $450,000 3450,000 $3,075,200 33,075,200 $1,548,600 $8,369,000 89,917,600 356,306,731 100.0% 86 .9 % 97.3% 91.0% 91 .0% 100.0 % 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 100.0 % 89 .5% 91.0% 95.9% $2,346 $1,370,891 $29,823 $267,214 532,169 81,638,105 $105,026 $1,033,187 3105,026 81,033,187 $417,508 80 8417,508 $208,500 $2,942,616 3208,500 32,942,616 $1,700 $1,548,014 $66,030 $7,088,943 367,730 38,636,957 3680,021 344,274,807 99 .1% 87.9 % 97 .1% 70.9% 70 .9% 92 .8% 92.8% 95.7% 95.7% 100.0% 84.7% 87.1% 78.6% Page 2 of 3 • • • PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements (R09422) SUBTO TAL CANYON LAKE L OAN CITY OF CORONA Smith, M aple & Lincoln Inte rchanges & (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 stree ts & road improveme nts CITY OF NO RCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprints TOTALS RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHW AY/L OCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" C OMMITMENT May 31, 1999 ADVANCES $1,600,000 *1,600,000 $5,212,623 56,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $17,306,636 NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. S0 S0 *0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 *5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 817,306,838 • OUTSTANDIN G % LOAN BALANCE L OAN OUTSTANDIN G TO -DATE A GAINST BALANCE COMMITMENT APPR OVED C OMMIT. $1,334,683 $1,334,683 $4,049,085 $4,049,085 $1,693,727 $1,158,500 $4,455,591 $1,870,978 814,562,664 $0 So $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 80 Page 3 of 3 83.4% 83.4 % 77.7% 77.7 % 87 .5% 87.5 % 87.5% 87 .5% 84.1% Status as of 5Y31/D9 • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2000-2003 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides funds to support projects and programs in non -attainment and maintenance areas which reduce congestion and transportation -related emissions. Approximately $43,631,366 is expected to be available for programming in the South Coast Air Basin (Western Riverside County) for FY 2000-2003 with $14,821,239 available in the Salton Sea Air Basin (Coachella Valley). The Coachella Valley Association of Governments was directed to coordinate the programming of funds in their area and provide a list of recommended program allocations to RCTC for the Commission's consideration and approval. Attachment I presents CVAG's recommended program for PM10 Control Measure Projects totaling $5,132,652. Staff recommends approval of the program list as presented. The balance of funds available, $9,270,415, is proposed to be programmed at a later date. CVAG has already scheduled a meeting with the local agencies to begin the process for developing a project list for the Commission's future consideration. In the Western County, a Call for Projects was released to obtain proposals for funds available in the South Coast Air Basin. A total of 41 projects from 17 agencies was received requesting $61,662,463 in CMAQ funds. As directed by the Commission, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was convened to evaluate all the proposals using the approved project selection criteria. In order to thoroughly evaluate the highly technical air quality calculations required by the Air Resources Board and Caltrans, a single signature contract was signed with Ray Gorski, an air quality technical expert with years of experience serving the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee. Mr. Gorski analyzed the emission reductions of each proposed project and provided technical assistance to the TAC during their project evaluations. Attachment II presents the recommended funding list of 18 projects as developed by the Technical Advisory Committee. In order to fund as many projects as possible, the County agreed to phase their project on the Valley Way Entrance and Exit Ramp Project, reducing their CMAQ requirement for funds from $6.5 million to $3.5 million. 0UuUii The TAC determined that with a 6.4% reduction in the balance of the projects, leaving the other County projects whole, there should be sufficient funds to support a total of 18 projects from 13 different agencies in the Western County. The 6.4% reduction in CMAQ funding would be covered through an increase in local match or a slight modification to the project. Staff fully supports the TAC's proposed funding list as presented. For the Commission's reference, Attachment III presents the list of projects which are unable to be funded due to insufficient funds. Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds $48,724,573 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 2000-2003 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 2000-2003 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed list of projects for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds available in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. • • • 063014 • • ATTAEIi I COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CMAQ-TEA 21 FUNDS (Phase 4) PM10 CONTROL MEASURE PROJECTS Status as of June 15, 1999 1 I POST EVENT (001) ■ PE CHEMICAL STABILIZATION (003): CS PAVING (004) - P WINDBREAK (005) - W 11 JURISDICTION PROJ DESCtIFTION fRCO COST STATUS CATHEDRAL CITY PE Post Event Ciean-Up 5610,851 Allocation: 5610,851 -Projects Total: $610,2551 COACHELLA PE Post Event Clean -Up DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS S580 Allocation: $218,195 - Projects Total: $218,195 P Pave Avenue 54 / Highway 111 intersection 874,490 Windbreak (live) extension of Tyler Street 521,250 W Windbreak (live) Highway 111 / Avenue 48 to S121,875 500' north of Ave. 50, and Ave. 52 to Ave. 54 PE Post Event Clean -Up 828,791 Allocation: ;189,809 - Projects Total: $189,209 P Pave Western Avenue - grade and pave one 880,509 quarter mile of unpaved road P Pave Sunset Avenue - grade and pave one 880,509 quarter mile of unpaved road Windbreak (live) at the intersection of Cook Street and Highway 111, along south side of Highway 111 and the east side of Cook Street 815,000 Allocation: 8148,386 - Projects Total: 5148,386 CS Chemical Stabilization of several lots owned by 810,000 the city along Highway 111 P Pave unpaved shoulders on Miles Avenue at 3123,386 Washington Street and Warner Trail INDIO PE Post Event Clean -Up 815,750 Allocatio • 5558,830 - Projects Total: 85511,130 CS Chemical Stabilization of median along Indio ' S543,080 Blvd., from Jefferson Street to Monroe Street consists of installation of connecting pavements and planter curbs LA QUINTA PE Post Event Clean -Up PALM DESERT 830,000 Allocation: $318,217 - Projects Total: $318,217 P Pave northeast comer of unpaved shoulder on 5112,872 CS Adams Street to 630' North of Westward Ho and Westward Ho to 1275' East of Adams, includes Chemical Stabilization P W PE P CS Pave unpaved shoulder on Avenue 54 from Jefferson Street to Madison Street, includes 5280 LF. of Windbreak fences Post Event Clean -Up Pave shoulder of Frank Sinatra Drive, Cook St. to Gerald Ford Drive, and Chemical Stabilization for approx. 3500 LF. 1 3175,345 873,000 8192,500 Alloeatis= $397,893 - Projects Total: $397$3 w Ovuli1J JURTSDICTION PRO. TYPE DESCRIPTION COST STATUS CS Chemical Stabilization of median island on Frank Sinatra Dr., Cook St. to Hollister Dr. approx 6000 L.F. - involves removal of excess sand from unimproved median area and placement of a colorized decomposed granite material, integrated with stabilizer material $70,500 , WF CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization along Cook Street from Frank Sinatra Drive to Gerald Ford Drive for approx. 3000 LF. $27,497 CS Chemical Stabilization and vegetation of a 20- acre vacant city owned parcel - Portola Avenue South of Frank Sinatra Drive S34,396 PALM SPRINGS PE Post Event Clean -Up $104,492 Allocation: $408,492 - Projects Total: $408,492 P Pave shoulder of Indian Canyon Dr. west side from 100' s/o San Marco Way to San Rafael Dr $150,000 P Pave shoulder of Indian Canyon Drive west side from Rochelle Rd. to Racquet Club Rd., includes approx. 2300 SF of ROW purchase $40,000 P Pave shoulder of Vista Chino / Highway 111 south side from approx 300' west of Sunrise Way to 900' west of Sunrise Way - includes paving bus turnout $65,000 P Pave shoulder of Via Miraleste west side from. Francis Drive to 643' south of Francis Drive $49,000 RANCHO PE Post Event Clean-up _ S24,000 Allocation: $292,024 - Projects Total: $292,024 MIRAGE W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of Gerald Ford Drive between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue (north side only) $43,500 W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of Frank Sinatra Drive between Bob Hope Drive and city boundary (north side only) $51,500 W CS Windbreak (fences) and Chemical Stabilization of southwest comer of Monterey Avenue and • Dinah Shore Drive $30,100 CS Chemical Stabilization Section 6 & Section 30 $142,924 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE Post Event Clean-up • $50,000 Allocation: $512,169 - Projects Total: $512,169 P • Pave Avenue 20, from Indian Avenue to approx 1.5 miles easterly - paving a 26' wide segment of street $462,169 TOTAL COST. OF PROJECTS: `$3,654;866 1 ..ALLOCATION 3;654;1166 Regional Bus Tum-Out Stab./Paving 250,000 Regional 1-10 Soil Stabil ation 100,000 Regional Street Sweeping 683,721 CVAG Administration (5%) 277,541 CVAG Direct Cost (3%) 186,524 Sub Total of Others Listed Directy Above 1,477,786 Updated. Jun* 15, 1990 by Viking, Richards 41•1 411E 2 Jurisdictional Allocations 3,054,888 e. Other Aloeations listed to the IMt ;5 477,?fl5 Grand Total of All Allocations 5,132,852 TEA 21 Amount to CVAG per RCTC : 5,550,824 1 Remaining Amount Needs to be Allocated 418,172 F:WOISPM1QVALARIEVEArWROJECTASrATUMBOJ NIILIBrA 063016 • • • FY 2000-2003 PROPOSED CONGESTION MITIGATI ON AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Funding Available = $43,631,366 RECOM MENDED FOR FUNDING: AGENCY ....•” r�� 4, I NG� L ./ LCJO 0.470 1 RCTC SR 60/Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening $27,955,000 $1,789,120 2 County Valley Way EB Entrance & Exit Ramp Project " $3,507,000 $0 3 Corona Main St/SR91 IC & Circulation Improvements $1,766,600 $113,062 4 Riverside SR 91/La Si errra Ave. IC Rec onstruction $1,700,000 $108,800 5 Riverside Jurupa Ave. Underpass at Union Pacific RR $6,700,000 $428,800 6 County Rancho Calif. Rd left & right turn lanes $1,056,000 $0 7 Lake Elsinore Interconnect at Center/Collier & Collier/Riverside $759,500 $48,608 8 San Jacinto Signal at Ramona/E. Main/San Jacin./De Anza $210,000 $13,440 9 Beaumont Interconnect at I-10/SR79 $504,774 $32,306 10 Hemet Construction of transportation/transit center $354,000 $22,656 11 Perris Traffic Signal at 4th St/Redlands Ave. $250,000 $16,000 12 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Kalmia St. $71,715 $4,590 13 County Traffic Signal & Interconnect at Etiwanda Ave. $248,000 $0 14 So Cal Edison Zero Emission M obile Industrial Equip Buydown $497,500 $31,840 15 Moreno Valley Traffic Signals along Nason Street $372,000 $23,808 16 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Jefferson Ave/Murrieta Hot Spr. $61,215 $3,918 17 Murrieta Tra ffic Signal at Adams Ave/Kalmia St. $71,715 $4,590 18 WRCOG Development of 2 Clean Cities Coalitions $158,589 $10,150 ,243,608 $2,651,687 PROJECT Original request was for $6,507,000. The County will phase this project, thereby reducing re. quired amount of CMAQ funds. CD C, H�. RECO M'D $ $26,165,880 $3,507,000 $1,653,538 $1,591,200 $6,271,200 $1,056,000 ATTACHMENT II TOTAL CUMM .T OTAL SCORE $26,165,880 $29,672,880 $31,326,418 $32,917,618 $39,188,818 $40,244,818 $40,955,710 $41,152,270 $41,624,738 $41,956,082 $42,190,082 $42,257,207 $42,505,207 $42,970,867 $43,319,059 $43,376,357 $43,443,482 $43,591,921 19 16 15 14 14 $710,892 $196,560 $472,468 $331,344 $234,000 $67,125 $248,000 $465,660 $348,192 $57,297 $67,125 $148,439 $43,591,921 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 10 10 9 9 9 9 $43,591,921 Total Rec ommended 18 Projects, 13 Agencies CMAOEVAI_ xls FY 2000-2003 PROPOSED C ONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN Funding Available = $43,631,366 Unfunded Pr ojects: AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION CMAQ $ REQ'D ATTACHMENT III SCORE 1 Riverside SR 91/Madison St . Hook Ramps $4,800,000 8 2 County Traffic Signals & Interconnect at Bundy Cyn Rd. $204,000 8 3 March JPA Alternative Fuel Dispensing Station -March $250,000 8 4 Moreno Valle y Traffic Signal at Iris Ave/Indian St. $146,000 8 5 M urrieta Traffic Signal at Calif Oaks Rd/Hancock Ave. $82,582 8 6 Caltrans Changeable Message Signs/Hwy Advisorys $307,000 7 7 Moreno Valley Interconnect at Pige on Pass Rd. $98,000 7 8 M oreno Valley Interconnect at Perris Blvd . $123,900 • 7 9 Murrieta Traffic Signal at Ivy St/Jefferson Ave . $73,447 7 10 Hemet State St. M ulti -Use Bicycle & Ped . Path $309,000 - 6 11 M oreno Valley Interconnect at Heacock St. $123,900 6 12 WRCOG Clean Fuel Buydown Incentive Program $198,236 6 13 County Pa ving dirt shoulder of Jurupa Road $150,000 5 14 RTA Hemet CNG Compressor & Fueling Station $960,000 5 15 UCR Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel Effectiveness $181,290 5 16 RTA Purchase of 5R & 2E CNG Buses $584,000 4 17 County Paving of Bradley Road & Garbani Road $600,000 3 18 County Paving shoulders on Lazy Cree k Road $220,000 3 19 Corona Ontario Ave. widening & signalization $2,680,000 inelig 20 Corona El Cerrito Rd. widening & signalization $793,000 inelig 21 Corona Construction of Foothill Parkway -East $2,237,500 inelig 22 Corona Design & Eng. of Foothill Parkway -West $217,500 inelig 23 Hemet Preparation of Transportation Plan $79,500 inelig Note: Project scores are not in priority order. • TOTAL UNFUNDED REQUESTS $15,418,855 • CMAOEVAL xls • • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1998 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations In April the Commission notified the cities, the county, and local school districts that an estimated $753,603 would be available for programming in FY 1999-00 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State and funds carried over from prior years. Carryover funds available this year were $18,392 from higher than estimated revenues last year and from previously programmed projects which either did not require the full allocation due to actual costs being lower than the estimated costs or were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons. The Commission received 34 proposals for projects from 19 agencies requesting a total of $1,516,101 (Attachment I). An evaluation committee consisting of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the proposals on June 10, 1999. All of the applicants were invited to the meeting and requested to present their proposal(s) to the Committee. The proposals were evaluated and ranked based upon the Commission adopted scoring criteria (Attachment II). Eleven projects are recommended for funding as indicated on the attached schedule (Attachment III). There will not be sufficient funds to fully meet the City of Corona's SB 821 request for their Grand Circle Sidewalk Improvement Project (#1 1). We have talked with city staff and they could reduce the scope of their project to react to the reduced funding level should the Commission approve the funding list as proposed. Financial Assessment Project Cost $ 771,995 Source of Funds TDA Article 3/ Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 99/00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 99/00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Assessment Financial Impact Not Applicable Y STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 1999-00 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations as shown on the attached schedule. • • 0G3O . 0 SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 1999-00 Attachment I Agency LPr_oiect Total SB 821 Funds Local Cost Requested Funds Banning Ramsey St. SW & ramps S60,000 S30,000 S30,000 (Beaumont 8th St. & 4th St Bike Lane 5113,120 S72,944 $40,176 Blythe Chanslorway SW 520,125 514,087 56,038 Canyon Lake Goetz Road SW S30,000 $15,000 515,000 Cathedral City Dwntwn Ped. Bridge -Phase II 5135,000 597,000 S38,000 Co ro.na Chase Dr/EI Cerrito Bikeway S242,000 S193,600 549,000 Grand Blvd Circle SW Improv. $114,440 S91,520 S22,880 Total S356,440 5285,120 $71,880 Hemet Santa Fe Ave SW & Ramps S75,000 560,000 515,000 Devonshire SW & Ramps S_40Q04 S3 ,000 514,000 Total S115,000 590,000 525,000 Indio Lido Ave/Shadow Ave SW Imp S54,791 $47,644 S7,147 La Quinta/Jndi_o Jefferson St. Bike Lane 537,534 534,122 S3,412 Moreno Valley • School Area Accessibility S25,000 S12,500 S12,500 Accessibility Enhancements S25,000 $12,500 S12,500 Brodiaea Ave SW 520,000 S10,000 $10,000 Indian St SW S50,000 S25,000 S25,000 Bay Ave SW S20,QQ0 510,000 S10,000 Total S140,000 S70,000 570,000 Murrieta Washington Ave SW 5176,000 S88,000 588,000 Palm Desert Magnesia Falls SW & Bike Path S94,050 S47,025 547,025 OG3O:i SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 1999-00 Attachment 1 Agency LP_roject Palm Springs Vista Chino SW & Bike Way Perris Indian Ave & Orange Ave SW Rancho Mirage Country Club Drive Path Riverside Brockton Ave SW Cridge St. SW Garfield St. SW Philbin Ave. SW Sierra Vista St. SW Total Riverside_CountY Washington/Krameria SW 42nd St/Tilton Ave SW Opal St. Walkway Sun City Access Ramps McCall Blvd. Walkway Total San_Jacinto Young St/Ramona Blvd. SW Temecula Nicholas Road SW Rancho Vista Road SW Total GRAND TOTAL 19 Agencies and 34 Projects Total Cost $38,856 $60,000 583,270 $134,750 $64,300 $65,370 S30,310 $74,420 5369,150 $48,000 $130,000 $40,000 $42,000 54.0, 0.00 S300,000 $80,000 $30,000 S49,500 579,50o SB 821 Funds Local Requested Funds $27,199 $40,000 541,635 S67,375 $32,150 532,685 515,155 $37,210 $184,575 540,000 596,000 530,000 537,000 $35,000 5238,000 $48,000 521,000 $24,750 S45,750 $2,392,836 $1,516,101 TOTAL SB 821 FUNDS AVAILABLE $771,995 $11,657 $20,000 $41,635 567,375 $32,150 532,685 $15,155 531,210 $184,575 $8,000 S34,000 $10,000 55,000 55,000 562,000 $32,000 99,000 524,750 533,7.50 $827,295 0 00.:; • • SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE Attachment II MAXIMUM POINTS The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 25 20 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE 20 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY 15 Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS 10 This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just a application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY 10 The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7 PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT 10 BONUS The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrain projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. RCTC: 4/12/95 06JU3 Rank Ag ency 1 Corona 2 Riverside County 3 Hemet 4 Palm Desert 5 Murrieta 5 Palm Springs 7 Cathedral City 8 Riverside 9 San Jacinto 10 Blythe 11 Corona 12 Temecula 13 Riverside County 14 Beaumont 15 Riverside 16 Riverside 16 Riverside 18 Banning 19 Hemet 20 Moreno Valley 21 Perris 22 Riverside County 23 M oreno Valley 23 Moreno Valley 25 Riverside County 26 Riverside County 27 M oreno Valley 28 Temecula 29 Moreno Valley 30 Indio 31 Canyon Lake 32 Riverside 33 Rancho Mirage 34 La Quinta/Indio Totals SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRI AN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 1999-00 RANKING OF PROJECTS Project D escripti on Chase Dr./EI Cerrito Bikeway 42nd St./Tilton Ave . Sidewalk Santa Fe Ave. Sidewalk & Ramps Magnesia Falls Sidewalk & Bike Pa Washington Ave. Sidewalk Vista Chino Sidewalk & Bike Way Downtown Pedestrian Bridge -Ph Garfield St . Sidewalk Young St./Ramona Blvd. Sidewalk Chanslorway Sidewalk Grand Blvd . Circle Sidewalk Impr Rancho Vista Road Sidewalk Washington/Krameria Sidewalk 8th St. & 4th St. Bike Lane Brockton Ave. Sidewalk Cridge St. Sidewalk Sierra Vista St. Sidewalk Ramsey St. Sidewalk & Ramps Devonshire Sidewalk & Ramps School Area Accessibility Indian Ave. & Orange Ave. Sun City Access Ramps Brodiaea Ave. Sidewalk Bay Ave. Sidewalk Opal St. Walkway M cCall Blvd. Walkway Indian St. Sidewalk Nicholas Road Sidewalk Accessibility Enhancements Lido Ave./Shadow Ave. Sidewalk I Goetz Road Sidewalk Philbin Ave. Sidewalk Country Club Drive Path Jefferson St. Bike Lane 14/99 F:\USerS\beChtelC\IOtuS\821rank.Wk4 T otal SB 821 Funds Rec ommended Cummulative Costs Requested All ocati on Funds Allocated $242,000 5193,600 $193,600 5193,600 $130,000 596,000 596,000 5289,600 S75,000 $60,000 560,000 $349,600 594,050 547,025 $47,025 $396,625 5176,000 588,000 588,000 5484,625 538,856 $27,199 $27,199 $511,824 5135,000 $97,000 S97,000 $608,824 S65,370 $32,685 532,685 $641,509 S80,000 548,000 $48,000 $689,509 520,125 $14,087 514,087 5703,596 5114,440 591,520 568,399 5771,995 549,500 $24,750 50 $771,995 $48,000 $40,000 S0 $771,995 5113,120 $72,944 SO 5771,995 5134,750 567,375 50 S771,995 564,300 532,150 50 $771,995 $74,420 $37,210 50 5771,995 560,000 $30,000 50 5771,995 540,000 530,000 SO $771,995 525,000 512,500 50 5771,995 Sidewa $60,000 $40,000 S0 $771,995 542,000 537,000 $0 $771,995 520,000 $10,000 SO $771,995 520,000 510,000 50 $771,995 540,000 $30,000 $0 5771,995 540,000 535,000 50 $771,995 550,000 $25,000 50 5771,995 S30,000 $21,000 50 $771,995 525,000 512,500 50 5771,995 $54,791 $47,644 $0 S771,995 530,000 515,000 S0 S771,995 $30,310 $15,155 50 $771,995 $83,270 S41,635 50 $771,995 S37,534 $34,122 50 5771,995 $2,342,836 S1,516,101 $771,995 Attachment III A verage Score • • 85 .67 84 .87 81.83 81.67 80 .67 80.67 78.43 78 .33 76.83 76.67 76 .17 75.83 75.47 75.27 74 .17 73.67 73 .67 73.58 73 .33 73.00 72.70 72 .57 72 .17 72.17 71 .67 70 .00 68 .67 68.17 67.17 65.18 62.00 60.67 60.60 53 .97 • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: SB 821 Program Extension Requests from the County of Riverside Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk The County was allocated $43,000 in FY 1997-98 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Serfas Club Drive, between Rancho Corona Drive and Monterey Peninsula Drive, to serve the Cesar Chavez Elementary School in the Coronita area of the County. During design of the project, the County determined there was a shortage in the right of way needed along one property in the project area. The owners of the property are not willing to dedicate, nor sell, the needed right of way. County staff has determined that the same usage as originally intended can be accomplished for the school's pedestrian traffic by constructing the sidewalk on the west side of Serfas Club Drive, directly opposite the approved SB821 project site. The new sidewalk would connect to an existing sidewalk and will not require any additional 821 funds. A time of extension to June 30, 2000 is required to complete design work and award construction for the project. Staff recommends approval of this request. Sun City Access Ramps The County was allocated $29,500 in FY 1998-99 SB 821 funds for the construction of 22 access ramps in the Sun City area. The project has been designed and was advertised to obtain a firm to complete construction of the project. Only one bid was received and found to be of an excessive cost. The County would like to advertise once again to obtain more favorable bids since they have constructed two similar ramp projects recently at a much lower cost. In order to accomplish the rebid, the County is requesting a time extension on the project until September 30, 1999. Staff recommends approval of this request. Financial Assessment Project Cost $72,500 Source of Funds TDA Article 3/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 1998&1999 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1998&1999 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive project and approve the time extensions as requested to complete the two SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects. • • • VuU U • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Call for Projects The Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA) provides federal funds for transportation related projects that enhance quality -of -life, in or around transportation facilities. Projects must be over and above required mitigation and must be directly related to the transportation system. There are twelve categories of eligible activities. They are: 1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. 2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. 4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities. 5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification. 6. Historic preservation. 7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals). 8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails). 9. Control and removal of outdoor advertising. 10. Archaeological planning and research. 1 1 . Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity. 12. Establishment of transportation museums. Approximately $ 13,404,000 in TEA funds are estimated to be available in Riverside County for the period covered by the 1998 STIP fund estimate, from FY 1998-2004. The final regulations for the program are expected to be released in July 1999. Staff is requesting the Commission's approval to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain project proposals for this federal program. Organizations may nominate projects, but they must be submitted in partnership with a public agency. The public agency must be willing and able to take responsibility for carrying out and maintaining the project. Generally, TEA funds are for capital improvements, not for planning, maintenance, equipment or operations. The Technical Advisory Committee and staff are recommending the programming of the full six years of funding at this time. Due to the specialized focus of these funds and the fact that procedures and requirements for developing federal -aid projects are substantially more involved in time and money than the requirements for claiming state funds, we are also recommending that the minimum total project cost be set at $250,000. Staff anticipates using the state -developed selection criteria for project evaluations and recommends that the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee be charged with evaluating and scoring proposals and developing a proposed program list for the Commission's consideration. Financial Assessment Project Cost Up to $ 13,404,000 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Federal Transportation Enhancement Activities Program Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects to obtain proposals under the Transportation Enhancement Activities Program for FY 1998-2004 with a minimum total project amount of $250,000 and 2) designate the Commission's Technical Advisory 'Committee as the Evaluation Committee. • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Local Streets and Roads The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. To date, sixteen cities have submitted the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation and staff request approval of the following programs: Western Riverside: Banning, Calimesa (FY 99-2004), Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Coachella Valley: Cathedral City, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. Canyon Lake is not required to submit a Five Year Plan because of a prior loan agreement with the Commission. The Cities of Coachella and La Quinta do not receive Measure "A" funds because they do not participate in CVAG's TUMF program. Staff has informed the County, and the other five cities (Beaumont, Blythe, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, and Moreno Valley) that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. The City of Calimesa is requesting approval of their FY 1999 plan as well as the plans for the FY 2000-2004 time period. Due to staff turnover, they failed to submit the needed paperwork during the fiscal year. All required documentation has now been submitted to allow disbursement of their FY 1999 funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for the above mentioned agencies as submitted as well as the City of Calimesa's plan for FY 1999. 063036 • WESTERN COUNTY PLANS • 0, tG3u31. -�r r n `j r 1 b a t 1 e r (� . 1 1 b J v J :] G c - J a 4 a p.c ESTABLISHED 1 • 13 • • PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT June 22, 1999 046823 CITY of BANNING 99 E. Ramsey SL • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: List of Streets Projected to be Repaved in Fiscal Year 2000 Dear Ms. Bechtel: As per your request, I have enclosed a list of bolded and underlined streets that are proposed to be repaved in Fiscal Ycar 2000 as part of the City of Banning's Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Please note that these street locations are currently intended to be rehabilitated/ overlaid as part of our Citywide Project. However, they may be revised since the City Council will establish a priority list at the time of the award of the construction contract. In the event that there are changes, I will send you a revised list as soon as it becomes available. It is the intention of the City of Banning to utilize all of the funding through the Measure "A" Program for the upcoming five years for pavement rehabilitation/overlay/heater remix. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at (909) 922-3130. Sincerely, Ann Marie Loconte Associate Engineer AML Encl. 0UVO32 Jun cc J. r a. Wurws LJ 161 beer i cis �u5 5GG-.i141 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIONAS PR MVI IISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL AM FISCAL YEAR 2000-2004 Agency: City of Banning Prepared By: Ann Mane Loconte Amended: June 1999 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO A __ ve Sot th of W11Son Lori Wav Evelyn to Rams -a Clair Ct - North to Evelyn Dr Janan North to Evel Dr 3everly Dr - Between Evelyn & Ellen Way ten W TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND ($1,000) 18 18 14 14 23 23 4 4 5 5 4 4 10 10 an Wav & Beverly 7 7 Wendv Ct - East of Marian Way Christi- Beverly toDawn Leslie- N/O Evelyn pawn- Evelyn to Christi Lincoln- 8th to 22nd Sunset = RR X-ing to Lincoln Cherokee - North of Jefferson Sioux - North of Jefferson Soboba - Mohawk to Jefferson Jefferson- Sunset to Navajo Cheyenne- N/O Jefferson Navajo- Lincoln to Jefferson 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 70 70 30 30 6 6 6 6 6 6 17 17 5 5 6 6 • 410 Oro' UUJ3 .I 4I1 LI_ .r... ..I L. ... -J L.A— —J a • STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO • • TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" (51,000) FUND (51,000) Jacinto View - 14th to 16th Street 14 14 Sims- Williams to Nicolet 13 13 Sunrise - Nicolet to Wilson 25 25 Mohawk- Soboba to Navajo 17 17 Woodland- Lincoln to Westward 18 18 Westward- Sunset to 22nd 30 30 Barbour - 12th to 16th Street 13 13 12th St - Westward toBarbour 10 10 16th- Lincoln to Barbour 5 5 4th St - Westward to N/9 Lincoln 29 29 Barbour - 8th St to E/O 4th St 9 9 Summit to East of Allesandro 66 66 Florida - Lincoln to Barbour 14 14 Hermosa - Lincoln to Barbour 14 14 Alola - Livingston to Ramsey 7 7 Lincoln -Florida to Hathaway 60 60 Westward - East of Hathaway 20 20 John St - East of Hargrave & West of Airport entrance 178 178 San Gorgonio - Ramsey to Wilson 50 50 San Gorgonio- Livingston to RR X-ing 4 4 Hibiscus - North of Gilman 11 11 7th St - Wilson to Hoffer 10 10 6th St - Wilson to Hoffer 10 10 Williams - San Gorgonio to 8th St 29 29 Murray- Hays to Nicolet 30 30 Hays - 4th to Allesandro 32 32 Wyte Way - North of Gilman 17 17 0UJO34 STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1.000) FUND ($1,000) 10 10 12th St - Ramsey to Williams 10 15 Hoffer - Paseo Del Sol to King 10 0 Via Panorama - Wilson to North of Hoffer 17 1 15 Paseo Del Sol - Wilson to North of Hoffer 17 Gilman - Florida to Blanchard 20 20 10 High - South of Indian School 10 10 Valley - South of Indian School 10 Lincoln - 8Th to Florida 90 90 8th St -Lincoln to N/Indian School Ln 120 120 Valet Way -Westward to south of Fashion Way 5 5 Fashion Way- Valet to Preferred 11 11 Preferred -Fashion Way to Westward 6 6 Pombredcn Cr-North of Westward 6 6 Jaccard Cr-North of Westward 6 6 Juarez - Lincoln to Barbour 10 10 Sunset - Wilson to North City limits •38 38 Orchard South of Barbour 5 .5 Highland Spgs - Sun Lakes Blvd. to Brookside 101 101 Gilman- Hibiscus to 1 lth St. 20 20 1lth St -Gilman to Hoffer 5 5 King St -8th to 1 lth St 20 20 Kingswell - Wilson to Gilman 20 20 Thompson - Hoffer to Gilman 14 14 Hoffer - E/O Thompson & West of Kingswell 20 20 Gilman -E/O Thompson toW/O Kingswell 20 20 Westward- E/O and W/O Hargrave 5 5 22nd St - Ramsey to S/O Westward 48 48 • • • 063035 ...An ea, 1F.'- r I u..--.. 1•10,11 r.. FA1b111c1C1 ♦rlco JUJ J .0 --y 141 P. • STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO • • TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" ($1,000) FUND (31,000) Lovell - S/Westward 5 5 Barbour - San Gorgonio to . Hargrave 38 38 Ramsey- San Gorgonio to Hargrave 35 35 Valmonte- S/O Ramsey 4 4 Repplier Rd -San Gorgonio to Florida St 28 28 Bryant - E/O and W/O San Gorgonio 30 30 Highland Springs- 5th St to South city limits ( East Side) 80 80 Highland Home Rd-S/O Sunlakes Blvd ( West Side) 30 30 22nd St. - Nicolet to Ramsey 30 30 Sun Lakes Blvd.- Highland Springs to Highland Home Rd. 100 100 Williams- 16th to Sunset 130 130 Nicolet- 2nd St. to Sims 95 95 Allen- George to Hoffer 30 30 Williams- Hargrave to Phillips 30 30 Martin- Livingston to Williams 22 22 Allesandro- Ramsey to Williams 15 15 King- 8th to 4th 25 25 6th- Nicolet to Wilson 40 40 George- 6th to San Gorgonio 40 40 Cherry- Nicolet to George 15 15 Plaza- Florida to Hargrave 15 15 4th Street- George to Wilson 15 15 4th Street- 4th Place to Indian School Lane 37 37 Wesley- San Gorgonio to Hargrave 46 46 NOTE: Priority of street location to be paved will be determined by the City Council at the award of the construction contract. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORT ATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGR AM FY 1998-1999 Agency: Prepared By: Date: City of Calimesa Elroy Kiepke April 1, 1999 ITEM NO. PRO JECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT T YPE TOTAL C OST ($000'S) MEASU RE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Cherry Valley Boulev ard - Calimes* Bou levard to City Limit (north side only) - joint project with County T ransportation Department Pavement Rehabilitation - Cold recyde with 2 inch overlay , , 12 .5 Calimesa Portio n 12 .5 2. V arious Streets City Wide Remove and Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as Required 150 87 .5 • • • RI VERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 1999-2000 Agency:City of CalimesaPage 1 of 5 Prepared By:Elroy Kiepke Date:Ju ne 7, 1999 ITEM N O. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 County Line R oad - Calimesa Blvd Intersection widening, drainage improvements & New Traffic Signal (joint project with Yucaipa) Design Only TOTAL COST ($000's) 20 M EASURE " A" FUNDS ($000's) 10 2. Various Streets City Wide Remove and Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as Required 150 108 Measure A total $118,000 RIVERSI DE C OUNTY TRANSP ORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM FY 2000-2001 Agency:City of CalimesaPage 2 of 5 Prepared By:Elroy L. Kiepke Date:June 7, 1999 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000's) MEASURE "A" F UNDS ($000's) 1. Coun ty Line Road at Calimesa Boulev ard Perform Construction of Intersection widening and Drainage Impro vements (Joint Project with Yucaipa) 180 77 2. Various Streets City Wide Remove and Repair, Crack fill, Sl urry Seal, O verlay as Required 50 50 T otal Measure A Funds $127,000 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASU RE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P RO GR AM FY 2001-2002 Age ncy:City of CalimesaPage 3 of 5 Prepared By:Elroy Kiepke Date:June 7, 1999 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS 1. County Line Road at Calimesa Boulevard Perfc wide (Join 2. V arious Streets City Wide Rem Seal, PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000's) MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000's) rm Construction of Intersection ling a nd Drainage Impr ovements Pr oject with Yucaipa) 180 87 lie and Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Overlay as Required 50 50 Total Measure A Funds $137,000 RI VERSIDE COUNT Y TRANSPO RTATI ON C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROG RAM FY 2002-2003 Agency:City of CalimesaPage 4 of 5 Prepared By:Elroy Kiepke Date:Ju ne 7, 1999 ITEM N O. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT T YPE TOTAL COST ($000's) MEASURE "A" FUN DS ($000's) 1. Avenue L Calimesa Bou levard to Bryant Street Repair Street after Storm Drain Installation Remo ve, Repair and Overlay Street 350 148 Total Meas ure A funds $148,000 • • • • • RIVE RSIDE C OUNTY T RANSPORT ATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" L OCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2003-2004 Agency:City of CalimesaPage 5 of 5 Prepared By:Elroy Kiepke Date:Ju ne 7, 1999 • ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 Bryant Street From County Li ne Road to S/O Avenue L Overlay Byra nt Street after the installation of a Major Waterline by the Department of Water Resources TOTAL COST ($000's) - 100 M EASURE " A" F UNDS ($000's) 65 2. V ariou s Streets City Wide Remove a nd Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as Required 150 94 Total Measure A Funds $159,000 L89 cob J i•*i�— CITY OF CORO NA FY 1966.2000 Prop osed BIJF ,PINGS. FLClUP€F, end SYSTEMS Project Name end Desorpti on 14111.17 FUND PRQJFCTS CQNT, NPpE$ Municipal Facilities Mltigalion's; To co mply with NPDES Municipal Permits Ulmer!! Plait Update; Pro je ct initiates update of the general plan c0 reoral1_YsFQ; Building and site design for a n ew ope ratio nal City Corporals Yard. Includes Building An ne x Inlomla99aSyslarn9 M49197T Jzn; Projec t in volves design an d implemen lalion of citywide co mputer system. Cilywld_OI: Ape14. 11w1; Ac qu isitio n of hardwa re and soMrare , dale conversion a nd applica tions dev elopment to ex pand e xisting G 1 S progra ms. Lll7sry 1161,014; To provide mate ria ls for Adu lt snd Children Serv ices fo r pu blic u se. Multi Fund Projec ts Subtotal CAPITAL IMPROVEME NT PROGRAM • Project Cos( Listing Esllmated Pri oi FY F und Project Completion Appr op 1999-2000 2000-01 200102 2002-03 2003-04 Fulure S ource Fund No Dale Carryover FY FY FY FY FY FY GENFD CSA 162 WTR OF • ODT REDEV OENFD DDT WTRCF WTR CRP SEW TM SEW CR GENFD' DDT. ?!': WKCMP WTRUFt' WW UF SEW CR ' 3' WTR CRF'. EQUIP' i OENFD !' OAST MEAS A NPDES ;, DDT !r' ;, REDEV i' . COBO SEW TM SL.MD., 1t. LMO . SEW CR WTR CF WTR OF • WW OF GENFD UBR IF 110 245 570 289 417 110 289 507 517 440 474 110 289 683 687 670 572 474 617 632 110 222 227 245 269 417 431 440 4.46 448 474 607 670 572 110 201 6401 6401 6401 6156 6155 6393 6393 6393 6393 6393 6393 6370 6370 6370 6370 6370 6370 6370 6370 6370 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 7103 6390 6390 Ju ne, 2000 J une, 2001 June, 2001 July, 2002 J une, 2002 On going 56 ,500 2,000 3,500 645,256 107,000 1,506,142 1,200,000 542,716 300,000 200,000 600,000 298,066 463,370 25,000 24,000 95,142 t 51,231 169,100 74,962 70,439 9,626 10,000 15,000 • 43,500 36,500 16,000 20,178 6,299 29,244 14,933 62, 500 42,912 16,000 260,000 160,000 36,230 67,400 490,000 100,000 12,316 12,366 12,311 24,770 11,000 6,160 24,770 - 6,190 12,346 126,000 250,000 365,000 40,000 57,600 7,500 13,100 11,200 4,000 6,600 2,500 12,700 10,500 6,100 22,700 261,061 260,000 40,000 67,900 7,600 13,100 11,200 4,000 6,600 2,600 12,700 10,600 1,100 22,700 771,104 282,365 293,660 7,105,022 1. 403.090 TOTAL BUILDINGS, FACILITIES an d SYSTEMS • 10,286,822 4,116,142 1.091,761 747.204 282.365 293 660 Tolal Cost 66,600 20,000 3,500 1,146,266 107,000 1,601,642 1,200,000 642,711 300,000 200,000 600,000 143,014 763,370 26,000 24 .000 96,142 61,231 34,230 97,400 430,000 364,700 102,347 109,024 44,411 42,770 41,200 6,000 71,010 64,270 37,390 20,779 14,064 29 ,244 14,933 1,214,090 42,912 • 10 .923 .102 3,796, 103 3,321,796 2,683,261 2,667,628 20,062,702 47,337,164 • CI O RONA FY 1999-2000 Proposed • • RQAD$, BR/DOE$ AND FREEWAY$ Project N ame and Descriptio n 1390 Embankmrrpl-lkylino Oha; Ro ad improvements on Skyli ne Drive Fronlage Road $lreel I_mproytrmrrn,,; Location west of Sixth Street , for impr ovements. FoothllLParllway E!!Ian!Ion; Preliminary a nd design e ngineering for the westerly and e asterly extensions of Foothill Parkway. eav_arnenl_yunagern nllludy; Rev iew of paving, curbs, gutters, side walks. lighting drainage, alignment. ge ome tr y, gradien ts en d safely iss ues. 19Yl 1Ffe_IAR. Crosyng; Upgrade curbs, gutters and rubberize a rea. Gas Tax Fund Subtota l CorOrre17a-P1IL $eddy, To perform a Dia l -A -Ride program commu nity awareness an d usa ge study. Magnolia /SYanu9 P-eYemrrnLAthabllllallon; Ontario Avenue to Sixth St Initial alloca tio n for street knpro veme nts to Raikoad cro ssing n ew Compton A venue (STP funded 5602,000) eons adeo f loo d Pimage M111gallo n; Recon structio n of e mbankments, e rosion control, drainage improve ments, e tc. Yomna Aylinu einlerchango; Off e nd on ramps constructe d al Yu ma an d 1.15 freeway Completion expected in coope ratio n with the City of Norco . Eh!99 PI!Yt! Pu blic 1_mproY1Ln anl1; Cha se Drive a lignmen t and cro ss sec tion constructio n va riou s locations Fulura/Foofhie to we st of Ma n Paris. flarllypink Cedar Neighborhood Improvements• Reha b of street work. curbs, gutte rs, rind side walks. Soml 4!n_StmtlF e_au _ff rc in s; Resu rfa ce a nd add 2 way tun lane from On lano Ave. to Chase Drive. Root pruning adjacen t to city side walks, curbs an d gu tters Fund Project So urce Fu nd No OAST ' GAST R4VCO GAST OAST 222 222 222 222 222 MEA$!LR€AN NO YEASA! •, l 1.1'•. 1•Iir' YEA SA YEAS A FHWA/ ER YEAS A �1 it YEAS A DEVPO YEAS A YEA S A, j1. YEAS 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 6933 7062 7091 7069 7077 6681 6920 6923 6926 7316 7353 7320 7301 CAPITAL IMPR OVEMENT PROGRAM • Profact Cos( Listing Estimated - Prio. FY Completion Approp 1999-2000 200001 Date Carryover FY 200102 June , 2000 June, 2000 Jun e, 2000 Ongoi ng Ju ne, 2000 June, 2000 Ju ne, 2000 Jun e, 2000 O ngoing Jun e, 2000 June, 2000 June, 2000 Ongoin g 22,000 35,545 74,462 7,543 139,570 t 17,000 8,291 75,000 27,901 166,793 164,160 116,969 4,661 • FY FY 40,000 40,000 2002 03 2003 04 Future FY FY FY 40,000 40,000 40,000 400,000 Total Cost 22,000 36,641 74,462 127,643 400,000 440,000 659,570 17,000 0,211 71,000 27,901 166,793 164,160 4,141 21 CITY OF CORONA FY 1999-2000 Pro posed ROADS. ¢RIDGE$ A ND FREEWAYS Pro je ct Name and Description NEAR/FIE A FM) CONT Pavement Rehabilitation torLocal SOW*: In acco rdance with 1995 Pavement Ev aluatio n end M ainten ance Pro gram Striping Rahabllllallo n; Upgra de and maintenan ce of striping citywide QYM4o kStreet Wo rts; Add street n ame sign s and other street work 10 aid Po lic e an d Fire in emergency respon se. RIP:4.cing and Pavement M1Inlananca; Resurface end repair pothole s and miscellaneo us pavemen t fa ilures L4ca5lr.e! W ldaninglCurb andull.F- Improyan !nls; Lo cal Street widenin g end additio n of cu rbs and gu tters, driv eways, sidewa lks and related work Includin g W 91h Slreel, Vicentia lo Bue na Vista, and Ho ward Street. A_I'larlal Wldenino; Widen vario us sectio ns of majo r arte rial 10 malch existing lou r lan es Freeway QrldgesJ$mllh Ave Sto rm Drain: Re mbursemenl for constructio n co sts 04 Maple , Smith and Linco ln Bridges. City co st share is Irom future Mea su re A Fun ds, Measure A Fund Subtotal Shgddan StreN Ea ans1411; Acquisition a nd construction of Sheridan from Rincon 10 River Ro ad Redevelopment Fund Subto tal P9Be_8oa4PIYement; Resurfacing in the vicinity of Ame rican Circle to Business Center Drive 4:6$,1410 Me2Vpdatj G.ographic Information Syste m (GIS) for the Citywide system. Fund So urce SE AS A MEAS A SEAS M EA SA Pr oject Fu nd No 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 6921 7292 7351 6922 7352 7081 7277 RED€VELOPM€ NI EUND Estimated Completion Date Ong oing O ngoing Ongoi ng Ong oing Ongoing Ongoing June, 2009 Prior FY Approp Carryover 82,614 11,407 10,000 19,169 127,322 169,167 1,037,385 1999-2000 FY 500,000 90,000 6,000 90,000 53;949 1,207,648 117 June, 2001 MVL i VNRI ROJECT$ 222 227 222 227 440 446 415 607 7085 7085 7057 7057 7057 7087 7057 7097 Sept. , 1999 Ju n., 2000 2000-01 FY 500,000 90,000 5,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 672,1148 218,000 972,000 218,000 872,000 72,700 223,976 CA PIT AL . IMPROVEME NT PROGRAM- Proj. ct Cost Listing 2001-02 FY 600,000 ' 90,000 16,000 90,000 i' 100,000 632,646 2002 03 2003-04 Futur e Total FY FY FY Cost 500,000 90,000 15,000 80,000 100,000 532,648 1,317,648 1,317648 500,000 90,000 16,000 80,000 100,000 832,9/1 500 ,000 90,000 15,000 50,000 760,000 2,611,120 1,382,6413 3,082,611 584,107 60,000 499,159 202,722 1,319,167 6,276,190 1,317,648 4 .056 920 11,637,545 1,090,000 1 .090.000 72,700 223,979 C C") C.J N.,-. C) CI7CORO NA FY 1999-2000 Propos.d • RQAp$, DRIQGE$ ANp FREEWAYS Projeci Name and Des cription MVJ.TLEUNQ_PROJECT_S SONL 114V Qn Ramp $R-91 54041 CIub ,Pr.; Improved car pool lane. Pendi ng Federal appr oval F141LQR Ramp3R-91 a 4!tl5oj,1Aya,; Improved ca r poo l lan e Pending Federal appro val NQV Q Ramp $R-61 Q M 1 tn!ay-5Iraat; Improve d car pool lane Pen ding Federal approval. $!rysl Itnpro yam.n!s RImpaWCha.a; Street Improvemen ts nea r Rimpau an d Chase. North Milti_Stitstlithabg114112r1ar19 yyld.p!nQ Rehabilita tion of M an Street from 1-91 n orth to City Limits. Comp!an. al!4 4t!larlo 5ir,,i $Lllgpmen Traffic study and en vironmen tal review for Compton Ave. al On tario Ave street alignnenl Cu b[_• cutter end5dawallr E70a1am. Repla cemen t of deteriorated sidewalks a nd gullet insta llation of side walks where n one exist MaJor1'aym nan! Rehebillta94n; Major paveme nt rehabilitation on citywide streets. LQcaI,on9 IMAidulgg 1Q Rehibi6latio n: 3rd Street, Promena de, Cresla, River Road, No rth M ain and Vicloria . M cKin ley, Simpson, Raikoad, Rn con , and Rmpau Partuidge, El Sobrante, Lincoln. Slurry See l Promenade, Green River a nd Ridgelin e Sou th Men, 101h Street, Co rydon, Grand, Au to Cen ter Slurry Seal Smdh, Yuma, Lincoln and Garrelson. EP4urtYMa71!; To be delerminsd base d u pon the pavemen t evaluation and man agemen t program , as determin ed by Stafl. Matt S!um SaaUCr04h_fiti 9m; This is ardicpeled 10 be an annu al preven tative program for city streets, alleys and parting lots Estimated ' Fund Project Completion S ource F und No Dale MEAS A CMAQ DEV PD MEASA• CUAQ MEASA,, CMAQ:" „ •4 OAST WTR CF OAST REDEV YEAS A ,l,' REDEV- p.lt OAST MEASA r" OENFD GA ST MEAS A P.1 OAST MEAS A OAST • ~ ; MEASA ;y`l GAST MEAS A OAST MEAS A OAST; r, EASA'j M 227 227 227 222 507 222 417 227 417 222 227 110 222 227 222 227 222 227 222 227 222 227 222 227 7302 7317 7318 6602 8602 7319 7319 7293 7293 9027 8027 8027 7080 7080 7075 7075 June , 2000 June, 2000 Jun., 2000 Ju ne, 2000 Dec ., 2000 June, 2002 Ongoi ng Ongoi ng Ongoing CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROG RAM • Pr oject Cost Listing Pr,or FY APProP 1999-2000 2000 01 2001 -02 Carryover FY FY FY 127,000 430,000 335,000 150,000 134,196 14,367 3,663 133,306 49,614 686,940 70 ,901 669 12,460 100,000 150,000 1.139.000 1,900,000 150,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 600,000 380,000 ", 600.000 200.000 150.000 2,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 200203 2003 04 Fut ure Tola1 FY FY FY Cost 150,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 160,000 1,000.000 500.000 150,000 1 ,000,000 300 .000 427,000 430,000 335,000 13.,996 100,000. 374,317 100,000 I00,000 003,693 133,309 49,114 161,910 70,901 1,136,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 2.000,000 400 ,969 2,312 ,160 23 CITY OF CO RONA FY 1999-2000 Pr oposed LIQNT7NO ANp $IGNAL$ Projed Name and Description Ii Ic_$lanailn9tallatl olf; Sixth a nd Avenida del Vist a ( Mod), West Gra nd and Second, Main 8 Third (Mod), end Ma n and Parkridge (Mod ) inc ludng misc citywide upgrades Ifltllc �Ignll�4llall!(Ipn; Traffic signal al M ain SIrNI end Eight Street Gas Tax Fund Subtotal Letflc-Slane! Mo41nl5a19fL Sixth and Buena Vista. Ma in a nd Grand, M agno lia end Mc knl.y, an d Lincoln a nd Tenth. Ifatllc S!gnal tnt• _rc0nnec_t; Li ncoln (Citron-Rncon ), Joy an d Parkridge. EmergencYffathar.Lotfla a119nXo.$ Eme rgency flashin g lights fo r east and west bou nd tralfic on Smith Avenue McKinlerrRanchYltta flttltatlonl<margtocy fla.han Emergen cy flashing Tights 10 warn moto rists of existing vehicles fro m side stree t. liomp rehtnalre Traaffl! Jmpf9Yement Ne.9Ets9ram; In corporate existing CIP prge cts and generale long ra nge plan IfatftelI9nh j0tIe1I1UI9IrL En gn..rin g and construction of traffic signal in stallation al Ontario a nd 1-15. Measure A Fund Subtota l CAPITAL IMP ROVEMENT P ROGRAM - Pr oloct C ost Llstlny Estimated Prior FY Furl Project Completi on Approp 1999-2000 2000-01 So urce Fund No 2001-01 2002-03 2007 -W Futur e Total Date Carryover FY QAS_INr Ft/Np FY FY FY FY FY Cosi 222 222 7060 7095 June, 2000 Ju ne. 2001 MEASSMEALOYD 227 227 227 227 227 227 7297 1298 7707 7755 7358 7357 J une, 2000 Dec., 1999 Dec., 1999 Ju ne, 2000 June, 2000 June, 2000 16,741 89,586 16,332 20,000 25,200 260,000 429,859 4TREETvGNL5MA IN T€NANEEPISTR ,G[HMO . 150,000 r Mlsc Repair 1 Raplpcanlenl of LMD 1N-1 Facglrlae; Re pa ir and replac e mist facilities a1 va rious loca tions throughou t the c ity R.lamp all safely lights a nd street n ame signs Rawl(' 25 year old signals along Man Street Red L. E.D. Tre ic_Vanale; Repayment of b an 10 Califo rnia Energy Commission lo an turd.d con version from inca ndescent 10 energy e fficient l E D traffic signals. • 6LM D 444 446 7094 7072 On going Last Pymt Doc. , 2001 8,400 26,971 6 50,000 2!,000 • 40,400 11,141 69.140 11,772 20.000 25,200 260,000 161,971 CORONA FY 1999-2000 Pr oposed liGNTING /IND $IGNA{,$ Project Name a nd Description $IREE7{JGKI$ MAINIENANcE.PISTRICLES/NPS CON r. UnderWound SITasIll➢hLp9 wes LInee; Powe r Sines for the 36 street lights between Buena Vista & Smith on 61h. Stre et er e overhead and frequently IT1±I4s ISnILIMIIa!latIM IPgr44 z Con vert 8 Inch hea ds l0 12 inch heads SLMD Funds Su btotal L aMc Vanai InPtaljallon; Ra mps .1 1.15 and Ontario Ave in conjun ction with widening 01 Ontario east 01 Compton and Signal a1 Compton IT*L►1S�1➢n!!LMs�� !!fa-f1411� rad� Va rious Localions in clu ding M agn olia/ O ntario. M cKin ley al Railroad trails. M ufti Fun d Pr. acts Subtotal TOTAL LIGNTINO & SIGNALS Fund Project Sourc e F und No MULT DMPPROJECIS MEAS A SC FEE ME AS A SC FEE Estimated Completio n Dale Dec., 2001 Jun., 2000 Ju ne, 2000 Pri or FY Approp Carryover 1999-2000 FY 2000-01 FY 250,000 CAPITAL IM PROVEMENT PROGRAM • Pr oject Cosf Listi ng 2001-02 200203 7003-04 Future FY FY FY FY 150.000 300,000 105,000 557,73• 200,000 620,000 105,000 Tolaf Cost 590,371 1,370,739 27 CITY OF COR ONA FY 1999-2000 Proposed VRAINAQE FACILITIES Project Name end Desorption C APITAL IMP ROVEMENT PROGRAM • Pr oj ect Cost Listing Estimated ' Prior FY Fu nd Project Completion Appr op 1999.2000 Source Fund No 2(X1001 2001-02 2002.07 2tX1304 Future D al e Car ryover FY F FY Total FY FY FY Cost ()WELLING DEVELQPME NTTAX FUNO erado @a.ln VI)/PY4110YOthe P_roJ, t.; Welland mitigation n connectio n with City facilities in the Prado Basin area. Dwe llin g Development Tax Fund Subtotal DDT DOT 289 289 8166 6167 Ong oing Slop.R.palrs; Repair slope failures. $ISrit Qe! Qro Rope"; Re pa ir slop* failures Lan dscape Main tena nce District Fu nd Su btotal 66..i DrIve Storm Dr.ln Improve; Impro vement 10 Mesa Storm Drain JOY Slr..l Sloml Prelo; Pro1ed is neede d to reliev e flo oding on Grand Blvd an d Blaine Street Protect consistent with the No. Man Street revitalization plan Mleo. Hlohwayp ralnegtsyOm; Sloan drain repair and mainte nance al various locations within the city. Meier Sto rlmprNIIIII1p►Oyeme_n(; Recon struction an d improv ement of existing facilities. M easure A Fu nd Su btotal __ND$C_APE 1MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FUND LOADS 67,326 67 .328 300,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 917,329 300 .000 30 ,000 30.000 30 000 30,000 30 .000 517,328 448 446 6100 6101 June, 2000 June, 2000 26,770 6,682 29,770 6,662 33,352 MEASURE A FUND 33.352 227 227 227 227 7226 6926 6924 7229 J une, 2000 Dec., 2000 Ongoing Dec., 2000 60,000 23,491 190,458 120,100 440,000 394. 049 440,000 60,000 23411 190,496 i 840,100 . Ptena gv M..l.r Pl.n; Citywide Dra in age Mesle r Pla n. 534.049 MVL1Ti�IND PROD€CT$ Olt St0tTn_Drtln Setters; Geographic al Informatio n System (G.I.S ) fo r the citywide drain system. remelt $lo>m_Iloth;• Stone drain alo ng Pomona Rd east of American Circle to Maple an d ultimately to aba ndon ed Yorba Street. M ulti Fun d Projects Subtotal TOTAL DRA INAGE • CSA,162 CSA 112 # YEAS A l. RCF D ri;: 'i 245 245 438 436 227 7212 7230 7230 7234 7234 Jun e, 2000 June, 2000 Jun e, 2000 3,917 75,855 989 95,3711 433,297 216,000 600,467 215,000 3,917 75,146 149 84,319 846,211 815 467 1,095,191 955,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30 .0 2.200.196 �4 • • • Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Da te: June 22, 1999 ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 PROJECT NAME/1JMITS PROJECT TYPE 1. 2. Street Name Sign Replacement Program City-wide Pavemen t Rehab / Street Improvement Project • Includes $265,000 in federal funds. Sign Replacement Pavement Mainte nance TOTAL TOTAL COST 30,000 1,345,880.* 1,375,880 MEASURE A FUNDS 30,000 1,080,880 1,110,880 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2001 Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Da te: June 22, 1999 ITEM MEASURE A NO. PROJECT NAmeumrrs PR OJECT TYPE TOTAL COST FUNDS 1. Street Name Sign Replacement Program Sign Replacement 30,000 30,000 2 City-wide Surface Seal Project Pavement Maintenance 287,248 287,248 3. City-wide Pavement Rehab Project Pavement Maintenance 574,496 574,496 4. City-wide Street Impro vement Project Street Wide ning 1 287,248 287,248 Capacity Improvements TOTAL 1,178,992 1,178,992 • • • • • • Agency: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 22, 1999 ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001-2002 PROJECT NAMEIU MITS PR OJECT TYPE 1. 2 3. 4. Street Name Sign Replacement Program City-wide Surface Seal Project City-wide Pavement Rehab Project City-wide Street Improvement Project Sign Replac ement Pavement Mai nten ance Pavement Mainten ance Street Widening / Capacity Improvements TOTAL TOTAL COST 30,000 311,702 623,405 311,702 1,276,80 MEASURE A FUNDS 30,000 311,702 623,405 311,702 1,276,80 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 AgencY: City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 22, 1999 ITEM MEASU RE A NO. PROJECT NAME/UMITS PROJE CT TYPE TOTAL COST FUNDS 1 City-wide Surface Seal Project Pavement Maintenance 343,841 343,841 2. City-wide Pavement Rehab Project Paveme nt Maintenance 687,683 687,683 3. City-wide Street Improvement Pro ject Street Widening 1 343,841 343,841 Capacity Improvements TOTAL 1,375,365 1,375,365 • • • • • Agency City of Hemet Prepared by: Juan C. Perez Date: June 22, 1999 RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2003-2004 ITEM NO. 1. 2. 3. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS City-wide Surface Seal Project City-wide Pavernent Rehab Project City-wide Stre et Improveme nt Proje ct PROJECT TYPE Pavement Maintenance Pavement Maintenance Street Widening / Capacity Improvements TOTAL TOTAL COST 369,433 738,869 369,433 1,477,735 MEASURE A FUN DS 369,433 738,869 369,433 1,477,735 Note: All figures In thousands ($000's) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2004 PAGE 1 OF 2 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PROJECT NAME/ DESCRIPTI ON 99/00 TOTAL ME AS. A COST FUNDS 00/01 TOTAL ME AS. A COST FUNDS 01/02 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 02/03 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 03/04 TOTAL MEAS . A C OST FUNDS M ISCELLANEOUS STREET REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE: VARI OUS LOCATIONS SLURRY SEAL 80 80 80 50 80 50 50 50 50 50 MISCELLANEOUS STREET RESTO RATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS PA VEMENT REHABILITATION /O VERLAY 100 100 100 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 CU RB AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROG RAM: VARI OUS L OCATIONS NEW CURB AND GUTTER/SIDEWALK; R ti R EXISTING SIDEWALK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 CIP PRO JECTS/STREET MAINT. ADMIN. SERVICE: VARIOUS L OCATIONS/PR OJECTS PUBLIC WORKS/ENG INEERING/CO NSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (PAYROLUSUPPLIES) 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 MAIN ST/SULPHUR ST DECO NTAM INATIO N 25 25 SPRING STREET: LA KESHO RE DRIVE - COLLIER AVENUE PAVEM ENT OVERLAY/RESURFACING 315 0 1-15 / RAILRO AD CANYO N ROAD INTERCHANGE PRO JECT STUDY REPO RT 120 25 M AIN STREET: 1-15 TO LAKESHO RE DRIVE PAVEM ENT REHABILITATIO N/OVERLAY 575 325 RAILROAD CANYON ROAD: 1-5 TO CITY LIM IT PAVEMENT REHABILITATION/O VERLAY 860 635 LAKE STREET: 1-15 TO LAKESHO RE DRIVE PAVEM ENT REHABILITATION/O VERLAY 395 395 M ACHADO STREET: LAKESHO RE DR. TO PAVEMENT REHABILITATION/OVERLAY 310 310 LINCOLN STREET: MACHADO ST. TO TERRA COTTA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION/OVERLAY 220 220 C� CJ • • • • • • • ' RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2004 PAGE 2 OF 2 CITY OF TARE ELSINORE PROJECT NAME/ DESCRIPTION 99/00 TOTAL MEAS. A C OST FUNDS 00/01 TOTAL MEAS. A COST FUNDS 01/02 TOTAL ME AS. A COST FUNDS 02/03 T OTAL MEAS. A COST •FUNDS 03/04 TOTAL MEAS. A C OST FUNDS COLLIER AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (OP A) PAVEMENT, CURB & G UTTER 150 150 OUTFLOW CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PEDISTRIAN WALKWAY 80 80 LANGSTAFF ST. IMPROVEM ENTS SHERIFF STATION PAVEMENT, CURB & GUTTER 100 100 LAKESHORE DRIVE: TERRA COTTA ROAD TO DRYDEN STREET STREET WIDENING 325 450 LAKESHORE DRIVE: JERNIGAN STREET TO 200' EAST OF MACHADO STREET STREET WIDENING 480 50 SUMNER AVENUE: MAIN STREET TO C HANEY STREET PAVEM ENT REHABILITATIO N/O VERLAY 75 600 CO LLIER AVE. : WASSON CREEK TO C ENTRAL STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION/OVERLAY I 50 250 TOTALS: $3;510 $2,625 $360 $300 $735 $330 $1,105 $330 $1,410 $380 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 1999-2000 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25. 1999 Page 1 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($1000's) Maas "A" ($1000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits 10 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 368 368 '10.2; ,/ • O6UUJ"r • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2000-2001 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 2 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost t$1000's) 11,350 Maas "A" 4($1000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1.15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 418 418 063055 Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2001-2002 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 3 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($1000'9) Meas "A" j$1000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 11,350 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 480 480 • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2002-2003 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 4 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost ($1000's) 11,350 Maas "A" ($1000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 543 543 OGJGGO Riverside County Transportation Commission Measure "A" Local Funds Program City of Murrieta, FY 2003-2004 Prepared By: Dan Clark Date: May 25, 1999 Page 5 of 5 Item No. Project Name and Limits Project Type Total Cost 01000'sj 11,350 Meas "A" J51000's) 335 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from south city limits to 1.15, and 1.15 and 1.215 interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 608 608 1'0 • ✓ 409 L 4`""--4-- • 0VJuu1 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 1998 - 1999 - A gency: City of N orco Prepared by: J. Sche nk Date: May 18, 1999 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT NA ME / LIMITS Yuma Interchange Payback River Road - Corydon Avenue to Bluff Street Carryover Kips Korner Rd. /Western Ave. -Second to Parkridge Eighth Street - California Avenue to Crestview Drive Norco Drive - Cedar Ave nue to Rocky View Drive Street Striping - Fall Program $28K, Late Spring $25K Miscellaneous Seal Coat PROJECT TYPE Freeway Interchange Pr oject Reconstruction/Overlay - Awarded 5/12/99 Overlay -Out f or pavem ent evaluation. Reconstruction/Ov erlay-Awarded 4/21/99 $42,960 Reconst ./Overlay - O ut for pavement evaluation. Striping Seal Coat - Award 9/2/98, Comp. 11/18/98 $46,451 Total Cost ($000'S) $ 211,980 $ 350,000 $ 43,000 $ 20,000 $ 30,000 Measure " A" Funds ($000's) $ 211,960 $ 350,000 $ 43,000 $ 20,000 $ 30,000 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 1999 - 2000 C% Agency: City of N orco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: May 18, 1999 Page: 1 of ITEM Total Cost Measure "A" NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) Funds ($000's) 1 Yuma Interchange Payback Interchange $ 234,310 $ 234,310 2 Street Striping Striping $ 20,000 $ 20,000 3 M iscellaneo us Seal Coat Seal Coat $ 30,000 $ 30,000 4 Bluff Street - River Ro ad to Stagecoach Drive Reconstruction/ Overlay $ 116,000 $ 116,000 5 Reservoir Drive - Third Street to Temescal Avenue Reconstruction/Overlay $ 92,000 $ 92,000 6 California Avenue - East to Sixth Streets Overlay $ 43,000 $ 43,000 7 Shadow Canyon Circle and Sunset Court Overlay $ 85,000 $ 85,000 8 Vine Street - Bluff Street to Cul-de-sac Overlay $ 82,000 $ 82,000 • • • s • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2000 - 2001 Agency: City of Norc o Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: M ay 18, 1999 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS Yuma Interchange Payback Broken Arrow Street - Corydon Avenue to Bluff Street Eighth Stree t - Pedley to California Avenue Pedley Avenue - Seventh Street to the North End River Drive - Center to Hillside Avenues Chestnut Drive - Bluff Street to Corydo n Avenue Buckskin Lane - Califomia to Crestview Avenues PROJECT TYPE T otal C ost ($000'S) Reconstruction/Overlay Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction/Overlay Overlay Overlay $ 266,200 $ 51,000 $ 33,000 $ 63,800 $ 15,000 $ 41,600 $ 34,000 Measure "A" Funds ($000's) $ 266,200 $ 51,000 $ 33,000 $ 63,800 $ 15,000 $ 41,600 $ 34,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2002 - 2004 CD C) c1 Agen cy: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: May 18, 1999 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM Total Cost Measure "A" NO. PROJECT NA ME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE ($000'S) Funds ($000's) 1 Street Reconstruction $ 860,000 $ 860,000 2 Miscellaneous Pavement $ 90,000 $ 90,000 3 Street Striping t $ 60,000 $ 60,000 4 Miscellaneous Seal Coats $ 120,000 $ 120,000 5 Traffic Signal Improvements $ 40,000 $ 40,000 6 Yuma Interchange Payback $ 760,000 $ 760,000 • 1 • • CITY OF PERRIS Mailing: 1'O Box 606/Perris, CA 92572 Office: 170 Wilkerson, Suite A/Perris, CA 92570 TEL: 909-943-6504 FAX: 909-943-8416 046559 Habib Motlagh City Engineer June 7, 1999 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Measure "A" Loan and 5 -Year Plan Dear Ms. Bechtel: The following projects are funded by City's $1.9 Million loan: 1. Ramona Expressway — Complete 2. Mountain Avenue, Sun Park and Sunny Sands — Complete 3. Evans Road — Pending R/W 4. Perris Boulevard — To Supplement STP Funds — FY 2000 5. Enchanted Heights and Indian Hills — Pending Sewer Issue 6. Rider Street — Complete 7. "A" Street — Under Construction 8. Metz Road — Under Construction 9. Goetz Road — Complete Also the following are the list of City's 5 -year plan utilizing the balance of our Measure "A" funds: Project Fiscal Year Total Cost (1,000's) Measure A Funds (1,000's) 1. Misc. Pothole Repair 2000-2004 60 60 2. Nuevo Road 2000 250 25 3. Ramona Expressway 2000 850 200 4. Park Avenue 2001 120 120 5. Misc. Pavement Rehab. 2002 500 500 6. Placentia Avenue 2003 300 300 7. Case Road 2004 300 300 -- OGOOGG As requested, I am enclosing a copy of the MOE calculations. Please call me should you require additional information. Sincerely, aziz,-(J-P(6-ri Habib Motlagh City Engineer HM:se Cc: Ron Molendyk, City Manager Terry Shea, Finance Director Enclosure 0031067 • • • A gency: City of Riv ersid e Pre pared By: Rick McGrath Date : June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS NO. 1. V an Buren Blvd. Widening Ma gnolia to 91 Freeway 2. M ajor Street Re habilitation 3. Jurupa Ave -Van Buren to Cre st 4. CA DM E - Stre et Plan Data 5. Tyle r St - Arlington to Eure ka 6. A rlington A ve - Murray to Neil 7. India na Ave - Monroe to Doyle 8. In diana Ave - McKinle y to Ma ry 9. 91 Free wa y/V an Buren Blvd. 10. V an Bu re n Q Cleveland RIVERSIDE COU NTY TR ANSPORTATION CO MMISSION ME ASURE " A" LOC AL FU NDS PROGRA M FY 2000-2004 FY 2000 PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000' s) Page 1 of 6 CURRENT YR. TOT AL MEASURE " A" ME ASURE " A" FUNDING FUNDING ($1,000's) ($1,000' s) Street Widening Str eet Re surf acing Str eet Wid ening Data Updates Street Widening Stree t Widening Stre et Widening Stree t Widening Interc hange Replac ement Traffic Signal $ 5,000 $ $ 2,000 $ 2,200 $ 1,600 $ 4,750 $ 3,000 $ 500 $ 500 $ 2,200 $ 55 $ 3,500 $ 4,600 $ 275 $ $ 300 $ $ 85 $ $ 12,000 $ $ 100 $ 275 $ 300 $ 85 $ 2,600 $ $ 100 RI VERSI DE COU NTY TRANSPORT ATIO N COMMISSIO N MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUN DS PROGRA M FY 2000-2004 FY 2000 ITEM NO. A gency: City of Riverside Pre pared By: Rick McGrath Date : Jun e 3, 1999 PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOT AL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) P ag e 2 of 6 CURRENT YR. ME ASURE "A" FUNDING ($1,000's) TOT AL MEASURE " A" FUNDING ($1,000's) 11. Van Buren @ Morris 12. Tyle r @ Ca mpbell 13. Tyler @ Gramerc y 14. University - Ottawa to Euc alyptus 15. Spruce @ Atlanta 16. La Sie rra - Gramer cy to Arlington 17. Computers X18. Mitchell - We lls to Arlington O Ci C, CD Repl acement Traffi c Signal T raffic Signal Installation Traffic Sign al Inst allation Medians Traffic Signal Installation Str eet Widening Eng. Worksta tions $ Stree t Widening Sub -Total $ 90 $ $ 100 $ $ 100 $ $ 2,100 $ $ 120 $ $ 1,500 $ 10 $ $ 800 $ $ 33,130 $ $ 90 100 $ 100 100 $ 100 200 $ 200 120 $ 120 $ 1,500 10 $ 800 $ 800 5,385 $ 16,570 • • • • • RI VERSIDE COU NTY TRA NSP ORT ATIO N CO MMISSIO N ME ASURE "A" LOC AL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2001 A gency: City of Riv erside Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date : June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS NO. 1. Ma jor Stree t Rehabilitation PROJECT TYPE TOT AL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Page 3 of 6 CURRE NT YR TOTAL MEASURE "A" MEASURE "A° FUNDING FUNDING ($1,000's) ($1,000's) Str eet Re surf acing 2. SPRR Crossings at Palmyrita, Signal s/Street Columbia, M arlborough, Rustin, R ehabilitation and Atlanta 3. CADME Stree t Plan 4. Tr affic Signal Improve me nts 5. U niversity Ave - Otta wa to Euc alyptus 6. Jurupa A ve Unde rpass 7. Compute rs CD C: U C:) Data Updat es Traffic Sign als Me dians 2,000 $ 780 $ 1,600 $ 300 $ 2,100 Stree t Underpass $ 14,000 Eng. Works tations Sub -Total 5 $ 20,785 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMM ISSION $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 780 $ 780 $ 55 $ $ 300 $ 300 $ 1,900 $ 2,100 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 5 $ $ 8,040 $ 8,180 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TR ANSPORT ATIO N COM MISSIO N ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FU NDS PRO GRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2002 Agency: City of Riv ersid e Prepared By: Rick McGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LI MITS NO. PROJECT TYPE TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Pag e 4 of 6 CURRENT YR. MEASURE . " A" FUNDS ($1,000's) 1. Ce ntral A venue Va n Buren to Adams 2. Traffic Signa l Improvem ents 3. La Sierra A ve/Magnolia Ave Intersection 4. Major Stree t Rehabilitation 5. Victoria Ave - La Sierra Ave To Boundary Ln 6. V an Buren Blvd /91 Intercha nge Intersection 7. Computers 8. CA DME Stree t Plan Street Wid ening Tr affi c Signal s Medi ans $ 1,500 $ 300 $ 400 Stre et Resurfacing $ 2,000 Medi ans $ 450 Interchang e $ 10,000 Eng. Workstations $ 5 Da ta Update s $ 1,600 Sub -Total $ 16,255 $ 450 $ 300 $ 400 $ 2,000 $ 450 $ 2,000 $ 5 $ 55 $ 5,660 • • • • • • Age ncy: City of Riv ersid e Prepa red By: Rick McGrath Date : J une 3, 1999 RI VERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORT ATION COM MISSIO N MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-2004 FY 2003 ITEM PROJECT NAMES/LIMITS NO. PROJECT TYPE Page 5 of 6 CURRENT YR . TOT AL PROJECT ME ASURE "A" COST FUNDS ($1,000's) ($1,000's) 1. Tra ffic Signal Improv ement s Traffic Signals $ 300 $ 300 2. Ca mpbe ll St - Mitche ll to Street Widening $ 800 Jones A ve $ 800 3. Major Stre et Re habilitation Street Re surfacing $ 2,000 $ 2,000 4. Arlington Ave - Ottawa to Medi ans Euca lyptus 600 $ 600 5. Ce ntra l Avenue - Van Buren Street Wid ening $ 1,500 to Adams $ 1,000 6. CA DME Street Plan Data Updates $ 1,600 $ 55 7. Computers Eng. Workstations $ 5 $ 5 Sub -Total $ 6,805 $ 4,760 RI VERSIDE COU NTY TR ANSPORTATIO N CO MMISSIO N MEASURE " A" LOCAL F UNDS PROGRA M FY 2000-2004 FY 2004 Age ncy: City of Riverside Prepared By: Rick M cGrath Date: June 3, 1999 ITEM PROJECT NA MES/LIMITS NO. PROJECT TYPE TOT AL PROJECT COST ($1,000's) Pag e 6 of 6 ME ASURE "A" F UNDS ($1,000' s) 1. Traffic Signal Improvements 2. 91 Freeway/La Sie rra A ve - Interchange 3. Major Street Re habilitation - 4. CADME Stre et Plan 5. Computers 6. Ce ntral A ve - Lochmoor to City Limits • Traffic Signals Repl ace/Widen $ 300 $ 14,000 Street Re surf acing $ 2,000 Data Updates $ 1,600 Eng. Workstations $ 5 Me dians $ 350 Sub -Total $ 18,255 TOTAL $ 95,230 $ 300 $ 2,700 $ 2,000 $ 55 $ 5 $ 350 $ 5,410 $ 29,255 • • 611."41N, HE C I T Y OF SAN J A C I N T O Development Seri ices • • June 2, 1999 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Project Manager R.C.T.C. 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: 5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN , Dear Ms. Bechtal: Pursuant to your request, we are providing you with the list of our 5 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. As you know, the City of San Jacinto has entered into an agreement with RCTC to borrow $1.3 million from its future Measure "A" funds to facilitate construction of the following projects: 1. Sanderson Avenue - Supplement STIP grant 2. Shaver Street - Complete 3. Esplanade Avenue - Railroad Crossing and other Improvements - Pending Legal Issues 4. Industrial Way and alley behind City Hall - Partially complete 5. Main Street - Pending Downtown Specific Plan approval 6. Various Intersection Improvements - Contract awarded 7. Miscellaneous Downtown Street - Pending Council Decision Also, on the following page, please find the list of additional projects to utilize the balance of San Jacinto's Measure "A" Funds. c153E JUN 10'99 201 E. Main Street • San Jacinto, CA 92583 Tel: 909/487-7330 • Fax: 909/654-9896 • www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us OG3O74 Project FY Total Cost Measure "A" $1000's $1000's Lake Park Bridge 99-00 $6,500 $500 State Street 99-00 200 200 Cottonwood & Seventh St. 99-00 300 100 Misc. Pothole Repairs 00-01 15 15 Lyon Avenue 01-02 200 200 Misc. Pothole Repairs 01-02 20 20 San Jacinto Avenue 02-03 150 150 Misc. Pothole Repairs 02-03 15 15 Ramona Boulevard 03-04 100 1� 3 ,o Please note the above list is based on the fact that we will continue receiving '/2 of our Measure "A" pursuant to the loan agreement. Also, the City Council is expected to review the list within the next sixty days and if the list is modified, we will submit a copy for your use. I am enclosing a copy of the MOE calculations. Please call me should you require additional information. Sincerely, HABIB OTLAGH City Engineer X -copy: L. Michael Hanavan, City Manager H:\gracea\habib\RCTC5YRCapImplan • • • 0000''5 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999 - 2000 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8 -Jun -99 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS Page 1 of 5 D esign & construction ot pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets Ynez Road Improvements between Rancho California Road and Tierra Vista Road Diaz Road Realignment to Vincent Moraga Road PR OJECT TYPE Street reconstruction and rehabilitation Design & ultimate construction of road improvements Design & ultimate construction of four -lane roadway TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 9/5 123 .3 810 9/5 123 .3 810 r:ldauerj\Pubwks\MeasureA99-04 icd RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2000 - 2001 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8 -Jun -99 Page 2 of 5 ITEM PROJECT NAME/ NO. LIMITS 1 2 Design & construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets Diaz Road Extension to Date Street PROJECT TYPE Street reconstruction and rehabilitation Design & ultimate construction of interim two-lane roadway TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 600 1,196 600 1,196 • r Idauerj\Pubwks\ Mea1109 9-04 jcd • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COM MISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001 2002 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8 -Jun -99 ITEM PROJECT NAME/ NO. LIMITS 1 Design & construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets Page 3 of 5 PR OJECT TYPE Street reconstruction and rehabilitation TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 735 .6 735 .6 r:ldauerj\Pubwks\MeasureA99-04 jcd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 - 2003 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8 -Jun -99 Page4of5 ITEM PROJECT NAME/ NO. LIMITS 1 Design & constructio n of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of major streets PROJECT TYPE Street reconstruction and rehabilitation TOTAL COSTS I MEASURE "A" ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 842 .4 842 .4 • • r:ldauerj\Pubwks\Mea 9-04 jcd • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date: 8 -Jun -99 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS 1 Design & construction of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction of ma'or streets PROJECT TYPE Street reconstruction and rehabilitation • Page 5 of 5 TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 951 .4 951 .4 rldauerj\Pubwks\MeasureAgg 04 jcd • COACHELLA VALLEY PLANS • • 06303i • AGENCY: Item No. • RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TR ANSPORTATION C OM MISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 City of Cathedral City PAGE 1 of 4 Project name/limits Project type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 FY 1999-2000 City Public Works Maintenance Engineering Division: Signal Maintenance City Risk Management Measure A Fund Balance* MEASURE A PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FROM PRIO R YEARS: 8662 Date Palm -Gerald Ford Intersec. 8663 Square Mile Parking pro gram 8665 Perez Rd. extension 8699 Dinah Shore Drainage 8834 Palm Cany. Widen @ Auto Park 8917 City-wide traffic counts 8939 Widen Gerald Ford @ Date Palm 8941 Sidewalk projects 8946 ADA Compliance projects 8926 Downtown Core area streets City-wide operations Engineering operations Traffic related claims & lawsuits for Reserve Fund * Improve intersection install no parking signs & legends street extension remove dips; install drains widen highway traffic counts widen highway misc. sidewalk installations misc. ramps and access improvements street improvements In Downtown area * Prudent financial planning requires the setting aside of a Measure A reserve, to cover cash flow and any fluctuations in incoming revenues. Total cost: ($000's) $ 1480 .6 130.0 2296.6 49.3 $ 65 .0 13.0 133 .7 60 .0 387,3 19.0 10.0 72,5 139 .5 1850 .4 Meas. A ($000's) $ 735.4 $ 60.0 $ 16.8 $ 49 .3 $ 65 .0 9.8 30 .0 60.0 152.7 12.0 10.0 39.7 70.4 227.4 C7% C) C) C; U.) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 1999-2000 AG ENCY: City of Cathedral City PAGE 2 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) Meas. A ($000's) FY 1999-2000 NEW MEASURE A PROJECTS OR SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR CARRYOVERS 15 8916 Misc. Street Projects minor protects @ various locations 66 .0 20.0 16 -- W. Cathedral Bridge widen design for bridge widening 65 .0 8.0 17 -- Date Palm bridge rehab. rehab bridge/install lighting 150.0 18.0 18 -- Ramon Corridor project hwy. impr ovements/signal modif. 225.0 225.0 19 8834 Palm Cany. Widen © Auto Park highway widening 387 .3 45.0 20 8946 ADA Compliance projects ramps/access improvements 139.5 60 .0 21 -- Date Palm -Varner traffic signal traffic signaP 140 .0 15.0 22 8665 Perez Road extension street extension 133 .7 10.0 23 -- Terrace Rd/Cove Drainage storm drains /drainage Improvements 85 .0 65.0 24 -- Pavement Management System Inventory streets & signs; software syst . 50.0 50 .0 25 -- Street Slurry Projects slurry eligible resid ential streets 100.0 100 .0 26 -- Varner-Edom Hill int. widen widen intersection 50 .0 50 .0 27 8695 Date Palm medians & landscape Improve medians 50 .0 50 .0 28 -- Measure A Fund Balance* for Reserve Fund* 250.7 250.7 * Prudent financial planning requires the setting aside of a Measure A reserve, to cover cash flow and any fluctuations in incoming revenues. Total reserved for 1999-00 = $ 300,000. • • • AGENCY: City of Cathedral City • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM FY 1999-2000 PAGE 3 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 FY 2000-2001 City Public Works Maintenance Engineering Division -Signal maintenance City Risk Management Misc. Street Projects Measure A Fund Balance FY 2001-2002 City Public Works Maintenance Engineering Division -Signal maintenance City Risk Management M isc. Street Projects Street Slurry Program City-wide operations traffic signal maintenance contracts Traffic related claims & lawsuits minor projects @ various locations Reserve Fund City-wide operations traffic signal maintenance contracts Traffic related claims & lawsuits minor protects @ various locations slurry eligible streets $ 1517.6 140.0 2300.0 35 .2 50.0 $ 1555.6 144 .0 2300.0 50.0 130 .0 Meas. A ($000's) $ 757 .4 62.0 18.0 35.2 50.0 $ 780 .1 64.0 20.0 35 .0 100.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRA M FY 1999-2000 AGENCY: City of Cathedral Cify PAGE 4 of 4 Item No. Project name/limits Project type Total cost: ($000's) Meas. A ($000's) FY 2002-2003 1 City Public Works Maintenance City-wide operations $ 1594.4 $ 803.5 2 Engineering Division -Signal maintenance traffic signal maintenance contracts 150.0 66.0 3 City Risk Management Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2320.0 22.0 4 Misc. Street Projects minor projects @ various locations 70.0 40 .0 5 Street Slurry Program slurry eligible streets 150.0 120.0 6 Measure A Fund Balance Reserve Fund 24.7 24 .7 FY 2003-2004 3 1 City Public Works Maintenance City-wide operations $ 1834.3 $ 827 .6 2 Engineering Division -Signal maintenance traffic signal maintenance contracts 150.0 68.0 3 City Risk Management Traffic related claims & lawsuits 2350.0 24.0 4 Misc. Street Projects minor projects © various locations 100 .0 50.0 5 Street Slurry Program slurry eligible streets 200.0 150.0 6 Measure A Fund Balance Reserve Fund . 36.8 36.8 • • UPDATED PLAN • • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: Item No. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 1999-00 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 Measure "A" Funds ($000's) $25,000 2 TOTAL 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Road Maintenance $25,000 $25,000 F:\Tim\Mist\RCTCMSA99.doc $50,000 6a�► .)1► UPDATED PLAN Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000-01 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ 25,000 2 93-70 Citywide pavement overlay Road Maintenance $150,000 $ 150,000 TOTAL _ $175,000 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTCMSA99.doc • • UPDATED PLAN • • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001-02 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay $430,569 $430,569 TOTAL - $455,569 F:\Tim\Mist\RCTCMSA99.doc UPDATED PLAN Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay $144,431 $25,000 TOTAL - $50,000 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTCMSA99.doc 0030o3 • • UPDATED PLAN • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003-2004 The City ,of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director May 13, 1999 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Road Maintenance $25,000 TOTAL F:\Tim\Misc\RCTCMSA99.doc Measure "A" Funds ($000's) $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 0uuu3U CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Shadow Mountain & Portola Avenue • Fairway & Portola Avenue • Hovley Lane East & Wainer Trail STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalks • Major street landscaping Cook Street: Country Club Drive to Fred Waring Drive • Fred Waring Drive Bridge Widening at the Palm Valley Channel • Highway 111: Larkspur to I.W. City Limits • Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge at the San Pascual Channel and Widening • Fred Waring Drive Widening • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange PARKS & RECREATION • Civic Center Amphitheater Civic Center Park Restroom • PDCC Neighborhood Park South Parking Lot • No. Side Regional Park • Bikeway Construction • Youth Center Land Purchase For Regional Park DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE • 9 Paseo and Hwy 111 Land Development • North Sphere Property - Golf Course North Sphere Property - Other Purposes HOUSING • * Home Improvement Project - Rehabit For Sale • Acquistion of 40 acres site DRAINAGE ' Monterey / Hwy 74 & El Paseo to Hwy 111 • Cook Street - Joni to 42nd Cook Street - Gerald Ford to Union Pacific RR • Monterey Avenue - Hwy 111 to Whitewater * Nuisance water inlet/drywell program COMMUNITY GARDENS 'Community Gardens at East side of San Pablo TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY FUNDING SOURCES Traffic Signal Fund 234 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RCTC Reimbursement Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 430 Park Fund 233 Park Fund 233 Park Fund 233 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#2 Fund 851 RDA PJ#2 Fund 851 CURRENT YR FY 99-00 FUNDING $ 500.000 1,500.000 4,163,940 3.036.060 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 / Loan from City Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 420 Drainage Fund 420 Construction Tax FD 231 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Drainage Fund 232 FD 233 Traffic Signals FD234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 3.700.000 300.000 757,900 225.000 450,000 975.000 500.000 S 150.000 150.000 150.000 S 250.000 5 725.000 400.000 500,000 2.000.000 800,000 6,800.000 250.000 550.000 120.000 440.000 557.200 100,000 100,000 25,000 659,650 1,500,000 7,200,000 3.300,000 325.000 1,860,000 95.100 487,800 175.000 200.000 300.000 300.000 PRIOR YR FUNDING S 30.469.750 S • • • 06,10 :31 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST SODA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES • 1 CURRENT YR FUNDING FY 99-00 PRIOR YR SOURCES FUNDING FUNDING RDA PJ#1 FD850 RDA PJ#1 FD851 RDA PJ#1 FD854 Housing Fund 870 12,713,940 6,336.060 659,650 2,185,000 S 21.894.650 S 30.469.750 S 00300;' Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 2 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: Hovley Lane West & Portola Avenue ' Casbah & Hovley Lane East STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: Major street sidewalks • Major street landscaping • Frank Sinatra Drive: Rancho Mirage City Limits to Cook Street. • Portola Avenue: Alessandro Drive to Fred Waring Drive San Pablo Avenue: COD Dwy. To Magesia Falls Drive • Fred Waring Drive: Highway 111 to Cook Street • Hovley Lane: Waterway to Oasis C.C. • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DRAINAGE • Nuisance water inletldrywell program * Area B - NW Comer of Country Club and Washington St. FUNDING SOURCES Construction Tax FD 231 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Construction Tax FD 231 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 FUNDING $ 150,000 150.000 $ 250,000 725,000 650.000 800.000 400,000 1.500.000 700,000 250.000 300.000 1,350.000 TOTAL PROJECTS $ 7.225.000 RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY $ 3,400.000 $ 800,000 150,000 975,000 300,000 RDA 250,000 1.350.000 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES $ 7,225.000 • • • 00u093 • • CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 3 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: * Gerald Ford Drive & Portola Avenue STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: ' Major street sidewalk • Major street landscaping • Gerald Ford Drive: Frank Sinatra Drive ' Frank Sinatra Drive: Cook Street to Gerald Ford Drive (widening, median, curb & gutter) • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DRAINAGE Nuisance water inlet/drywell program TOTAL PROJECTS CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING Construction Tax Fund 231 $ 150,000 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Construction Tax Fund 231 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Drainage Fund 420 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Tax FD 231 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 Year 2010 Fund 400 250,000 725.000 475,000 850,000 250.000 100,000 $ 2.800.000 $ 850,000 625,000 975,000 100.000 250.000 $ 2,800.000 003034_ CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 4 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT UST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Hovley Lane East & Oasis Club Drive STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalk program • Major street landscaping * Rortola Overcrossing at 1-10 Feasibility Study • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DRAINAGE TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA FUNDING SOURCES Construction Fund 231 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 FUNDING $ 150,000 250,000 725.000 100,000 250.000 $ 1,475,000 Measure A Fund 213 $ 100,000 Construction Tax FD 231 $ 150,000 - Year 2010 Fund 400 975,000 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 250.000 TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES $ 1,475.000 • 003095 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 5 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: Frank Sinatra Drive & Gerald Ford Drive STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: Major street sidewalk program * Major street landscaping NB Monterey Avenue Widening - Gerald Ford Drive to Dinah Shore Drive • Dinah Shore - Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue DRAINAGE TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY • TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES • FUNDING SOURCES Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 FUNDING $ 150,000 250,000 750,000 2,600,000 5,600.000 $ 9.350.000 $ 8.200.000 150,000 1,000,000 5 9.350.000 0UtJU9 RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSP ORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM- 99/00 Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Meas ure A Program Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (FY 99/00) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUN DS 1* Residential Street Improvements (Special Districts) Various Locations (Annual) $215,000 $130,415 2* Mesquite Ave. (Desert Way — Demuth Park) Street Widening — south 1/2 210,000 210,000 3* Gene Autry Tr. /Highway 111 Intersection Widen, add turn lanes (Hwy. 111 Corridor) 801,000 210,000 4* Farrell Drive and Tamarisk Road Traffic Signal (T- intersection) 102,000 102,000 5* Mid -Valley Parkway (Phase -2) Widen Gene Autry Tr ./ Ramon Rd. 550,000 275,000 6* Traffic Safety Project Various Locations (Per Accident Study) 25,000 25,000 7* Mid -Valley Parkway Median Landscaping ISTEA (TEA) Grant (Local 20% Match) 252,000 31,000 8* Heritage Trail Bikeway Project ISTE A (TE A) Grant (Local 20% Match) 480,000 I20,000 9* Missing Links Sidewalks & Bikeways (Phase 2) ISTEA (TEA) Grant (Local 20% Match) 320,000 80,000 10* SB-821 (98/99) Sidewalks (Various Locations) SB-821 Grant 98/99 (Local Match) 77,395 30,958 11* Palm Canyon Drive Reconstruction (Ramon- Alejo) RCTC STIP Grant (Local Match) 717,000 217,000 *Continued from Prior Year(1998/99) 1999/2000 SUBTOT ALS $ 3,249,395 $1,359,373 • • • ITEM NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TI•SPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM- 1999/2000 City of Palm Spri ngs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr .) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program • Page 2of2 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (FY 99/00) PROJECT TYPE 12* 13* 14* 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 * 98/99 Projects (see previous page) Farrell Dr. & E. Palm Canyon (98/99 Pr oject) West Valley Interchange Study (98/99 Project) Crack Filling (Co ntract Crews- 98/99 Project) SB-821 (99/00) Vista Chino Sidewalk/Bikeway Calle Encilia (Ramon- Arenas) Slurry Seals (Contract Crews)- 99/00 City Wide Crack Filling (Co ntract Crews)- 99/00 City Wide Bridge Repairs (Annual) -99/00 Araby Drive Floo d Control- Palm Canyo n Wash Gene Autry Tr. Sidewalk/Bikeway (Ramon-V.Chino) Indian Canyon Dr. Widen -4 Ln.(Garnet-RR Bridge) Belardo Bridge/Roadway (Ramon- S. End Belardo) N ew 99/00 Projects (No.15 thru No. 23 above) (Combined Total 98/99 Continued + New 99/00) Y:\Data\Doc\MeasA 1999-2000.T l * Continued to 99/00 Street Widening Multi -agency CVAG Study (local match) Grind, Clean and Fill R oadway Cracks SB-821 Grant 1999/00 (Local Match) Street Widening Slurry Seal Coats on Street Surfaces Grind, Clean and Fill Roadway Cracks Misc. Repairs- Vari ous Bridges Install Drain Pipes f or Nuisance Water RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (L ocal Match) RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) Federal PLH-D 99/00 Grant (L ocal Match) SUBTOTAL 1999/00 TOTALS TOTAL COST MEASURE ..A.. FUN DS $3,249,395 20,000 20,000 125,000 61,527 85,000 400,000 125,000 50,000 150,000 317,000 200,000 4,083,000 5,471,527 $1,359,373 20,000 20,000 125,000 18,458 85,000 400,000 125,000 50,000 150,000 36,360 23,000 250,000 1,137,818 1 $8,885,922 $2,662,191 RIVERSIDE COUNTY T RANSPORTATI ON C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM- 2000/2001 Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Tra nsportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re . 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (2000/01) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. A nnual Rubber Chip Seal Coat Rubber Chip (Contract Crews) 200,000 200,000 3. Residential Street Improvements Various Locati ons (Annual) 50,000 50,000 4. *Indian Canyon/I-10 Interchange (CVAG Estimate) *New Interchange (Increase to 4 Lanes) * 15,262,000 1,000,000 5. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Variouts Bridges 50,000 50,000 * Seek Federal Grant + Regional Measure A Funds YR. 2000/01 T OTALS $16,062,000 $1,800,000 Y:\Data\D oc\MeasA 1999-2000. Tb1 • • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TISP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASU RE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROG RAM- 2001/2002 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Tr ansportatio n & Grants Mgr .) JUNE, 1999 Re . 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr . Me asure A Program • Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PR OJECT NAME/LI MITS PR OJECT TYPE 2. 3. 4. 5. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Annual Rubber Chip Seal Coat Residential Street Improvements *Ramon Road Widening (Sunrise Way to El Cielo) Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) *Requires 50% CVAG Regional Measure A Funds Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) Rubber Chip (Contract Crews) Various Locations (Annual) *Widen fr om 4 lanes to 6 lanes Various Bridges 2001/02 TOTALS "T OTAL COST MEASURE .,A.. FUNDS 500,000 200,000 50,000 * 1,871,000 50 ,000 $2,671,000 500,000 200,000 50,000 935,500 50 ,000 $1,735,500 Y: \ Data \ Doc \MeasA 1999-2000. Tbl RI VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM- 2002/2003 C% C� 1--' C; Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Spri ngs Robert L. Mohler (Tra nsportatio n & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr. Measure A Program Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A " FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) 500,000 500,000 2. Residential Street Improvements Various Locations (Annual) 50,000 50,000 3. *Ramon Road Bridge Widening (Whitewater Wash) *Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (CVAG Est.) *11,302,000 2,825,500 4. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges 50.000 50,000 * *50/50 Split w/Cathedral City/ 50% Regional Mea.A 2002/03 TOTALS $11,902,000 $3,425,000 Y:\Data\Doc\MeasA 1999-2000.TbI • • • Agency: Prepared by: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TISPORTATI ON C OMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM- 2001/2002 City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Transportation & Grants Mgr.) JUNE, 1999 Re. 1999/2000- 2003/2004 5-Yr . Measure A Program • Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 2. 3. 4. 5. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Residential Street Improvements Major Tho roughfare *Gene Autry Trail & Interstate 10 (CVAG Estimate) Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) *Seek Federal Grant + CVAG Regional. Measure A $ Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) Various L ocations (Annual) ARHM Overlay *Interchange (widen from 2 to 6 lanes) Variou* Bridges 2003/04 TOTALS TOTAL COST MEASURE ..A.. FUNDS 500,000 50,000 350,000 * 12,228,000 50,000 $13,708,000 500,000 50,000 350,000 1,000,000 50,000 $2,480,000 Y:\Data\D ocklideasA 1999-2000.Tbl tJ CD C C .: C Co CITY OF RANCH O MIRAGE PROPOS ED CAPITAL IMP RO VEMEN TS — FY 1999-2000 Pr oposed NO. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT C OLT GENERAL FUID (111) UCENSE TAX (103) OAS TAX (224) MEA IWI R A LOCAL (230) ' REDE VELOPMENT AGENCY WhI swNN North.Id. (370) (372) RE GION AL MEASURE A BRID GE TAX (230) FIRE TAX (216) COMMENTS ti STREET IM PROVEMENTS AsiatiadMo aCountry Club M EMC S642AOD S2tDOM }442, Blood B.nh OWWESOLMOWESM -I Sort 8199 Completion:1MM (10130) 14 Ca, C Dd -Bob Hops to M orrringsld. Pawnee RehablOallm tom= S67O, C.P. 099.1 Stet: 11199 Cm p NNon: 12 (00131) a Fr.* slots Dvt - O.sign str.a Widenin g fro m Bob Ho p. to Monterey C_P. 0152 Stet: U00d.vNopm.rn 4m (!0131) s3o.aoD =coo ToW r .YrlbUf To W by f ut ure rCompktwn: t M. na. 4. Hawn 1I1 - HOW, Removal el 5300,000 S2100,_tm Paton Ro d/lTaa derbkd Terrece RA 099.29 Short: 7/W Con lsdon : 10139 (10134) 5. MdNAy 111 -Nor Water/Se. Improve ment, from Paxton 10 Bob Now R.A. W -30 Stwt: 7199 Canoletlon: 17.199 1101301 SfOCOO SE10 ,OD0 • • NO . PROJECT T OTAL PR OJECT COST GENERAL F UND (101) UCENS! TAX (107) OAS TAX (224) MEASURE A L OCAL Mg) REDEVELOPME NT A GENCY Whllswat.t NortMWe (3701 (2121 REGIONAL MEASURE A B. 7. )IloII wey 111 - Parldng Land sc aping and Sktewalke Reconfiguration from Mir age Cow to Cancer S urvi vors P ark R.A. 09931 Star 1099 Completion:1A0 (!0170) Ithriv w 111 -Street Lighti ng from Mirage Ca w to Wes t City Umis RA KG -32 Shut: MG Completio n: 10 93 (10177) $700,0:0 s 100.000 !100,000 E* v - I-10 Mon fsray Iraaehan ge Reimbursement to CVAG R.A. 09943 (s0es0) 0. 110 C .P. 199-132 Sta r 7/129 Co mpletion : 12199 (!0102) dironfired;a100111A NUM2War north side on ly from Braille In stitute east 13211 Slut: SO0 Cro npleflon : 6C0 (10141) Cfraide Annual Murry S.d and Overturf C .P. 099-I9O Start 403 Cartpletlon:8 (00010) 1290.003 1111000 1250.0 :0 sto:,003 $?'.0.0X 0 1193,033 SU B -TOTAL 82,888,000 1870.003 8280,000 8118,1700 8780.070 #542,00 0 Pw. . AS. Q €_ ~ A [-DC" L BRIDGE TAX (231) FIRE T AX (2101 CO MMENTS $50.000 4th of 10 p aym ents Devel oper Pre -Payed lice nse Tax 150,000 NO . PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND (101) LICENSE TAX (103) OAS TAX (224) MEASURE A LOCAL (230) REDEVEL OP MENT A GENCY Whltewdlsr North@Me (310) (372) REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE TAX (230) FIRE TAX (211) CO MMENTS 12. UT11TY PROJECT,, 53,000,000 x3.000,000 . CouitrY Club Drlvs - Co nstr uct zone 1 storm Dr ai n, North Side Master Drai nage Plan RA 099-33 Start 7199 Completion: 1400 (09142) 13. 121111h Shore D In - undetproundrg 115 KV Edison Pow er Lin. from OaVa0 Drive to Los Alamo s Delve C.P. 099-153 Start 1100 Completion: BM (an) 32 .003. 013 52,013,000 14. Meonelta Fah Co vMWM4t Sun $2,t1W.000 S1E100 .000 01,02,000 _ • Proposed sewer A D 2496 Pave ment Reptsc.men t for Sever Improvements A.D. 0'2.450 Start 4C0 Completion : 1203 (11111) SUB -TO TAL 37,1x 3033 31,0X3 13 $2,037,000 S1 QD,IXD L21,13COCCID 1S. pteUC BLDOS. i PARK% 5150,02 $150,070 a Wliwre ler Park Impro vements (PW gro und Equipment, Swings, Bathr oom ADA M odific ations) CP.069. 156 Wert e Completion: 1299 l0) 16. FYI Station MO Remodeling (Highway 111 Station) C. P. 099.156 Start 13196 Com pletion: 1298 1111441 5166. 02 - - 5166.000 NO . P ROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND (101) LICENSE TAX (103) OAS TAX (224) MEASURE A LOCAL' (230) ,' REDEVELOP MENT AGENCY WhRoaster Northsld s (370) (372) REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE TAX (230) FIRE TAX (216) COM MENTS CRy Council Chamber Constr uction C.P. X157 Start: 1/00 Completion: I0 (90146) • • 61,300,000 1 T. 21,300.000 CRy Hell Ra-Rod, ka1s6a1bn of an audible and vis ual Ora alarm system, automatic sliding entry doors an d bathroom ADA modifications . poise) sao,ox) $80,000 18. 19. C Ry Hall Trash Enclosure Start : 7599 Completion : 6599 (90147) 638000 630,000 Upper Perking Lot 20. Sunn y Lan e Park Constru ction C.P. 099-1513 Start 1/00 Compl0 ion:8W (90146) 25C00313 • 65Z.tIO SUB -TO TAL 62,248.000 6280,000 S1,330,032 6500,000 8108,033 21. OTHER PROJECTS 3332, 024 !332,024 t $292, 024 hem CVA G l' M10 Fa ds CMAO - TEA 21 M atch for PM10 pro tects such as seNlrq dk1 mode. (00132) 22. G olf Cart Transportation Plan Inviernan dlion C.P. 890-154 Start 7/99 Campletlon:I2A9 (00133] 6284,500 62D4,!O O riliTAC4 313.330,524 63,548,524 52.280, 002 6118.120 R � 63,0IO,0: 0 63,500,00 0 350200 6188.0013 *cf1-1 coo ��_ k W-1 12oo 0 CITY OF RA NC HO MIR AGE PROPOSE D C APIT AL I MPRO VE ME NTS - FY 2000-2001 NO. PR OJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GE NERAL FUND 11011 UCE NSE TAX 11031 G AS TAX 12241 MEASU MA LOCAL (2351 , REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whltewstar Northelde (3701 (372) REGIONAL ME ASURE A FIRE TAX 12161 BRIDGE T AX (230► COMMENTS 1. Highway 111 - Water & Sewer Improvements from Fairway to Bob Ho pe R.A. /9930 11.000.000 11 .000,000 2. hl Highway 111 - Median Island an d Parkway La ndsca ping Iro m Fairway to Indian Trail 1800,000 1800.000 ' 3. n Frank Sinatra Odra -Widening No rthside fro m Bo b Ho pe to Monterey Avenue C.P. /99-152 1600,000 1200,000 t f 160.00d 1250,000 CVAG Regional Pr oject 4. Citywide Annual Road Slurry an d Asphalt Commas Overle y Pro gram mm 11300.000 6150.000 . Ti0,000 5. Mon terey Avenue/I-10 In terchan ge CVAG Reimburs ement 150,000 150,000 5th of 10 Payments 8. Design Zone 3 Storm Drell System, Bob Hope and Country Club In tersectio n 1100,000 1100,000 7. H ighway 111 Bus Shelte rs 131 1120,000 185.000 35,000 CJ ` • • NO. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND (101) LICENSE TAX 11031 0A5 TAX 12241 6: Monterey Avenue - Pav ement Rehabilitation from Ho vely to South City Limits 1400,000 1100,000 1160,000 9. M onterey Ave rse - Utility Un de rgro undin0 from Hovley to Magnesia Falls Driv e 11,400,000 11,400,000 10. DaVIN Drive Stre et e xtension fro m Din ah Sho re to Ra mo n Road 1500,000 1250,000 C1\ :MOOCH 16116UDGETOO TOTALS 15,170,000 1166,000 61,685,000 1300,000 MIAOW! A LOCAL 1 antA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whltewater North,We 13701 13721 REGIONAL ME ASURE FIRE T AX 12151 BRI DGE TAX 12301 COMMENTS 1210,000 50/50 CVAO/DEV. r 1310,000 11.600,000 1100,000 1500,000 00 150,000 , CIT Y OF RANCHO MIRAGE PROPOSED CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENTS - FY 2001-02 NO . PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND (1011 LICE NSE TAX (1031 OAS TAX 1221) WARM' Ii A LOCAL • (23 81 * REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whfsweter Norths( . 13701 13721 REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE TAX 1230) PARKL AND 12181 COMMENTS 1. Highway 1(1 - Street Improv ements from In dian Train to Bob Hope 02. 000,000 02.000.000 2. Highway 111 - Me dian Islan d and Parkway Landscaping 0800. 000 1800,000 • 3. t✓ Cli Country Club Driv e Pavemsn i Rehabilitstio n Fro m Bob Hope to Vista Dunes 0400, 000 1100, 000 1100,000 $2,000 4. Mon terey Av enu e/I-10 In terchan ge Reimbu rsement 160,000 160,000 filth o1 10 payments B. Bu s Shelters Citywide (31 1160.000 0160.000 8. Recon stru ct Plumley Road with Cathedral City, Gerald Ford to Dinah Store 1300,000 1100,000 /300,000 7. Citywide Slu rry Seal and A. C. Overlay Program 0350.000 050.000 0200.000 JIOOA00 i • NO. B. 9. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENER AL FUN D (1011 LICENSE TAX (103) OAS TAX 12241 MAIM A LOCAL 12381 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Wh)ewster Northalde (3701 13721 REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE TAX 1230) P ARKLANO (2181 C OMMENTS 10. 11. ro Gas Whiteweter Perk Parking Lot Pavement Reha bilitation DaVai Drive - Street end M edia{ Island Improvements fro m Frank Sin atra to Garold Ford Ramon Road - Street Improvements DsVa6 to Los Alamos 1100,0 00 11,000.000 1800,000 1200,000 1000,000 1100 ,000 Co nstruct Zon e 3 Storm Drain on Bob Ho pe an d Cou nt ry Clu b 11.600,000 1600,000 1260,000 1760,000 1600, 000 f or Property acq uisitio n 13,600.000 13,600,000 TO TALS MOO<,ob OWN., 1.11 O rJ 110.)6u.uun $I.T.00.000 1450,000 1300,000 1600,000 12,800 ,000 13.500,000 11,660,000 160,000 1100,000 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FY 2002-2003 NO. PROJECT TOTAL PROJECT COST GENERAL FUND 1101) UCENSE TAX (103) OAS TAX (221) MEASUI M A 1 LOCAL 12311) 4 RE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Whttewetet Northdde (370) 1372) REGIONAL MEASURE A BRIDGE T AX (2301 COMMENTS 1. Monterey Avenusfl-10 In terchan ge Reimbursement to CVA O 150.000 150.000 7th Payment o1 10 2. Gerald Ford - Landsc ape Median Islan ds fro Bob Ho pe to Mon terey 1750,000 1750,000 3. 1'4 Citywide Skrry a nd A.C. Ov erlay Pro gram 1350.000 1200.000 .01 /0,000 4. Sob Hope - Landscape Median Islands fro m Frank Sina tra to Dinah Shore 1960.000 1660,000 1300,000 TOTA LS _ 12,100.000 11,400,000 1300,000 1200,000 .1 setae ` _ 150,000 I • NO. .2 CIT Y OF RANCHO MIRAGE PROPOSED CAPITAL I MPROVEME NTS - FY 2003-2004 PROJECT Mon terey Avenue/I.10 Intercha nge Reimbu rseme nt to CVAG Citywide Slurry and A. C. Overlay Pro gram Curbs end Gu tters and Stre et Improv ements it Section 30 TOTAL PR OJECT COST 150,000 1380,000 15.000.000 GENERAL RIND 1101) 14,400,000 UCENSE TAX 11031 1300,000 OAS TAX 1224) 1200.000 MtASURi A LOCAL 1230 '1 1150,000 1300:000 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WMtewater N o.the{M 13701 1372) REGIONAL ME ASURE A BRIDGE TAX 12301 150,000 COMMENTS Bth Payment of 10 TOTALS 16.400, 000 14, 400,000 1300,000 1200,000 1456,000 150,000 cp CJ • • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to Audit Scope Discussions are under way between the Commission Chair, staff and the auditors to streamline the scope of the audits. The purpose is to achieve cost efficiencies. The outcome of that meeting will be reported verbally to the Budget and Implementation Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update State Legislative Update As Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) Sacramento advocate D.J. Smith's monthly report (attached) states, the deadline for bills to be passed out of their "House of Origin" was June 4th. Thus, the Senate and Assembly each acted to quickly pass nearly 500 bills to the Assembly and Senate respectively. Those bills not passed out of the house of origin cannot be considered for a vote until the beginning the 2000 Legislative Session. Budget negotiations are underway. Governor Davis expects on -time passage of the State Budget (June 15) and, therefore, most legislators are focusing their attention on their budget priorities. AB 1012 (Torlakson), the project delivery bill which contains the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) generated State Highway Account loan concept was passed 73 - 7 to the Senate and has not been assigned to committee. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions: AB 102 (Scott Wildman, D - Los Angeles and Robert Hertzberg, D - Los Angeles) Would fund certain soundwall retrofit projects and Caltrain activities "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account. Staff recommends: Change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose". The staff analysis is attached. SB 928 (John Burton, D - San Francisco) Would authorize Federal Grant Anticipation Bonds. Staff recommends: "Support". The staff analysis is attached. Federal Legislative Update The Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee approved the mark-up for transportation appropriations. With the exception of the Community Transportation Environmental Acceptability Process (CETAP), none of the highway appropriations requests by RCTC or SANBAG (or the nation) were earmarked. All of the transit project requests submitted by SANBAG were earmarked. RCTC did not submit any transit requests other than to support the Southern California Regional Rail Authority requests. A twist in the legislation passed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee was language placing a cap of 12.5% on the total share of transit funds that could be received by a state during any fiscal year. This cap only affects California and New York. For California, the cap will result in a total of $118 million and for Riverside and San Bernardino County combined, a total of $4.2 million will be lost if the cap remains intact. Staff communicated the negative impact of this cap to Senator Feinstein's office before the bill came to the Senate Appropriations Committee. When the bill came before the full Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Feinstein voted in opposition to the bill stating the cap as her reason for voting "no." Senator Feinstein was the only "no" vote on the bill - no New York members are on the Appropriations Committee. It is expected that any of the House Transportation Appropriations bill will not contain the cap passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Therefore, this issue will likely be resolved through the budget conference committee. Conclusion The State Legislature is working on passing the State budget and has decided which bills merit consideration by either the Senate or Assembly, depending on the house of origin. The Senate Appropriations legislation contains a transit allocation cap nationwide which hurts California. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the following bill positions: AB 102 - change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose"; SB 928 - "Support". Receive and File the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. • • l 003115 Date of Analysis: June 8, 1999 • • • Bill Number/Author: SB 928 (John Burton, D- San Francisco) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended June 1, 1999 Subject: Federal Grant Anticipation Notes Status: Passed Senate 32 — 3 on June 3rd 1999. To Assembly. No committee assignment yet. Summary: SB 928: 1. Authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in cooperation with the department and regional transportation agencies, to select and designate certain transportation projects approved in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for accelerated funding from the proceeds of federal highway grant anticipation notes, or GARVEE bonds; 2. Requires that on or before April First of each year, the commission, in conjunction with the Treasurer's Office, prepare an annual analysis of the banking capacity of federal transportation funds deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund. 3. The commission, in cooperation with the department and regional transportation planning agencies, shall establish guidelines for eligibility for funding allocations under this bill. The guidelines shall be nondiscriminatory and shall be designed to allow as many counties as possible to establish eligibility for funding allocations under this chapter, regardless of the population or geographic location of the county. 4. Provides that the aggregate amount of federal transportation funds committed by the commission to the repayment of notes issued under this chapter may not be more than 30 percent of the amount of federal transportation funds estimated to be deposited in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2000. 5. Counts all cost overruns and financial costs against a county's share of STIP funds in the year in which federal revenue used for project financing would have been available; 6. Requires the CTC to dedicate and pledge future receipts of federal transportation funds received by the state as collateral for the payment of interest, principal, and premium on the notes, so long as any GARVEE bond notes remain outstanding; 7. Specifies procedures for the issuance of the GARVEE bonds by the Treasurer, in cooperation with the CTC, and establish numerous technical requirements and guidelines for the issuance, security and redemption of the notes. It would authorize the employment of outside financial consultants, underwriters, accountants, etc., to facilitate those activities; 8. Prohibits the use of any state gas tax funds for the purposes of the proposed authority; and o:\ab 102-dws.doc 0 311 9. Requires an annual report to the Governor and Legislature detailing the total amount of outstanding debt issued and the projects funded by that outstanding debt. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 authorized federal -aid eligibility for bond related costs of financing transportation projects. In 1998. the federal Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA21) made "Garvee" bonds marketable by make bond related costs eligible for federal reimbursements on Federal -aid eligible highway projects. GARVEE bonds are tax-exempt bonds, which can be issued by a state and are backed by a state's future federal transportation appropriations. They were conceived as a tool for accelerating transportation projects and realizing cost savings by completing projects at present-day costs. Currently, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Mexico and New Jersey have availed themselves of this opportunity — each receiving an "AA" rating on the bonds sold. Along with SCA 3, Senator Burton has introduced SB 928 to provide opportunities for agencies such as Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to advance the construction date of highway projects. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT o:\ab102-dws.doc 063117 • • Date of Analysis: June 8, 1999 • • • Bill Number/Author: AB 102 (Scott Wildman, D -Los Angeles and Robert Hertzberg, D — Los Angeles) Introduced December 21, 1998 Amended May 28, 1999 Subject: Funding For Soundwall Retrofit Projects Status: Summary: Passed Assembly 43 — 31 on June 3rd 1999. To Senate. No committee assignment yet. In 1989, the Legislature put together the Transportation Blueprint for the 21St Century, which was funded by a nine cents per gallon tax increase authorized by the passage of Proposition 111. The Blueprint authorized $150 million for constructing a list of 219 soundwalls. Due to cost escalation resulting from delays in project delivery, an estimated $200 million of work remains for the 1989 priority list; $134 million of it in Los Angeles County. None of the remaining soundwalls on the 1989 list are in Riverside or San Bernardino County. AB 102 proposes to fund the remaining soundwall project "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account (SHA). In other words, should AB 102 pass in its current form, funding the remaining soundwall projects must occur prior to programming SHA funds for any other program/project. On May 28, 1999. AB 102 was amended to provide "off -the -top" SHA funding for eight percent of the total costs for Caltrain rehabilitation activities, and 2% of the total costs of specified electrification activities on the Caltrain system. The Caltrain is a commuter train extending from San Francisco to San Jose. Impacts on Riverside and San Bernardino County: Background Last year, AB 1686 (Wildman) attempted to resolve this issue. Both RCTC and SANBAG agreed to a compromise that proposed funding with the projects 50% off -the -top and a 50% contribution from the regional choice funds. However, late in the Legislatative Session, the approach of AB 1686 was reconfigured to split the funding for the soundwalls with a 50% contribution from the regional shares of those counties with projects and 50% from the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (subject to the North/South split). Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments successfully advocated for the Governor's veto of AB 1686. The veto request was based upon the policy that, much like the agreement o:\ab102-dws.doc UU113 for funding the seismic retrofit of the State's bridges, the seismic retrofit of soundwalls on the State's highways should be a responsibility shared equally by all parts of the State that includes a local contribution. In it's current form, AB 102 represents a cost to both Riverside and San Bernardino County totaling nearly $10 million. These figures only relate to the costs associated with funding soundwall projects; unclear presently are the costs associate with the Caltrain amendments recently put into the bill. Clearly, they will increase the negative impact upon both Riverside and San Bernardino County. To no avail, staff has attempted to work with the sponsor (LACMTA) of AB 102 to amend AB 102 in a manner that is less costly to both Riverside and San Bernardino. Both the author and Assembly Speaker Villaraigosa have stated their intention to pass AB 102 in its current form. In fact, with the Caltrain amendment, the bill has increased the costs to be beared by both Riverside and San Bernardino County Given the significant difference in costs to both Riverside and San Bernardino County, and the stated intent not to amend AB 102 as it relates to the "formula' for funding soundwall projects, the additional costs associated with the Caltrain amendments and the violation of the principles of SB 45 (Kopp, Statutes 1997) staff recommends RCTC and SANBAG change the current position of "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose". Staff Recommendation: CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE • • • o:\ab102-dws.doc 1.03113 • • • CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT REIATIONS, INC. TO: Dave Shepherd - Paul Blackwelder FROM: Cliff Madison 046452 254-A Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-9395 Facsimile (202) 543-4297 DATE: June 2, 1999 SUBJECT: May 1999 Federal Affairs Report During May, both the House and the Senate began the process of appropriating funds for transportation programs for FY 2000, which begins on October 1, 1999. That process will continue in June, with a House -Senate Conference to resolve the differences in the two bills probably in July. On Wednesday, May 5, I met with Congressman Ron Packard (a Member of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee), and his staff to discuss the FY 2000 transportation appropriations proposals from the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Later, I accompanied members of the Riverside Monday Morning Group to a meeting with Congressman Jim Oberstar, the senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Still later, I met with Congressman Ken Calvert to discuss our FY 2000 transportation appropriations requests. On Monday, Transportation transportation RCTC. Later, Transportation subjects. May 17, I met with John Blazey, staff of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss the FY 2000 appropriations bill, and the requests made by the I met with Peter Rogoff, staff of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss the same On Wednesday, May 19, I met with Congressman Martin Sabo, the senior Democrat on the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss the FY 2000 transportation appropriations bill, and the RCTC requests. On Friday, May 21, I met with Congressman Nick Rahall, the senior Democrat on the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee, to discuss TEA -21, and any suggested changes to that law in which we may have an interest. On Tuesday, May 25, the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee met to consider legislation which would fund transportation programs for FY 2000. Among the highlights in the Senate bill are the following: 0'2)J1 it J U N - -'- - w c 1J J. :_. o v. ` L r r- . . . -2- -- California will receive $2.3 billion in Federal -aid highway funds for FY 2000. -- The Administration had proposed using the unanticipated increase in highway revenues for discretionary purposes. The Senate bill rejected this proposal "in favor of an approach that passes the automatically increased funding generated by the greater than anticipated gas tax receipts and estimates of gas tax receipts directly othe share unders consistent wait eacresult, state's individual guaranteed TEA -21." California's highway allocation will receive $131.7 million more than anticipated under TEA -21. -- $14 million has been allocated to AMTRAK to up -grade Union Pacific track "that will allow implementation of passenger service" between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. "This service may be initiated as early as mid -2000, and will have a travel time of five hours thirty minutes to cover the 270 mile distance between the two cities." -- The Committee bill would prevent any state from receiving more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate formula and capital investment transit grants program's funds. California received 13.64 per cent of the transit formula program in FY 99. Thus, if this proposal were enacted into law, California would lose millions of dollars in FY 2000. The California and New York Senators (the only two states effected by the provision) are threatening to hold-up the bill, unless their concerns are considered. - The Committee Report notes that funding provided in the FY 97 Transportation Appropriations Act for Riverside County in transit capital investment funds totaling $992,500. will lapse "if the grant recipients do not obligate the remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 1999." -- The Committee did not "earmark" funds for the Transportation and System and Community Preservation Program, the "New starts" rail program, nor the discretionary bus program. The Committee staff advised me that the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants program - which is designed to help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced transportation services for low-income individuals, including former welfare recipients, 0r 1L • • • • • • -3- traveling to jobs or training centers - was funded at $75 million in FY 99, and that the Federal Transit Administration only ,received requests totaling $108 million. In other words, this is not a very competitive program, and may offer an excellent opportunity to apply for a grant, and receive that grant. It is a 50-50 matching share, but other Federal funds may be used to cover the local share. On Thursday, Nay 27, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill proposed by the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. That bill could be ready for consideration of the full Senate in June. Also on Thursday, May 27, the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee considered legislation which would fund transportation programs for FY 2000. In the House transportation appropriations bill, the following is note worthy: The "community and environmental transportation acceptability program of Southern California" received $1 million from the Transportation and System and Community Preservation Program for FY 2000. The House Appropriations Committee is expected to consider the Transportation Subcommittee recommendation on Tuesday, June 8. 730 P02/03 JUN 09 '99 14:43 Smith & Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: June 9, 1999 Subject: Legislative Report and Update Transportation Finance Proposals Senator Burton's transportation package continues to move forward --- . Senate Bill 315 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee in the next few weeks. Senator Burton continues his commitment to send it to a conference committee. Further, there are preliminary discussions going on about the dollar figure associated with the bonds being closer to S8 billion, rather than $16 billion. Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 passed out of the Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee today on a 4 to 1 vote. SCA 3 now heads for the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Burton's Working Group continues ,16 meet on transportation infrastructure issues. The next meeting will be June 10 where the Group will continue its work on the pressing issues of the day — SCA 3 and the need for a comprehensive, state funding package. ▪ Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (Peace and McPherson), the California Business Roundtable proposal, passed out of the Senate and now heads for the Assembly. The second part of the California Business Roundtable's proposal, Assembly Bill 1473 (Hertzberg), passed out of the Assembly and will next be heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. • Assembly Bill 276 by Assemblyman John Longville, appropriates a one-time amount of $60 million to public transit. AB 276 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee but Assemblyman Longville is working with the Budget Conference Committee to find the necessary funding for the Public Transit Account. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 • Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone (916) 446-5508 . FAX (916) 446-1499 0vv • • 4 730 P03/03 JUN 09 '99 14:43 1 • 1 AB 283 (Longville) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill Assembly Bill 283 introduced by Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow Caltrans to use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up the process and help with project delivery. We will be trying to amend the bill to include an urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor Davis. AB 283 passed out of the Assembly on consent and is set for hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee on June 15. AB 1012 -- Project Delivery Streamlining Bill Assembly Bill 1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), passed out of the Assembly on a bi-partisan vote and will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee in the coming weeks. We continue to assist Assemblyman Torlakson and his staff in negotiating language in the bill with the Department of Transportation. Governor Davis' Commission on the 2151 Century The Governor's Commission has set up special subcommittees — Technology Issues, Facilities Issues, Transportation Issues and Resources Issues — to deal with all those issues facing California in the corning years. The Transportation Issues Subcommittee met on June 1 and focused on the issue of local sales taxes for transportation and their benefit to the state's transportation system. This group will be helpful in shaping the opinions of key policymakers on the issues contained in SCA 3. 2 003124 N a 0 N N CO N 0 1- E 0 1 N JUN -18-1999 Legislation/Author Description Bill__ _ Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State I lighway Account. ' Passed the Assembly Floor 43- 31 on 6/3/99, Referred to Senate Transportation Committee . No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 -SEEK AMENDMENT RCTC 3/10/99 -SEEK AMENDMENT AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a porti on of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Passed the Assembly Floor on Reve nue, Tax and Transportati on 14-2 on 5/10/99. Referred to Assembly Appr opriations C ommittee, suspense file . No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATI ON S ANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longville) ___.-Committees. . Wo uld allow a resolution of necessity to be approv ed by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the Californ ia Transpo rtation Co mmission. Passed the Assembly Floor 76- 0 on 4/20/99. Referred to Senate Transportation and Judiciary _ Ilearing date set for 6/15/99. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS P ART OF TIIE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM _ SANBAG 1/6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review an d analysis of the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a rev iew of the account's needs Passed the Assembly Flo or 48- 31 on 6/2/99. Referred to Senate Tran sportation Committee. No hearing date yet. NO REC OMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 •MAT.DWS.WIID • • N M a �v N N 0 N 0 N CC as z Ul 0 IL N JUN -18-1999 Legislation/Author Description AB 521( McClintock) All 872 (Alquist) AB 923 (H ertzberg) Wo uld redirect that p ortion of sales and gas t axes currently going to the Ge neral Fund to the State Ilighway Acco unt. Would allow reimbursement of local f unds us ed to advance S71P programmed projects. Wo uld in crease the fines for Rail Right of Way violatio ns. Aik Ri1I liptatus Set for hearing on 4/19/99 in the Assembly Tr ansportation Committee. 'tearing canceled at the request of author. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 6/1/99 . No committee assignment yet. Passed the Assembly Floor 63- 13 on 5/26/99, No committee assignment yet . i P osition NO RECOMMENDATION SUPPORT SUPPORT Date of B oard Ajon SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 M:1LEGMAT.DWS.WPD 97877920 JUN -18-1999 ,-- Legislation/Author--- --- --- °- — Descripti on—.. ._. • 13i11 Status Position Date of Board Adopti on AB 1012 (Torlaks on) A comprehensive transportati on reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating environment; includes the RCTC/SANBAG generated "loan" concept. Passed Assembly Fl oor 73-7 on 6/2/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No heari ng date yet . SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425(Runner) Provides Stat utory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA2l Funds Flow Directly to Regi ons.. Passed the Assembly Floor 73- 7 on 5/27/99. No committee assignment yet. SUPPORT SANIBAC 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11199 AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portio n of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 50- 25 on 6/2/99 . Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Mo yer M emorial Air Stan dards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 5/26/99. No committee assignment yet. SEEK AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 h1 AT.DWS. WPD • i JUN -18-1999 slation/Author I Description 1 �gilltatus AB 1612 (Florez) Would Allocate $300 Million of State Highway Account D ollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads . Passed the Assembly Floor 60 - 20 on 6/2/99 . Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee - No Ilearing Date Yet. SB 14 (Rain ey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of f ut ure HOV lanes. Passed the Se nate Transp ortation C ommittee 33-1 on 6/1/99. In Assembly, held at desk. No hearing date yet. SB 17 (Figuero a) Would permit employersto receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Ilearing in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 4/27/99, postponed . SB 63 (So lis) Would reduce the minimum o ccupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 5/10/99 . Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 14-2 on 6/8/99. No committee assignment yet. Positi on Date of Board A n OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED OPP OSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 ' t 1LEGAIAT. DWS.IA'PD Legislation/Author Descripti on Dill Status Position Date of Board Ad option TO 97877920 14:48 FROM SANBAG JUN -18-1999 SB 65 (Murray) SB 98 (A larcon) SB 117 (Murray) SB 481(Baca) SD 928 (Burton) SB 1043 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transp ortation pr ojects Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Authorizes Federal Grant Revenue Anticipation No tes-(Garvee Bonds) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature fo r Approval. VV[.DWS.WPO 1 Tearing set on Senate Appropriations Committee for 5/27/99. I !caring postponed by committee . Pass ed the Assembly Floor 56- 21 on 6/1/99. The governor signed. Passed the Senate Floor 24-12 on 6/1/99. No committee assignment yet . Passed Senate Transportation Committee 30-4 on 5/24/99. No committee assignment yet. Passed Senate Fl oor 32-3 on 6/2/99. No co mmittee assignment yet. Passed Senate Floor on 28-9 on 5/27/99. No committee assignment yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT WIT!! AMENDMENTS NO POSITION SUPPORT SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 SANBAG R CI'C SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 • • Legislation/Aulhor Description Position Date of Board Am r m a ry m N 0 m 0 1-- 0 E 0 LL JUN -18-1999 1 dill liptatus SB 1277 (Hayden) Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands U nder the J urisdicti on of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife C ommittee 5-3 5/13/99 . Set for 1 learing in the Senate Appropriati ons Committee 6/8/99. OPPOSE M!.LFGMATDIVS. \VPD • • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for RCTC/SANBAG Shared State and Federal Advocates Both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC, December 1998) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG, March 1999) approved extending until October 31, 1999 their existing contracts with their respective Federal advocates (Cliff Madison, Inc. for RCTC and David Turch and Associates for SANBAG). The contracts for each agency's State advocate (Smith and Kempton represent both RCTC and SANBAG) were also extended until September 30, 1999. Part of the approval for these extensions included direction to staff to review the value of engaging one firm to represent both RCTC and SANBAG in Sacramento and the same for advocacy services in Washington, D.C. This concept dovetails the creation of the RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, which to date, has proven to be a positive action for agencies. One of the challenges associated with the shared position is the management of the State and Federal advocate contracts. While both RCTC and SANBAG are represented in Sacramento by the same firm (Smith and Kempton), that is not the case for the advocates in Washington, D.C. While each agency is represented at a highly competent level, this difference requires the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs to spend a substantially greater amount of time communicating with each agency's respective advocate than normally would be the case. The result is a loss in efficiency and some minor costs could be avoided if the agencies had the same advocate in Washington, D.C. While having two advocates in Washington, D.C. does present certain challenges, they are not without benefits. Each firm has its own special relationships and contacts that are useful to both agencies. Thus, the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs is able to benefit from this information much in the same manner mentioned above relative to extensive contacts in each county. U" L To realize the benefits associated with the share Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, staff is recommending the immediate release of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for shared State advocacy services and shared Federal advocacy services. Attached for review is a scope of work that will accompany each RFP. Currently, RCTC and SANBAG together spend a total of $104,000 for State advocacy services and $85,000 for Federal advocacy services. Through these shared contacts, some savings in travel expenses play be realized. Should both the RCTC and SANBAG boards approve this approach, staff is suggesting the following procedure: staff will put together a review committee composed of government affairs staff from Southern California transportation agencies. The staff review committee would forward a short-list (2-3) firms to a joint RCTC/SANBAG committee composed of three members of each board (appointed by the RCTC Chairman and SANBAG President respectively) for interview and ultimate selection. This item is budgeted in the SANBAG Fiscal Year 1999/2000. As currently is the case, RCTC will be invoiced for half the costs associated with these contracts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the immediate release of two Requests for Proposal (RFP): one for Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments shared State advocacy services and another for Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments shared Federal advocacy services. CUB 132 • • • • • • Scope of Services Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments State Advocacy Services Overall Goal Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation Commission /San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) State Legislative Program. Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside County and San Bernardino County State Legislative delegation and members of the gubernatorial administration. Required Tasks/Activities Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following: Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related Assembly or Senate Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC and legislative positions adopted in response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and oral communication. Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG. Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff. Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions contemplated at any government level. Assist with the development, attendance and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon for delegation member staff to be held in both Sacramento and/or Riverside and San Bernardino County. Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG, including but not limited to: testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general activities or action of State government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests. Provide oral reports to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which offer insight into the activities of the Legislature as they relate to the RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program. The dates of these visits will be determined at a later date, based upon the Legislative Session Calendar. 06JJ133 Scope of Services Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments Federal Advocacy Services Overall Goal Successfully achieve the intended results of the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) Federal Legislative Program. Continue to establish and maintain positive working relationships with the Riverside and San Bernardino County Federal and Legislative delegation. Required Tasks/Activities Tasks will include, but not be limited to the following: Routinely communicate with delegation members, and members of related House or Senate Committees on legislation sponsored by RCTC/SANBAG and legislative positions adopted in response to specific legislative or budget proposals. This will occur through both written and oral communication. Provide information, copies of introduced legislation, relevant testimony and any analysis of legislation relative to RCTC/SANBAG. Coordination of advocacy efforts which may include testimony by the selected firm's representatives, and/or RCTC/SANBAG Board member and/or staff. Advise and assist RCTC/SANBAG in developing strategy on legislation, regulations and actions contemplated at any government level. Assist with the development, attendance, and programming of a Legislative Staff Tour/Luncheon for delegation member staff to be held in Riverside County and/or San Bernardino County. Provide a written monthly update to the RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors which summarizes the firm's most recent efforts on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG,'including but not limited to: testimony before committee, individual meetings with Legislators, and written correspondence on behalf of RCTC/SANBAG. This report shall also contain any relevant information regarding the Legislature's activities/progress on moving legislation, adopting a budget, and general activities or action of Federal government that could impact RCTC/SANBAG's interests. • d u jj�J f • • • AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement with Gladstein & Associates in Support of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor Project Adopted as part of the Commission's FY99/00 budget under the Regional Issues Department is a goal which focuses on the facilitation of public and private investment in clean air technology to support the broader air quality programs within the county and region. One of the objectives under the goal states: "Influence implementation of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor plan to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of dean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County and the greater region through financial support and staff participation." The Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) was initiated by Gladstein & Associates in January 1996 to develop alternative fuel infrastructure and facilitate the deployment of alternative fuel trucks to move freight between non -attainment areas and Clean Cities in the Western United States along 1-80, I-5/SR99 and the 1-15. The FY99/00 ICTC efforts are budgeted at $283,000 and include funding from a broad base of stakeholders including the California Energy Commission, California Air Resources Board, Department of Energy, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and South Coast Air Quality Management District among others. The Commission became a stakeholder in FY97/98 with a contribution of $25,000 for work efforts focused within Riverside County along the 1-10, 1-15, 1-215, SR60 and SR86 corridors. In FY98/99, RCTC maintained its role as a stakeholder in the ICTC partnership at the original level of funding. Among the consultant's accomplishments in the fiscal year just completed are: • preparation of MSRC and Moyer grant applications on behalf of Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., Stater Bros., and City of Riverside totaling over $5 million to provide incremental funding for CNG/LCNG heavy duty equipment and fueling infrastructure • identification of and outreach to a variety of public and private entities to develop interest in adoption of clean fuel technology 0 ;613 • oversight of Ralphs Grocery Company MSRC grant application (42 vehicles) originally prepared by ICTC to maintain Ralphs commitment to the Riverside Distribution Center location during the Ralphs/Kroger merger process • development and implementation of a Clean Cities/alternative fuels all day workshop in Riverside attended by over 300 people • provision of technical assistance to RCTC and its staff ■ production and distribution of various informational materials Based on performance to date, staff is recommending that the Commission allocate $25,000 in Transportation Development Act funds for a consultant agreement with Gladstein pursuant to the attached ICTC Phase III scope of work. Funding for ICTC support was included in the adopted RCTC FY99/00 budget. Staff will continue to play an active role in the ICTC to: 1) oversee consultant work at the local level, and 2) provide input and guidance to the overall ICTC work effort through its Steering Committee. Financial Assessment Project Cost $25,000 Source of Funds Transportation Development Act (TDA) Included in Fiscal Year Budget Yes 1999/00 Year STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to 1) enter into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates to implement the attached FY99/00 ICTC scope of work; and 2) approve the allocation of $25,000 from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the work effort. • • J • • Overview: The Commission's adopted FY99/00 budget includes an air quality goal to facilitate public and private investments in clean air technology. In support of the goal, one objective committed financial support and staff participation in the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) project to facilitate the location of clean fuel infrastructure and deployment of clean fuel equipment along designated corridors in Riverside County. Pursuant to the objective and accomplishments to date, staff recommends the allocation of $25,000 to Gladstein & Associates to implement specific work tasks. f • • t INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR REQUEST Gladstein & Associates (G&A), acting as Project Director of the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC), seeks to raise $283,183.00 to implement Phase III of the ICTC Project. G&A is requesting $25,000.00 from the Riverside County Transportation Commission to partially fund this phase of the project. While G&A and the ICTC have enjoyed notable success to date, more must be done to expand the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicles in the near -term. The ICTC Team has targeted a number of specific implementation projects as well as organizing the second Fleet Operators Workshop (held at Riverside's historic Mission Inn) and general outreach activities which will correspond with the multiple criteria for market development as defined by the ICTC Comprehensive Strategic Program Plan. The requested funding will be used to assist the ICTC staff as they pursue the following Market Development Scope of Work for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. OVERVIEW Since its inception in January 1996, the Interstate Clean Transportation Corridor (ICTC) Project has been the nation's most successful public -private partnership dedicated to accelerating the market penetration of clean, alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in interstate goods movement. The ICTC seeks to foster AFV deployment and alternative fuel infrastructure development that will link Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Reno and Salt Lake City along I-80, I-5, CA -99, I-10 and I-15. At present, ICTC staff helped to secure over $6.3 million in funding to: • build nine natural gas fueling stations in California and Nevada (Buena Park, Coalinga, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Reno, Riverside, Santa Fe Springs, Tulare); and, • deploy 119 heavy-duty and 160 light duty natural gas vehicles (NGVs) to use these stations. The first two ICTC supported natural gas fueling stations should be in operation by July 1999, with 42 natural gas tractors utilizing this infrastructure. Almost $3 million in additional funding proposals have either been submitted or are in development that will result in the deployment of 70 more natural gas trucks and development of two more natural gas fueling stations in the region. ICTC project is moving closer to its goal of fostering the establishment of 20 natural gas fueling stations and deployment of 375 heavy-duty NGVs to utilize this infrastructure that will help to: • Reduce emissions of NOx and PM by over 300 tons annually over the 1998 HDV emissions standards for NOx and PM. • Displace nearly 4 million gallons of diesel per year. • Result in total public/private economic activity of over $17 million. 06/21 /99 1 003138 SCOPE OF WORK Tasks 1 - 7, ICTC Market Development: The goal of the ICTC is to identify and implement medium- and heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle projects that will help to establish the infrastructure to serve truck fleet operators. In order to accomplish these goals, G&A will pursue the following general tasks: (a) Work to secure commitments from truck fleet operators to purchase and deploy medium - and heavy-duty AFVs; (b) Assist fleet operators to develop AFV specifications, and identify and select engine and chassis vendors; (c) Work to identify existing fueling sites for fleets to use or develop new public -access stations to support fleets; (d) Identify funding to deploy vehicles and develop infrastructure and help stakeholders acquire those resources; (e) Help to secure, evaluate and make recommendations on bids to develop AFV fueling stations and provide fuel; (f) Assist with permitting process to develop AFV fueling stations; (g) Work with engine and chassis makers to ensure that alternative fuel trucks meet fleet operator's needs; (h) Work with engine and fuel providers to ensure that fleet personnel are adequately trained; (i) Assist fleet operators to highlight deployment projects through press and media outlets; (j) Work to increase the base -load and maximize economic viability of existing AFV stations; and (k) Provide other technical or policy assistance as needed. Task 1 - Fleet Operator/Stakeholder Outreach: Through existing outreach, G&A has been able to build the number of fleets which are aware of and interested in deploying alternative fuel tractors in the ICTC Project area to well over 300. We propose to continue this activity, expanding the universe of companies that are knowledgeable about clean, alternative fuel tractors, and recruiting them to participate in deployment projects. In Riverside, the ICTC will continue outreach to the County's fleet operators that have been identified in previous outreach efforts including the 1998 2nd Annual Fleet Operators Workshop at the Mission Inn. In addition, we will focus on increasing awareness of low emission alternatives to diesel powered heavy duty trucks among the companies that have located or are locating their distribution and warehousing facilities in the western part of the County. Task 2 - New Project Development and Implementation - Clean Cities: ICTC Project staff have identified several potential projects in U.S. DOE designated Clean Cities which are still at the developmental/planning stages. ICTC staff will continue working with stakeholders pursuing these projects to ensure that they come to fruition. In addition, we will continue investigating and pursuing as yet unidentified deployment and infrastructure projects that we expect to emerge over the course of the ICTC. • • • 06/21/99 2 003139 • • • Those Riverside -based fleet operators that have expressed interest in engaging in deployment projects of alternative fuel trucks will be targeted by ICTC staff for special assistance. We will work with these fleets, helping them evaluate engine and chassis options which best suit their needs. We will also work with them to identify and apply for local, state and federal sources of funding to pay for vehicle incremental costs and refueling infrastructure. We will continue to provide technical and financial support to these fleet operators throughout the project development and implementation process. Task 3 - New Project Development and Implementation - Other: ICTC staff have identified projects still at the developmental/planning stages in areas which have not been designated as Clean Cities. While Clean Cities play an integral role in ICTC project development, it is imperative that ICTC staff target projects outside the targeted corridors to create a functioning interstate clean fuel corridor. Therefore, ICTC staff will continue working with stakeholders pursuing these projects in non -Clean Cities to ensure that they come to fruition. In addition, we will continue investigating and pursuing as yet unidentified deployment and infrastructure projects in non -Clean Cities that we expect to emerge over the course of the ICTC project. As most of Riverside County is a part of either the Northwest Riverside County Clean Cities Coalition or the Coachella Valley Clean Cities Coalition, the ICTC will likely provide all of its new project development and implementation assistance in Riverside County under Task 2. However, if there are fleet operators based in Riverside County communities which are not members of either of the County's two Clean Cities coalitions, the ICTC staff will provide technical and financial assistance to them as well. Task 4 - Continued Support for All Existing ICTC Sites: G&A has begun to implement several heavy-duty AFV projects in the region that will result in the development of nine LNG fueling stations and deployment of 119 LNG tractors in the Project area. In addition, the ICTC has submitted funding proposals for another 86 vehicles. As part of our activities on behalf of ICTC, G&A will focus energy and resources to ensure the successful implementation of projects already underway. The ICTC Project has several ongoing deployment projects in and close to Riverside County. These include a 27 truck deployment with Burrtec, a 42 truck deployment with Ralph's, and a 20 truck deployment project with Stater Brothers. In addition, the ICTC Project submitted a proposal for 2 natural gas trash trucks for the City of Riverside Sanitation Department. These efforts are each at different stages. ICTC staff will continue to support these projects to ensure that they are successfully completed. Task 5 - Project Support - Existing/Planned AFV Sites along the ICTC: Part of the ICTC's mission has always been to enhance collaboration between stakeholders developing alternative fuel stations so that they are fully utilized and economically viable, even when the ICTC project has not initiated these projects. Therefore, ICTC staff will continue work with existing or planned AFV projects in the region to integrate their efforts into the ICTC framework. 06/21/99 3 As of this writing, there aren't any non-ICTC heavy duty truck deployment projects in Riverside County that we are aware of There are, however, several companies immediately outside of the County which have either deployed vehicles or have a LNG fueling station in operation. These include UPS (at Ontario Airport) and Taormina Industries (in Anaheim). In addition, Waste Management of the Desert plans a large natural gas vehicle deployment project in the near future. ICTC staff will work' to, ensure that Riverside County -based stakeholders are aware of these activities and facilities and utilize these projects to enhance the operations of Riverside County -based projects or expand awareness of low -emission alternatives to diesel - powered heavy duty vehicles among the County's fleet operators. Task 6 - Technology Assistance G&A will provide technical assistance to interested fleet operators and other stakeholders as they pursue heavy-duty alternative fuel vehicle projects. Assistance will include but not be limited to assessment of relevant vehicle and fueling station technologies and siting, safety and permitting issues for infrastructure development. The ICTC staff continually evaluate new developments in low -emission heavy duty technology and fueling infrastructure. For instance, soon a liquefaction facility may be built in or near the County which would provide very low cost fuel to the projects mentioned above, as well as to new projects we hope to initiate in the coming fiscal year. Such technical knowledge will be shared with stakeholders in Riverside County, in the hope that it will increase their willingness to participate in ICTC deployment projects. Task 7 - Program Development/Evaluation G&A will provide ICTC stakeholders and Steering Committee members with regular updates on ICTC-related activities and suggest appropriate opportunities for public -private collaboration as well as organize regular meetings/conference calls of the Steering Committee to review ICTC Project activities and to discuss opportunities for public agencies to collaborate on clean, alternative fuel truck projects. Preparation of monthly progress reports for continued implementation of the ICTC Project and a final evaluation of the ICTC Project will also be provided. The Final evaluation will be due at the completion of the Project. RCTC staff have been instrumental in the governance of the ICTC Project since its inception. We look forward to the continued involvement and leadership of the RCTC in the ICTC Project. 003141 • 06/21/99 4 ICTC Expenses and Revenue for FY 1999/2000 Projected Expenses Expense Item Rate • Hours Cost Direct Labor Expenses Principal 1 $125.00 530.00 $66,250.00 Principal II $110.00 98.00 $10,780.00 Senior Associates $90.00 962.75 $86,647.50 Events Director $72.00 325.00 $23,400.00 Associate $56.00 516.50 $28,924.00 Junior Associate $50.00 215.52 $10,776.00 Clerical/Support Staff $37.00 500.39 $18,514.43 Average Hourly Rate, Subtotal Hours and Labor $ 77.92 3,148.16 $245,291.93 Direct Expenses Supplies & Informational Packet Materials $13,500.00 Steering Committee Support $9,500.00 Phone and FAX • $5,400.00 Copies, Printing, Postage $2,760.00 Travel - Airline, lodging, transportation $6,150.00 Mileage — 1,874 @ $.31 $581.00 Subtotal Direct Expenses $37,891.00 Total ICTC Expenses for FY 1999/200 $283,182.93 Projected Revenue Agency Contribution San Bernardino Associated Governments - SANBAG $25,000.00 Riverside Country Transportation Commission - RCTC $25,000.00 South Coast Air Quality Management District — SCAQMD $38,180.00 California Energy Commission - CEC $20,000.00 California Air Resources Board - CARB $50,000.00 Department of Energy - DOE $100,000.00 Other Miscellaneous Contributions $25,003.00 Total FY 1999/2000 Agency Contributions $283,183.00 F' \users\preprmnmwGetc.doc 06/22/99 5 V G J 1 • • • AGENDA ITEM 14 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28,1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution No. 99-006, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South Side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets in the City of Riverside." PURPOSE Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-006, authorizing the acquisition of temporary construction easements, by eminent domain, generally described in Exhibit "A", for a Measure "A" project to construct Sound Wall #98, located along the South Side of Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way acquisition agent for the Commission in this acquisition. Approximately 24 temporary construction easements are required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for the County have successfully negotiated fees to acquire temporary construction easements for approximately 17 of the 24 required. It may be necessary to acquire some or all of the remaining 7 temporary construction easements described in Exhibit "A" by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is the adoption of a resolution of necessity. Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; U U U 'L) (3) whether the acquisition of the temporary construction easements are necessary for the project; (4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been made. Note: The value of the property is not an issue at the hearing. The notice must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the adoption of the resolution, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written request to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The required notice was mailed to the property owners, identified in Exhibit "A", on June 10, 1999. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION During the design of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project, there was a difference in philosophy between the City of Riverside and Caltrans concerning the location, height, and esthetics of the sound walls to be built. There was no disagreement on the need for the sound walls. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the project in March of 1992 indicated that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. In an effort not to delay the construction of the roadway improvements until this sound wall issue was resolved, Caltrans, the City of Riverside, and RCTC mutually agreed to proceed with the roadway improvements separately and delay the construction of the sound walls to a latter date. The construction of the Rt 91, Magnolia to Mary, HOV median widening project was complete and open to traffic in the Spring of 1995. In April and May of 1996, the City of Riverside, Caltrans and RCTC mutually agreed on the location, height, esthetics, and the phasing of construction for the sound walls to be built. The following Table lists the Sound Wall, its location, height, construction phase and current status: Wall # General Location Height Phase Status 35 N Side -- Tyler to Van Buren 12' 1 Constructed 77 N Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 1 Constructed 78 S Side -- Van Buren to Jackson 10' 1 Constructed 149 N Side -- Adams to Jefferson 12' 1 Constructed 183A, B & C N Side -- Madison to Jefferson 10' 1 Constructed 221A & B N Side -- Madison to Mary 14' 1 Constructed 003 .i; 98 S Side - Jackson to Monroe 10' II Advertised 110 S Side - Jackson to Monroe 12' II In Design 121 N Side - Monroe to Adams 10' II In Design 161 N Side - Adams to Jefferson 14' II In Design 635 N. Side - La Sierra to Magnolia 12' II In Design Sound Wall #98 will be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation located adjacent to the Caltrans right-of-way line. This will necessitate the acquisition of twenty four (24) Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) to allow for construction activities such as: clearing the construction area of vegetation, erection of temporary fencing, removal of the existing access control fences, and construction of the new sound wall. The TCE's are situated along the back or side of each of the properties that are along and adjacent to the project. The easements are a rectangular strip of property, 1 meter in width. The TCE's are contained in an alley. The alley is at the back of each of the properties and runs the full length of the project. The property owners will be given a 30 day written notice by the contractor prior to start of construction. The Temporary Construction Easements will be obtained for a period of one (1) year starting on the 31st day after the contractor's written notice. At this time there are approximately seven (7) temporary construction easements that have not been obtained for various reasons. Construction cannot begin until all of the temporary construction easements have been obtained. DISCUSSION The following addresses the four findings that are required for adoption of the resolution of necessity: (1) THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for highway construction projects. The criteria are based on the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) in the peak noise hour of the day. The FHWA has set 67 dBA LEQ as the noise level that is acceptable on the exterior of a residence adjacent to a highway facility. All new highway projects must study the potential of increased noise that may occur due to the construction of the new highway facility. This study must include present and projected noise levels that would occur with and without the construction of the new highway facility. Any future noise levels that exceed 67 dBA LEQ must be mitigated. The mitigation usually requires the construction of a sound wall that would reduce the future noise levels to within the acceptable FHWA stated limits. The Noise Barrier Analysis performed for the Route 91, Magnolia to Mary Project, in March of 1992, indicates that the existing noise levels within the project limits either met or exceeded the accepted noise limits at that time, the future noise levels, with and without the project, far exceeded the accepted noise limits, and that there were virtually no noise barriers within the project limits. The construction of Sound Wall 003145 #98 is required to reduce the present noise levels and the projected future noise levels to an acceptable level. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. (2) THE PROJECT IS PLANNED OR LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT WILL BE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE GREATEST PUBLIC GOOD AND THE LEAST PRIVATE INJURY The design of Sound Wall #98 has been done in such a manner to obtain a balance between maximizing the noise abatement potential of the sound wall while minimizing the potential visual and aesthetic impacts to the adjacent property owners. The placement, height, shape, color, and contour of Sound Wall #98 was studied and the final design of Sound Wall #98 was mutually agreed upon by Caltrans, RCTC, and the City of Riverside. The project has been planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (3) THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT Sound Wall #98 is to be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation on the property right-of-way line necessitating the need for the temporary construction easements. The temporary construction easements will allow for construction activities to clear the construction area of vegetation, erect temporary fencing, and construct the new sound wall. Without the temporary construction easements it would not be feasible to construct the new sound wall. The temporary construction easements are required for the project. (4) THE OFFERS OF JUST COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE Government Code Section 7267.2 requires that an offer of the fair market value of the temporary construction easement to be acquired be made to the owner. Appraisals were prepared on our behalf, and offers of the fair market value were made to the individual property owners. None of the remaining 7 property owners have accepted the offer to date. The adoption of the resolution of necessity does not preclude continuing negotiations with the property owners. 0 5 J • • • Financial Assessment Project Cost $60,000 (Total cost for acquisition of all 24 TCE's.) Source of Funds Measure "A" Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Following the public hearing, make the necessary findings as stated above, and adopt Resolution No. 99-006, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements in Certain Real Property by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside." 000147 EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL #98 PROJECT REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS That have not been obtained through negotiations PARCEL GRANTOR 1 17423-1 Hung Dung Le 2 17424-1 Daniel B. Felix Erolina Felix Sergio E. Juaregui 3 17428-1 Juan N. Feliz Macaria Felix 4 17430-1 Carlos Jimenez 5 17442-1 Jesus 0. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon 6 17443-1 Jesus 0. Tuazon Norma M. Tuazon 7 17446-1 Secretary of HUD 003143 • • AGENDA ITEM 15 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service At the May 24, 1999 meeting, the Committee deferred action on the recommendation of award for Beat #25 of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol. Staff was directed to return to the Committee in June with additional information and documentation. The Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) advertised a Request for Proposal to contract for tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on one segment or beat on 1-15, between SR -60 and SR - 91, in Riverside County. Bids were due May 7, 1999, and twelve (12) proposals were received. A selection committee, consisting of representatives from the California Highway Patrol and Commission staff, reviewed the proposals for completeness and responsiveness. Site visits were conducted on five firms. The committee met with the company owner or representative about their proposal and the program's requirements, examined their storage or garage area and fleet, and reviewed their financial statements and/or tax returns. The attached Table 1 lists the companies interviewed and the committee's findings. Also attached are Schedules 1 through 5 developed by CHP which project each proposer's net profit or loss based upon their submitted proposal and information obtained during the visit. After the site visits and through open discussion by the selection committee, the committee recommends that Pepe's Towing Service be awarded a three-year contract to provide tow truck service on Beat #25 for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. The hourly rate per truck is $37.85 with the total cost for FY 1999- 00 not to exceed $118,215.00 (operating only ten months). The costs for the last two fiscal years is not to exceed $137,827.00 per year. Below are the committee's basis for the recommendation: Our Boyz Towing • Limited time in operation (less than two years); • No CHP rotation tow experience nor other local police department; • $49,912 loss in 1998; • $7,211 loss through May 15, 1999; • Projected $21,965 loss in first year of contract and $25,151 loss in years 2 and 3; 00` 143 • Truck payments amortized over 5 years rather than 35 months (term of contract) which would increase loss; • They have $50,000 letter of credit, but no apparent means to repay; • Underestimated mileage, fuel and maintenance costs Mr. T's Towing • Does not appear to have clear understanding of program requirements (e.g. stated that these two trucks would not have a significant impact on his 11 truck operation); • Financials were not available during site interview; • Could not substantiate cost estimates; • Although stated that truck loans were amortized over 3 years, it appears they are spread over 5 years; • Underestimated mileage, fuel and maintenance costs Duran's Towing • Lack of experience with CHP, local police departments, and AAA; • Too small of an operation, only three trucks and drivers, including wife; • Operating at a loss for the past two years; • Underestimated mileage, fuel and maintenance costs Pepe's Towing • FSP provider for over 4 years, three years with RCTC; • Experienced with CHP and local police department and sheriff; • No citations or fines during contract period; • Trucks clean and well maintained; • Drivers always appear professional and well groomed M & D Towing • Does not have clear understanding of program requirements; • No CHP, local police department or AAA experience; • Will need to buy back-up vehicle since flat beds cannot be used in program (did not see this in the RFP); • Underestimated mileage, fuel and maintenance costs Under state law, the RC SAFE is not required to award the contract to the "lowest responsible bidder." In other words, RC SAFE has broader authority to award contracts based on its determination of what is in the best interests of the agency. Additionally, the FSP RFP included specific language which, for example, allows the RC SAFE to: • Reject any or all of the proposals for any reason. • Negotiate with any, all or none of the respondents to the RFP. • Accept other than the lowest monetary offer. All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from the State Highway Account and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to continued funding from the State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol. • • • 0 ;iJ150 OVERVIEW: • • • The Commission in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies advertised a Request for Proposal to contract for tow truck service for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on one selected segment on 1-15 in Riverside County. Bids were due and opened on May 7, 1999, and a selection committee conducted site visits on four firms who submitted proposals. 00 151 Financial Assessment Project Cost $416,242 Source of Funds State of California and SAFE Fees Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999- 00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25 for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. 00315: • • • Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Request for Pr oposals for Beat #25 August 2, 1999 thru June 30, 2002 1 ahle 1 Firm Name Hourly Rate Per Truck No . Yrs . in Operation N o. of Current Trcks Prior FSP Experience CHP R otation Tow Exper. Local P1) llow Exper. Road Service (AAA) Expel . Our Boyz Towing $21.62 1 yr . 10 mos. 4 No No No No Mr. T's Towing $23.50 4 years 11 No Yes Yes - No longer does AAA Duran 's To wing $37. 50 4 years 3 , No No No No Pepe's Towing $37. 85 12 years 26 Yes, current FSP operator Yes, 10 yrs . Yes, X cities & Sheriff Yes, 4 yrs. with AAA M & D Towing $40.00 13 years, but main ly auto repair shop 6 No No No No Schedule 1 OUR BOYZ T OWING COST ESTIMATES FIRST YEAR 1999/2000 (11 month period) Avg. mileage per week Avg. miles per day Avg. mile s per hour Avg. miles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg. fu el c ost Av g. monthly fue l exp. Total hours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fu el Loan Maint License Insurance Total mo nthly expe nses Avg. Daily Trk Expe nse Avg. Ho ur Trk Expense Avg. hourly trk expense Driver hourly expense To tal Hourly e xpense Year Expense for 1 trk Ye ar Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOME Hourly rate pe r trk Yea r income per trk Year income for 2 trks LOSS FO R 1ST YR. • 1200 240 40.00 280.00 12 $1.25 $ 29.17 S 632.95 1671 238.7 21.7 $632.95 $999.87 $200.00 $0. 00 $195.45 $2,028. 27 $93.46 $13. 35 $13. 35 $11.25 $24.60. $41,109.77 $82,219. 54 $21.62 $36,127.02 $ 72,254.04 (9,965. 60) SECOND/THIRD YEAR 2000-2001 2001-2002 Avg . Mileage per week Avg . mil es per day A vg. miles per hour Avg . miles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg. fu el cost Avg. monthly fuel Exp. Total h ours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Loan Maint License Insu rance Total mo nthly expe nses Avg. Daily Trk Expense Avg. Ho ur Trk Expense Avg. hourly Trk Expense Driver hourly Expense Total Ho urly Expense Year Expense for 1 Trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOME Hourly rate per Trk Year income per Trk Year income for 2 trks 1200 1200 240 240 40.00 40.00 280.00 280.00 12 12 $1.25 $1.25 $ 29.17 $ 29.17 S 619.79 S 619.79 1785 1785 255 .0 255.0 21.3 21.3 $619.79 $999 .87 $200.00 $91.67 $179.17 $2,090 .50 $98 .38 $14.05 $14.05 $11.25 $25.30 $45,167.27 $90,334.54 $21.62 $38,591.70 $77,183. 40 $619.79 $999.87 $200.00 $91.67 $179 .17 S2,090.50 $98.38 $14 .05 $14 .05 $11.25 525.30 $45,167.27 $90,334.54 $21.62 $38,591.70 $77,183.40 LOSS FOR 2ND/3RD YR. $ (13,151. 14) $ (13,151.14) 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 Monthly payment Term of loan Total loan cost Registration per year Registration for contract Insurance per year Insurance for c ontract Total Back-up truck cost Uniform costs per week Uniform costs per day Avg uniform cost 1st yr Avg uniform cost 2nd yr Avg unif orm cost 3rd yr Total uniform cost 1 driver Total unif orm cost 2 drivers CONTR ACT INCOME AND EXPENSE INCOME 72,254.04 77,183.40 77,183.40 $ 226,620.84 EXPENSE 82,219.54 90,334.54 90,334.54 $ 262,888 .62 YEARLY TOTAL (9,965 50) (13,151.14) (13,151 .14) $ (36,267.78) BACK-UP TRUCK COST EXPENSE $999.87 60 $1,100 .00 $2,150.00 T OTAL $ 59,992.20 $2,200.00 $6,450.00 $ 68,642 20 EXPENSE TOTAL $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 C osts not included: fuel for back-up truck, f uel to motori sts, t ow truck tire and mirr or r eplacement. TOTAL LOSS FOR CONTR ACT $ (104,909 .98) Page 1 240 mil es (New Format) • • • • • Schedule 2 MR T'S TOWING COST ESTIMATES FIRST YEAR 1999/2000 (11 month period) Avg. mileage per wee k Avg. miles per day Avg. miles per hour Avgmiles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost pe r gal Daily Avg. fuel c ost Avg. monthly fuel exp. Total hours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Loan M aint License Insurance Total monthly expe nses Av g. Daily Trk Expen se Avg. Hour Trk Expense Avg. hourly trk expense Driver hourly expense To tal Ho urly expense Year Expense for 1 trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCO ME Hourly rate per trk Year income pe r trk Year income for 2 trks LOSS FOR 1ST YR. 1200 240 40.00 280 .00 13 $1.46 $ 31.45 $ 682. 42 1671 238. 7 21. 7 $682. 42 $1,197. 94 $194.67 $0. 00 $204. 18 $2,279. 21 $105.03 $15.00 $15.00 $9. 00 $24. 00 $40,110.34 $80,220.67 $23. 50 $39,268.50 $78,537.00 SECOND/THIRD YEAR 2000-2001 2001-2002 Avg. Mileage per week Avg. miles per day A vg. miles p er hour Avg. miles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg . fuel cost Avg . mo nthly fuel Exp . Total hours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Lo an Maint Lice nse Insurance Total mon thly expenses Avg. Daily Trk Expense Av g. Hour Trk Expense Av g. hourly Trk Expense Driver hourly Expense To tal Hourly Expense Year Expense for 1 Trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOM E Hourly rate per Trk Year income per Trk Ye ar income for 2 trks 1200 1200 240 240 40 .00 40 .00 280.00 280.00 13 13 $1 .46 $1.46 $ 31 .45 $ 31 .45 $ 668.23 $ 668 .23 1785 1785 255.0 255.0 21.3 21.3 $668.23 $668.23 $1,197 .94 $1,197.94 $194.67 $194 .67 $91 .67 $91.67 $187.17 $187.17 $2,339.68 $2,339.68 $110.10 $110.10 $15 .73 $15 .73 $15.73 $15.73 $9.00 $9.00 $24.73 $24.73 $44,141. 17 $44,141.17 $88,282.34 $88,282.34 $23.50 $23.50 $41,947. 50 $41,947. 50 $83,895.00 $83,895. 00 (1,683. 67) LOSS FOR 2ND/3RD YR. $ (4,387. 34) $ (4,387. 34) 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 Monthly payme nt Term of loan Total loan cost Registration per year Registrati on for contract Insurance per year Insurance for c ontract Total Back-up truck cost Uniform costs per w eek Uniform costs per day Avg uniform cost 1st yr Avg u niform cost 2nd yr Avg uniform cost 3rd yr Tot al unif orm c ost 1 driver Total uniform cost 2 drivers CONTRACT INCO ME AND EXPENSE INC OME EXPENSE YEARLY TOTAL 78,537.00 80,220.67 (1,683.67) 83,895.00 88,282-34 (4,387.34) 83,895.00 88,282.34 (4,387 .34) $ 246,327 .00 $ 256,785.35 $ (10,458.35) BACK-UP TRUCK COST EXPENSE TOTAL $0.00 60 $0.00 $2,246.14 $ $0.00 $6,738.42 $ 6,738 .42 EXPENSE TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $131.04 $0 .00 $0.00 $65.52 $ 131.04 Costs not i ncluded: fuel for b ack-up truck, fuel to m ot orists, tow truck tire and mirr or replacement. TOTAL LOSS F OR CONTRACT $ (17,327.81) Page 1 240 miles (New Format) Schedule 3 DURAN'S TOWING COST ESTIMATES FIRST YEAR 1999/2000 (11 m onth period) Avg. mileage per week Avg. miles per day Avg. miles per hour Avg. miles for 7 hou r day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg. fuel co st Avg. monthly fuel exp. To tal hours Avg. number of da ys Avg. days per month M ONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Loan Maint License Insurance Total monthly expe nses Avg. Daily Trk Expense Avg. Hour Trk Expense Avg. ho urly trk expense Driver hourly expense Total Hou rly e xpense Year Expense for 1 trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOME Hourly rate pe r trk Year income per trk Year income for 2 trks PROFIT FO R 1ST YR. • 1200 240 40 .00 280.00 10 $1.40 $ 39.20 S 850.69 1671 238. 7 21.7 $850.69 $1,333.33 $311.66 $0. 00 $266.66 $2,762. 34 $127.29 $18.18 $18.18 $11. 33 $29.51 $49,318. 18 $98,636.36 $37.50 $62,662.50 $125,325. 00 26,688. 64 SECOND/THIRD YEAR 2000-2001 2001-2002 Avg . Mileage per week Avg. miles per day Avg. miles per hour Avg. miles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg . f uel c ost $ Avg. m onthly fuel Exp . $ Total h ours Avg. number of days Avg. days p er month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fu el Loan M aint License Insurance To tal mo nthly expe nse s Avg. Daily Trk Expense Avg. Hour Trk Expense Avg. hourly Trk Expense Drive r hourly Expense Total Hourly Expe nse Year Expense for 1 Trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOME Hourly rate per Trk Year income per Trk Year income for 2 trks 1200 240 40.00 280 .00 10 $1.40 39.20 $ 833.00 $ 1785 255.0 21.3 1200 240 40.00 280.00 10 $1.40 39.20 833 .00 1785 255.0 21.3 $833 .00 $833 .00 $1,333.33 $1,333 .33 $311.66 $311 .66 $100.00 $100.00 $266 .66 $266.66 52,844.65 $2,844 .65 $133 .87 $133.87 $19.12 $19.12 $19.12 $19 .12 $11.33 $11.33 $30.45 $30.45 $54,359.85 $54,359.85 $108,719. 70 $108,719.70 $37. 50 $37. 50 $66,937.50 $66,937.50 $133,875. 00 $133,875.00 PRO FIT FOR 2ND/3RD YR. $ 25,155.30 $ 25,155.30 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 Monthly payment Term of loan Total loan cost Registration per year Registrati on f or contract Insurance per year Insurance f or contract Total Back-up truck cost Uniform costs per week Uniform costs per day Avg uniform cost 1st yr Avg uniform cost 2nd yr Avg uniform cost 3rd yr T otal uniform cost 1 driver Total un iform cost 2 drivers CONTRACT INCOME AND EXPENSE INCOME 125,325.00 133,875 .00 133,875 .00 $ 393,075.00 EXPENSE 98,636 .36 108,719.70 108,719.70 $ 316,075.76 YEARLY TOTAL 26,688.64 25,155.30 25,155 .30 $ 76,999.24 BACK-UP TRUCK COST EXPENSE TOTAL $1,333.33 36 $1,200.00 $3,199.92 $ 47,999.88 $2,400.00 $9,599.76 $ 59,999.64 EXPENSE T OTAL $29.34 $5.86 $1,398.87 $1,494 .30 $1,494.30 $3,640 .32 $ 7,280.63 Costs n ot in cl ud ed: fuel for back-up truck, fuel to m ot orists, t ow truck tire and mirr or replacement. TOTAL PROFIT FOR C ONTR ACT $ 9,718.97 Page 1 240 miles (New Format) • • Schedule 4 PEPE'S TOWING COST ESTIMATES FIRST YEAR 1999/2000 (11 month period) Avg. mileage per week Avg. miles pe r day Avg. miles per hour Avg. miles for 7 hou r day Miles per gal Fuel cost pe r gal Daily Avg. fuel cost Avg. mo nthly fu el exp. Total hours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month MONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Loan Maint License Insurance Overhead To tal monthly expense s Avg. Daily Trk Expense Avg. Hour Trk Expense Avg. ho urly trk expense Driver hou rly expe nse To tal Hourly expense Year Expense for 1 trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOME Hourly rate pe r trk Year income per trk Year income for 2 trks PROFIT FOR 1ST YR. C. L 1200 240 40.00 280.00 10 $1.50 S 42.00 $ 911.45 1671 238. 7 21.7 $911.45 $1,953.00 $836.27 $0.00 $284.07 $180. 00 $3,984. 79 $183.62 $26.23 $26.23 $10. 00 $36. 23 $60,542.74 $121,085.48 $37.85 $63,247.35 $126,494. 70 6,409.22 SECOND/THIRD YEAR Avg. Mil eage per week Avg. miles per day Avg . miles p er hour Avg. miles for 7 hour day Miles per gal Fuel cost per gal Daily Avg . fuel cost A vg. monthly fu el Exp. Total hours Avg. number of days Avg. days per month M ONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Fuel Loan Maint License Insurance Overhead Total monthly expe nses Avg. Daily Trk Expense Avg. Hour Trk Expense Avg. hourly Trk Expense Drive r hourly Expense Total Ho urly Expense Year Expense fo r 1 Trk Year Expense for 2 trks EXPECTED INCOM E Hourly rate per Trk Year income per Trk Year income for 2 trks PRO FIT FOR 2ND/3RD YR 2000-2001 2001-2002 1200 240 40.00 280.00 10 $1.50 S 42 .00 $ $ 892.50 $ 1785 255.0 21 .3 $892.50 $1,953.00 $815.13 $100.00 $278.16 $180.00 $4,038 .79 $190.06 $27 .15 $27.15 $10.00 $37.16 $66,315.48 $132,630.96 $37. 85 $67,562. 25 $135,124.50 $ 2,493. 54 1200 240 40 .00 280 .00 10 $1.50 42 .00 892 .60 1785 255 .0 21.3 $892.50 $1,953 .00 $815.13 $100.00 $278 .16 $180.00 $4,038.79 $190.06 $27 .15 $27.15 $10.00 $37 .16 $66,315 .48 $132,630 .96 $37.85 $67,562.25 $135,124. 50 $ 2,493.54 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 Mo nthly payment Term of loan Total loan cost Registration per year R egistration for contract Insurance per ye ar Insurance for contract Total Back-up truck cost Uniform costs per week Uniform costs per day Avg uniform cost 1st yr Avg unif orm cost 2nd yr Avg uniform cost 3rd yr Total uniform cost 1 driver Total uniform cost 2 drivers TOTAL LOSS F OR CONTRACT C ONTRACT INCOME AND EXPENSE INCO ME EXPENSE 126,494 70 121,085.48 135,124.50 132,630 .96 135,124 .50 132,630.96 $ 396,743.70 $ 386,347.40 YEARLY TOTAL 5,409.22 2,493.54 2,493.54 $ 10,396.30 BACK-UP TRUCK COST EXPENSE TOTAL $0 .00 60 $1,200 .00 $3,266.55 $2,400 .00 $9,799.65 $ 12,199.65 EXPENSE T OTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $0 .00 $ $ (1,803.35) Page 1 240 miles (New Format) Schedule 5 M & D TOWING COST ESTIMATES FIRST YEAR 1999/2000 (11 m onth period) SECOND/THIRD YEAR 2000-2001 2001-2002 CONTRACT INCOME AND EXPENSE Avg. mileage per week 1200 A vg. Mileage per week 1200 1200 INC OME EXPENSE YEARLY TOTAL Avg. miles pe r day 240 Avg. miles per day 240 240 1999/2000 133,680.00 142,764 74 (9,084 .74) Avg. miles per hour 40.00 Avg. miles per hour . 40.00 40.00 2000/2001 142,800 .00 156,839.28 (14,039.28) Avg. miles fo r 7 hour day 280 .00 Avg. miles for 7 hour day 280.00 280.00 2001/2002 142,800 .00 156,839.28 (14,039.28) Mile s per gal 10 Miles p er gal 10 10 $ 419,280.00 $ 456,443.30 $ (37,163.30) Fuel cost per gal $1.45 Fuel cost per gal $1.45 $1.45 Daily Av g. fue l cost $ 40.60 Daily Avg. fu el cost $ 40 .60 $ 40.60 Avg. mo nthly fuel exp. $ 881.07 Avg. monthly f uel Exp . S 862 .75 $ 862.75 BACK-UP TRUCK COST EXPENSE TOTAL Total hours 1671 Total hours 1785 1785 M onthly payment $1,825 .83 Avg. number of days 238.7 Avg. number of days 255.0 255.0 T erm of loan 36 Av g. days per month 21. 7 Avg. days per m onth 21.3 21.3 Total loan cost $ 65,729 .88 MO NTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE M ONTHLY TRUCK EXPENSE Registration per year $1,150 .02 Fuel $881.07 Fuel Lo an$862.75 $862.75 Registration f or contract $2 ,300 .04 $1,825. 83 Loan $1,825.83 $1,825.83 Insurance per year $2,150.00 Maint' $2,070.40 Maint* $2,070.40 $2,070.40 Insuran ce f or contract $6,450 .00 License $0. 00 License $95.83 $95 .83 Insurance $180.76 Insurance $180 .76 $180.76 Total Back-up truck c ost $ 74,479.92 Total mon thly expenses $4,958. 06 Total monthly expenses $5,035.57 55,035.57 Avg. Daily Trk Expense $228. 47 Avg. Daily Trk Expense $236.97 $236.97 Avg. Hour Trk Expense $32.64 Avg. Hour Trk Ex pense $33 .85 $33.85 Avg. hourly trk expense $32.64 Avg. hourly Trk Expen se $33.85 $33.85 EXPENSE TOTAL Driver hourly expense $10.08 Drive r hourly Expense $10.08 $10.08 Uniform costs per week $6.30 Total Hourly expense $42.72 Total Ho urly Expense $43.93 543 .93 Uniform costs per day $1.26 Avg uniform cost 1st yr $300.78 Year Expense for 1 trk $71,382.37 Year Expense for 1 Trk $78,419.64 $78,419.64 Avg uniform cost 2nd yr $321 .30 Year Expense for 2 trks $142,764.74 Year Expe nse for 2 trks $156,839.28 $156,839.28 Avg uniform cost 3rd yr $321.30 Total uniform cost 1 driver $782.73 EXPECTED INCOME EXPECTED INCOME Total uniform c ost 2 drivers $ 1,565.46 Hourly rate per trk $40.00 Hourly rate per Trk $40. 00 $40.00 Year income per trk $66,840.00 Year income pe r Trk $71,400.00 $71,400.00 Year in come for 2 trks $133,680.00 Year income for 2 trks $142,800.00 $142,800.00 LOSS FOR 1ST YR. (9,084. 74) LOSS FOR 2ND/3RD YR. $ (14,039.28) $ (14,039.28) TOTAL L OSS FOR CONTRACT $ (113,208.68) " INCLUDES OVERHEAD/PROFIT • Page 1 • 240 miles (New Format) • • AGENDA ITEM 16 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1998 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Measure "A" Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to Provide On -Call Material Testing Services for Measure "A" Construction Projects in the 1999/2000 Fiscal Year At the October 8, 1997 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Material Testing Services for Measure "A" Project construction work scheduled for the 1997/1998 fiscal year. The projects scheduled were: the Pigeon Pass Park & Ride Lot, Sound Wall #35, and the South Side Platform. The Contract with Ninyo & Moore was for a base amount of $119,700 and a contingency amount of $23,940. • Note: During this period, Ninyo & Moore provided all the required Material Testing Services to complete construction of the proposed projects, excluding the Pigeon Pass Park & Ride lot which was delayed. At the July 8, 1998 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Material Testing Services to support project construction work anticipated for the 1998/1999 fiscal year. The projects scheduled for this period was the La Sierra & West Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings, the Route 91 Phase I Sound Walls, and the carry over of the Pigeon Pass Park & Ride lot. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-9832 was for a base amount of $91,760. • At the Nov. 11, 1998 meeting, the Commission authorized the award of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-9832 for Ninyo & Moore to provide addition services to support a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Elsinore Subdivision for an amount not to exceed $9,245. Note: During this period, Ninyo & Moore provided all the required Material Testing Services to complete construction of the proposed projects and the limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment , excluding the La Sierra & West Corona Over Crossings which were delayed. The following is a summary of the contract to -date: Date Description Base Work Extra Work Total 11/24/97 Original Agreement , $119,700 $23,940 $143,640 06/17/98 EW #1 - Additional Testing Sound Wall #35 $4,000 ($4,000) $143,640 07/08/98 Addendum #1 $91,760 $0 $235,400 11/12/98 Addendum #2 $9,245 $0 $244,645 01/12/99 EW #2 - West Corona Repairs $4,000 ($4,000) $244,645 04/01/99 EW #3 - Additional Testing South Side Platform $427 ($427) $244,645 04/02/99 EW #4 - Additional Testing Phase I Sound Walls $15,000 ($15,000) $244,645 CURRENT CONTRACT $244,132 $513 $244,645 TOTAL INVOICED TO DATE $222,495 FUNDS REMAINING $21,637 There is now a need to Amend Contract No. RO-9832 to authorize Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Construction Material Testing Services for the up -coming Measure "A" Construction Projects in the 1999/2000 fiscal year. Staff has been working with Ninyo & Moore to finalize the scope of work required to complete the projects remaining from Amendment #1 along with developing a new scope of work for the additional Measure "A" Projects and Tasks scheduled. Staff has completed negotiations with Ninyo & Moore and is in agreement with the attached Ninyo & Moore Scope of work and associated costs for the following scheduled work: Project Start Proposed Budget I. West Corona Overcrossing Aug. 1999 $ 28,637 II. La Sierra Overcrossing Aug. 1999 $ 28,637 III. Rt 91 Phase II Sound Wall #98 Oct. 1999 $ 21,889 IV. Porphyry "Y" Additional Testing Aug. 1999 $ 19,659 99/00 Budget $ 98,822 Remaining 98/99 Funds $ 21,637 Additional Funds Requested $ 77,185 The proposed scope of work and cost estimates received from Ninyo and Moore are attached for your review. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be utilized subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. • • 003166 • • Financial Assessment Project Cost 577,185.00 (Base) + $22,815.00 (Extra) = $100,000.00 Source of Funds Measure "A" Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the award of Amendment #3 to Contract No. 9832 to Ninyo & Moore to provide On -Call Construction Material Testing Services for the projects identified for a base amount of $77,185.00 and an additional extra work amount of $22,815.00 for a total not to exceed Amendment value of $100,000.00. The Extra Work contingency will be utilized as authorized by the Executive Director. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be utilized subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. F:\USERS\PREPRINT\19991JULY\BUDG IMP\N&mamd03.wpd File B.2.2.2.28 0031f�,j • • Imre Georecr ca. anG Enwonmenra. Science; Con;Jaan,; June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770G Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Corona, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in Corona, California. The services presented herein are based on the information presented in the project plans, specifications, contract documents, and our conversations with personnel from your office. This proposal supercedes our previous Pro- posal Number P -03770E, dated June 24, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located north of the 91 Freeway, at the south- west corner of the intersection of Auto Center Drive and the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. The project consists of improvements to the existing Metrolink station in Corona, including the con- struction of a new pedestrian overcrossing and associated site work and utilities. The proposed project is scheduled to begin construction in March 1999. Based on the contract documents, it appears that the construction will have a duration of approximately 4 months (120 working days assumed). Based on the information reviewed, the project will be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland , (510) 893-2551 San Diego (619) 457-0400 Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission. June 16, 1999 West Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770G • PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and project specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill soils during excavation and grading for the overcrossing foundation, as well as during placement of structure backfill and utility trench backfill at the site. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field services will be requested during fill placement. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as requested by RCTC, including casting of cylinders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing of concrete for the overcrossirig foundation, lightweight con- crete deck, and crash walls, including the CIDH piles. We have assumed that approximately 60 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construc- tion, as requested by RCTC. We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant inspection services will be requested. • Performance of materials inspection services, including the inspection of concrete rein- forcement, field and shop welding, and high -strength bolting, as needed. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field inspection services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the contract documents, specifications, and as requested by RCTC. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. • Preparation of a final report summarizing the results of our field and laboratory testing. • 0 0 J U3 03770G.DOC 2 4(/ngo&/4toove Riverside County Transportation Commission. June 16, 1999 West Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770G • • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $28,600 (twenty-eight thousand six hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. • • We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 003164 03770G.DOC 3 &*oars Riverside County Transportation Commission West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770G TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 140 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,220.00 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 24 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 504.00 Field Inspector 80 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 1,840.00 Subtotal Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction Subtotal $ 5,564.00 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 $ 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 8 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 368.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 48 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,680.00 Subtotal $ 2,048.00 Direct Labor Indirect Cost @ 167% Total Direct plus Indirect Cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 244 hours $ 3.00 /hour $ 8,486.00 $ 14,171.62 $ 22,657.62 $ 2,265.76 $ 24,923.38 2,982.00 732.00 TOTAL $ 28,637.38 • 00JI6 i41) 03770g.xis 4ifl5o&*Imre Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 West Corona Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770G TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE Soil and Aggregates ASTM D 422-63 Sieve Analysis 12 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 840.00 ASTM D 1557-91 Maximum Density 4 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 480.00 CT 227 Cleanness Value 3 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 330.00 ASTM D 2419-91 Sand Equivalent 6 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 390.00 Subtotal S 2,040.00 Concrete and Grout ASTM C 39-94 Concrete Cylinders 40 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 600.00 Subtotal $ 600.00 Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Bend Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 ASTM A 615, Tensile Test, #11 or Smaller 8 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 160.00 Subtotal $ 224.00 Structural Steel ASTM A 370 Bend Test 2 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 38.00 ASTM A 370, Tensile Test up to 100 kips 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 118.00 TOTAL $ 2,982.00 003166 037 0gAs "Vinyo&/Huure Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770G TABLE 3 SCHEDULE DULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates 200 Wash D 1140-92 CT 202 $50.00 Absorption of Coarse Aggregate — CT 206 555.00 Absorption of Fine Aggregate — CT 207 $65.00 Atterberg Limits D 4318-95 CT 204 $90.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) D 1883-94 — $300.00 (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate — CT 227 $110.00 Chloride and Sulfate Content — CT 417 & CT 422 $80.00 Consolidation D 2435-90 CT 219 $175.00 Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent — CT 205 $90.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 $250.00 Durability Index — CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 — $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 — $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler - C 131 CT 211 $130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) — AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 — $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 550.00 Permeability, CH D 243468 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity — CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand — CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R -value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT 214 5145.00 003167 03770G.DOC 1 / lingo&/ltoore • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770G TABLE 3 - SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate C 127-88 CT 206 $55.00 Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate C 128-93 CT 207 $75.00 Triaxial Shear, C.D. — CT 230 $170.00 per point Triaxial Shear, C.U. D 4767-88 CT 230 $160.00 per point Triaxial Shear, U.U. D 2850-95 CT 230 $100.00 per point Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed D 2166-91 CT 221 $70.00 Unconfined Compression - Remolded D 2166-91 CT 221 $120.00 Wax Density D 1188-89 — $50.00 Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity — CT 308 $90.00 CKE — CT 303 $150.00 Extraction, % Asphalt — CT 382 $120.00 Film Stripping D 1664 CT 302 $120.00 Gradation on Extracted Sample D 422-92 CT 202 $80.00 Hveem Maximum Density D 1561-92 CT 375 $135.00 Hveem, S -value D 1560 CT 304 & 366 $170.00 Marshall Maximum Density D 1559-89 — $135.00 Marshall Stability and Flow D 1559 — $190.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility — CT 307 $250.00 Percent Swell — CT 305 $150.00 Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete C 39-94 CT 521 $15.00 Compressive Strength, Concrete Block C 140 — $35.00 Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms E 447 — $140.00 Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete C 495-91a — $15.00 Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout — UBC 24-22 & $15.00 UBC 24-28 Concrete Flexural Strength C 78-94 CT 523 $40.00 Pavement Coring — CT 531 $60.00 Prestressed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) — — $110.00 Tensile Test, Strand A 416 — $85.00 Tensile Test, Wire A 421 — $50.00 003168 03770G DOC 2 lying°&/wore Riverside County Transportation Commission. West Corona Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770G TABLE 3 - SCHEDULE LE OF r`EES FOR LABORATORY Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — $16.00 Tensile Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — $20.00 Tensile Test, #14 Bar . A 615 — $56.00 Tensile Test, # 18 Bar A 615 — $77.00 Structural Steel Bend Test A 370 — $19.00 Hardness Test, Brinell A 370 — $25.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. A 370 — $20.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. A 370 — $26.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. A 370 — $42.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. A 370 — $79.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. A 370 — $126.00 Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded #11 Bar or Smaller — AWS D1.4 $35.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar — AWS D1.4 $63.00 Tensile Test, Welded #18 Bar — AWS D1.4 $84.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar — AWS D1.4 $95.00 Roofing and Fireproofing Fireproofing Density — UBC 43-8 $35.00 Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength — UBC 32-12 $43.00 Roofing Tile Absorption — UBC 32-12 $43.00 OOi1 03770G.DOC 3 /jinyo&/ytoore r7<77-7-7 -:--1 —17—, ' ' -- ingio ify &Moore Genrecnncar and Envronrren.a' Soences `onsu,.a ^_ June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770H Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services La Sierra Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed La Sierra Metrolink Station Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on the information presented in the project plans, specifications, contract documents, and our conversations with personnel from your office. This proposal supercedes our previous Proposal Number P -03770F, dated June 24, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located south of the 91 Freeway, on the north side of Indiana Avenue between La Sierra Avenue and Tyler Street. The project consists of im- provements to the existing La Sierra Metrolink station, including the construction of a new pedestrian overcrossing and associated site work and utilities. Based on the contract documents, it appears that the construction will have a duration of ap- proximately 4 months (120 working days assumed). Based on the information reviewed, the project will be constructed in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 0U11 I73 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909 947-1 I 588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 La Sierra Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770H PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and project specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operations. Our field services will include field density testing of fill soils during excavation and grading for the overcrossing foundation, as well as during placement of structure backfill and utility trench backfill at the site. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field services will be requested during fill placement. • Field sampling and testing of concrete, as requested by RCTC, including casting of cylinders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing of concrete for the overcrossing foundation, lightweight con- crete deck, and crash walls, including the CIDH piles. We have assumed that approximately 60 hours of field services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete during construc- tion, as requested by RCTC. We have assumed that approximately 24 hours of plant inspection services will be requested. • Performance of materials inspection services, including the inspection of concrete rein- forcement, field and shop welding, and high -strength bolting, as needed. We have assumed that approximately 80 hours of field inspection services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the contract documents, specifications, and as requested by RCTC. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, overex- cavation recommendations, and removal of unsuitable materials (if any). • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. • • • Preparation of a final report summarizing the results of our field and laboratory testing. 110 o J171 03770H.b0C 2 4Ung0&*owe Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 La Sierra Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770H • • • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and material testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $28,600 (twenty-eight thousand six hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer KSY/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 00J172 03770H.DOC 3 *ago&/Moore Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770H TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 140 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,220.00 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 24 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 504.00 Field Inspector 80 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 1,840.00 Subtotal Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction Subtotal $ 5,564.00 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 $ 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 8 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 368.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 48 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,680.00 Subtotal $ 2,048.00 Direct Labor $ 8,486.00 Indirect Cost @ 167% $ 14,171.62 Total Direct plus Indirect Cost $ 22,657.62 Profit @ 10% $ 2,265.76 Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit $ 24,923.38 Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 244 hours $ 3.00 /hour 2,982.00 732.00 TOTAL $ 28,637.38 0 o ft 340 03770h.xls /1/ing°&/y►oore Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 La Sierra Metrolink Station Proposal No. P -03770H TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE Soil and Aggregates ASTM D 422-63 Sieve Analysis 12 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 840.00 ASTM D 1557-91 Maximum Density 4 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 480.00 CT 227 Cleanness Value 3 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 330.00 ASTM D 2419-91 Sand Equivalent 6 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 390.00 Subtotal $ 2,040.00 Concrete and Grout ASTM C 39-94 Concrete Cylinders 40 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 600.00 Subtotal $ 600.00 Reinforcing Steel ASTM A 615 Bend Test, #11 or Smaller 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 ASTM A 615, Tensile Test, #11 or Smaller 8 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 160.00 Subtotal $ 224.00 Structural Steel ASTM A 370 Bend Test 2 tests @ $ 19.00 /test $ 38.00 ASTM A 370, Tensile Test up to 100 kips 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 118.00 TOTAL $ 2,982.00 v3 iA 03770h.xls lyingo&/Noose Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770H Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates , D 1140-92 CT 202 $50.00 200 Wash Absorption of Coarse Aggregate — CT 206 $55.00 Absorption of Fine Aggregate — CT 207 $65.00 Atterberg Limits D 4318-95 CT 204 $90.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) D 1883-94 — $300.00 (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate — CT 227 $110.00 Chloride and Sulfate Content — CT 417 & CT 422 $80.00 Consolidation D 2435-90 CT 219 $175.00 Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent — CT 205 $90.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 5250.00 Durability Index — CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 — $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 — $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler C 131 CT 211 5130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) —, AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 — $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 $50.00 Permeability, CH D 2434-68 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity — CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand — CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R -value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT214 $145.00 0tJV 03770H.DOC lyinyo&*owe Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770H TABLE 3 SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY:TESTING Laboratory Test ASTM Other Price Per Procedure Designation Method Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate C 127-88 CT 206 $55.00 Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate C 128-93 CT 207 575.00 Triaxial Shear, C.D. — CT 230 $170.00 per point Triaxial Shear, C.U. D 4767-88 CT 230 5160.00 per point Triaxial Shear, U.U. D 2850-95 CT 230 $100.00 per point Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed D 2166-91 CT 221 $70.00 Unconfined Compression - Remolded D 2166-91 CT 221 $120.00 Wax Density D 1188-89 — $50.00 Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity — CT 308 $90.00 CKE — CT 303 $150.00 Extraction, %Asphalt — CT 382 $120.00 Film Stripping D 1664 CT 302 $120.00 Gradation on Extracted Sample D 422-92 CT 202 $80.00 Hveem Maximum Density D 1561-92 CT 375 $135.00 Hveem, S -value D 1560 CT 304 & 366 $170.00 Marshall Maximum Density D 1559-89 — $135.00 Marshall Stability and Flow D 1559 — $190.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility — CT 307 3250.00 Percent Swell — CT 305 $150.00 Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete C 39-94 CT 521 $15.00 Compressive Strength, Concrete Block C 140 — $35.00 Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms E 447 — $140.00 Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete C 495-91a — $15.00 Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout — UBC 24-22 & $15.00 UBC 24-28 Concrete Flexural Strength C 78-94 CT 523 $40.00 Pavement Coring — CT 531 $60.00 Prestressed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) — — $110.00 Tensile Test, Strand A 416 — $85.00 Tensile Test, Wire A 421 — $50.00 0031'-i'13 03770H.DOC 2 lyingo&/Nuore Riverside County Transportation Commission La Sierra Metrolink Station June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770H TABLE 3 - SCHEI)ITLE OF Ft:ES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — 516.00 Tensile Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — 520.00 Tensile Test, #14 Bar A 615 — 556.00 Tensile Test, # 18 Bar A 615 — 577.00 Structural Steel Bend Test A 370 — 519.00 Hardness Test, Brinell A 370 — 525.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. A 370 — 520.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. A 370 — 526.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. A 370 — 542.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. A 370 — $79.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. A 370 — 5126.00 Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded #11 Bar or Smaller — AWS D1.4 535.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar — AWS D1.4 563.00 Tensile Test, Welded #18 Bar — AWS D1.4 584.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar — AWS D1.4 595.00 Roofing and Fireproofing Fireproofing Density — UBC 43-8 535.00 Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength — UBC 32-12 543.00 Roofing Tile Absorption — UBC 32-12 543.00 • • 03770H.DOC 3 / lingo&/hoore & noire -M1'W° G�or crnica�' and Env„onmen[a. SoeRces CoosJRar,,; • • • June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I Mr. Carl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Riverside, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore is pleased to submit this proposal to provide geotechnical and materials obser- vation and testing services during the construction of the proposed Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 project in Riverside, California. The services presented herein are based on the information pre- sented in the project plans and Special Provisions, and our conversations with personnel from your office. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed project is located adjacent to south side of Route 91 from Jackson Street to the east approximately 532 meters. The improvements will include the construction of a new sound wall 532 meters in length and relocating a concrete lined channel 482 meters in length. The sound wall will be constructed between approximate Station Nos. 10+00 and 15+32. The walls will be supported by cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) piles. Minor grading is anticipated during construction of the sound wall and concrete channel. Based on the information reviewed, the sound wall will be constructed in accordance with the 1995 Caltrans Standard Specifications and project Special Provisions. Based on our experience on similar proj- ects we assume the construction duration for this project will be approximately 3 months (90 workings days). 0 0 J 1 'r - 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland San Diego Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (510) 893-2551 (619) 457-0400 (213) 488-51 1 1 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Proposal No. P -03770I PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to provide soils and materials observation and testing services during the construc- tion of the proposed project. The purpose of our observation and testing will be to document that satisfactory materials and sound construction practices were used, and that the construction was conducted in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, project plans, and the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Based on our understanding of this project, and our experience with similar projects, we propose the following scope of services: • Attendance at preconstruction and field meetings, as requested by RCTC representatives. • Field observation, documentation, and testing during the earthwork operation. Our field services may include field density testing of fill soils during minor grading at the site. We have assumed that approximately 40 hours of field services will be requested during fill and backfill placement. • Field sampling, and testing of fresh concrete as requested by RCTC, including casting cylin- ders for compressive strength and testing for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature. We anticipate sampling and testing concrete for the CIDH piles, pile cap (footing) and barrier. After the initial 24 hours of curing, samples will be transported to our laboratory. We have assumed that approximately 50 hours of field services will be requested. • Field sampling of masonry block, mortar, and grout placed at the site. Sampling and testing of the masonry block sound wall is anticipated to be.performed on a periodic basis during construction. Therefore, we estimate approximately 60 hours of mortar and grout field sam- pling services will be requested. • Performance of off -site batch plant inspection and sampling for concrete, asphalt, and mortar during construction, as requested by the Resident Engineer. We have assumed that approxi- mately 20 hours of plant inspection and material sampling services will be requested. • Performance of laboratory testing of the fill, concrete, masonry block, mortar, grout, asphalt, and reinforcing steel in accordance with the guidelines and frequencies outlined in Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual and, in particular, as requested by the Resident Engi- neer. • Geotechnical field assistance in evaluation of the suitability of foundation materials, and re- moval of unsuitable materials (if any). 037701.doc 2 /Vinyo&/toots Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 Proposal No. P -03770I • • • • Preparation of daily field reports and other memoranda to summarize the field operations and test results. In addition, we will maintain project files in accordance with Caltrans filing procedures for the project. • Project coordination and client liaison, including scheduling of personnel to provide obser- vation and materials testing services. FEE ESTIMATE Our geotechnical and materials testing services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with the direct hourly rates, indirect costs, and profit shown on the attached Break- down of Estimated Fee (Table 1), as well as the laboratory test rates presented in Tables 2 and 3. Based on the scope of services and assumed durations described herein, we estimate that our fee will be approximately $21,900 (twenty-one thousand nine hundred dollars). A detailed break- down of our estimated fee is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that this estimated fee is based on an assumed project duration and anticipated workload. As previously mentioned, our services will be provided on a time -and -materials basis and will be invoiced based on the actual amount of time spent on the project. Field time will be supported by daily reports of field obser- vations and/or field memoranda. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we might provide you with additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer AR/CAP/JV/av Attachments: Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee Table 2 - Laboratory Testing Estimated Fee Table 3 - Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing Distribution: (3) Addressee 0001 41 03770I.doc 3 4/inyo&/hoore Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I TABLE 1- BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE Field Observation and Testing Services Senior Field Technician (incl. nuclear gauge) 150 hours @ $ 23.00 /hour $ 3,450.00 Field Technician/Plant Inspector 20 hours @ $ 21.00 /hour $ 420.00 Subtotal $ 3,870.00 Report Preparation Principal Engineer/Geologist Project Engineer/Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processing/Reproduction Subtotal 2 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 92.00 16 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 560.00 8 hours @ $ 19.00 /hour $ 152.00 4 hours @ $ 17.50 /hour $ 70.00 $ 874.00 Project Coordination, Meetings, and Technical Field Assistance Principal Engineer/Geologist (2 hrs/month) 6 hours @ $ 46.00 /hour $ 276.00 Project Engineer/Geologist (12 hrs/month) 36 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour $ 1,260.00 Subtotal $ 1,536.00 Direct Labor $ 6,280.00 Indirect Cost @ 167% $ 10,487.60 Total Direct plus Indirect Cost $ 16,767.60 Profit @ 10% $ 1,676.76 Total Direct, Indirect, and Profit $ 18,444.36 Other Direct Costs Laboratory Testing (see Table 2) Field Vehicle and Equipment Usage 170 hours $ 3.00 /hour $ 2,934.00 $ 510.00 TOTAL $ 21,888.36 0001b�_ • • 03770i.xla /'jingo&/Nonce Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I • TABLE 2 - LABORATORY TESTING ESTIMATED FEE Soil and Aggregates Sieve Analysis (CT 202) Maximum Density (CT 216) Cleaness Value (CT 227) Sand Equivalent (CT 217) Concrete, Grout and Mortar Compressive Strength Reinforcing Steel Bend Test (ASTM A 615) Tensile Test (ASTM A 615) Subtotal Subtotal 4 tests @ $ 70.00 /test $ 8 tests @ $ 120.00 /test $ 2 tests @ $ 110.00 /test $ 2 tests @ $ 65.00 /test $ 280.00 960.00 220.00 130.00 $ 1,590.00 80 tests @ $ 15.00 /test $ 1,200.00 5 1,200.00 4 tests @ $ 16.00 /test $ 64.00 4 tests @ $ 20.00 /test $ 80.00 Subtotal $ 144.00 TOTAL $ 2,934.00 000162 03770i.xls lying"&/Moore Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I TABLE 3'- SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING` Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Soils and Aggregates 200 Wash D 1140-92 CT 202 $50.00 Absorption of Coarse Aggregate - CT 206 $55.00 Absorption of Fine Aggregate - CT 207 $65.00 Atterberg Limits D4318-95 CT 204 $90.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) D 1883-94 - $300.00 (Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content Test Not Included) Cleanness Value of Coarse Aggregate - CT 227 $110.00 Chloride and Sulfate Content - CT 417 & CT 422 $80.00 Consolidation D 2435-90 CT 219 $175.00 Consolidation - Time Rate D 2435-90 CT 219 $15.00 per increment Crushed Particle, Percent - CT 205 590.00 Direct Shear - Undisturbed D 3080-90 CT 222 $200.00 Direct Shear - Remolded D 3080-90 CT 222 $250.00 Durability Index - CT 229 $120.00 Expansion Index D 4829-95 UBC 18-2 $110.00 Expansion Potential (Method A) D 4546-90 - $95.00 Expansive Pressure (Method C) D 4546-90 - $115.00 Hydrometer Analysis D 422-63 CT 203 $100.00 Los Angeles Rattler C 131 CT 211 5130.00 Maximum Density AASHTO C (Modified) - AASHTO T-180-86 $170.00 Maximum Density A, B and C/ D 1557-91 CT 216 $120.00 California Impact Test & D 698-91 Moisture Only D 2216-92 CT 226 $12.00 Moisture and Density D 2937-94 - $25.00 Organic Impurities C 40 CT 213 550.00 Permeability, CH D 2434-68 CT 220 $190.00 pH and Resistivity - CT 643 $80.00 Relative Mortar Strength of PCC Sand - CT 515 By Quote (Specific Gravity and Absorption Tests Not Included) R -value D 2844-94 CT 301 $195.00 Sand Equivalent D 2419-91 CT 217 $65.00 Sieve Analysis D 422-63 CT 202 $70.00 Soundness C 88 CT 214 $145.00 037701. do.c 1 000:F.)3 ) /yinyo&*ours Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I • • • TABLE'3 - SCHEDULE OF tEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Specific Gravity, Coarse Aggregate Specific Gravity, Fine Aggregate Triaxial Shear, C.D. Triaxial Shear, C.U. Triaxial Shear, U.U. Unconfined Compression - Undisturbed Unconfined Compression - Remolded Wax Density Asphalt Concrete Bulk Specific Gravity CKE Extraction, % Asphalt Film Stripping Gradation on Extracted Sample Hveem Maximum Density Hveem, S -value Marshall Maximum Density Marshall Stability and Flow Moisture Vapor Susceptibility Percent Swell Concrete and Masonry Compressive Strength, Concrete Compressive Strength, Concrete Block Compressive Strength, Grouted Prisms Compressive Strength, Lightweight Concrete Compressive Strength, Mortar or Grout Concrete Flexural Strength Pavement Coring Prestressed Steel Modulus of Elasticity (Prestressing Wire) Tensile Test, Strand Tensile Test, Wire C 127-88 C 128-93 D 4767-88 D 2850-95 D 2166-91 D 2166-91 D 1188-89 D 1664 D 422-92 D 1561-92 D 1560 D 1559-89 D 1559 C 39-94 C 140 E447 C 495-91a C 78-94 A 416 A 421 CT206 CT 207 CT 230 CT 230 CT 230 CT 221 CT 221 CT 308 CT 303 CT 382 CT 302 CT 202 CT 375 CT 304 & 366 CT 307 CT 305 CT 521 UBC 24-22 & UBC 24-28 CT 523 CT 531 555.00 $75.00 $170.00 per point $160.00 per point 5100.00 per point $70.00 $120.00 $50.00 $90.00 $150.00 $120.00 $120.00 $80.00 $135.00 $170.00 $135.00 $190.00 $250.00 $150.00 $15.00 $35.00 $140.00 $15.00 $15.00 $40.00 $60.00 $110.00 $85.00 $50.00 OJv1c) 4 037701.a« 2 /S/inyo& ffiunre Riverside County Transportation Commission Route 91 Sound Wall No. 98 June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770I TABLE 3 SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM Designation Other Method Price Per Test Reinforcing Steel Bend Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — 516.00 Tensile Test, #11 Bar or Smaller A 615 — 520.00 Tensile Test, #14 Bar A 615 — 556.00 Tensile Test, # 18 Bar A 615 — 577.00 Structural Steel Bend Test A 370 — 519.00 Hardness Test, Brinell A 370 — 525.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. A 370 — 520.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 100,000 Lbs. to 200,000 Lbs. A 370 — 526.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 200,000 Lbs. to 300,000 Lbs. A 370 — 542.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 300,000 Lbs. to 400,000 Lbs. A 370 — $79.00 Tensile Strength, Up to 400,000 Lbs. to 600,000 Lbs. A 370 — $126.00 Welded Specimens Tensile Test, Welded #11 Bar or Smaller — AWS D1.4 535.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar — AWS D1.4 563.00 Tensile Test, Welded #18 Bar — AWS D1.4 $84.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced Bar — AWS DI.4 $95.00 Roofing and Fireproofing Fireproofing Density — UBC 43-8 535.00 Roofing Tile Break -Up Strength — UBC 32-12 543.00 Roofing Tile Absorption — UBC 32-12 543.00 1 r VU (..)�l 037701.doc 3 *ago &k oore 0, • Mr. Karl Sauer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 &Moore Geotechncai ana Environmental Sc ences Consurzans June 16, 1999 Proposal No. P -03770J Subject: Scope of Work and Estimated Costs to Conduct a Subsurface Investigation Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South Corona, California Dear Mr. Sauer: Ninyo & Moore recently prepared a Draft Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the subject property dated April 6, 1999. In this report, Ninyo & Moore recommended conduct- ing a further investigation adjacent to two off -site potential sources of contamination to obtain a higher confidence level that impacted soil and/or groundwater exists at the site from the Corona Disposal and former Thakar Aluminum properties. -For budgetary purposes, groundwater beneath the site is expected to occur at depths ranging from approximately 40 to 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs). PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES Four soil borings will be drilled at approximately equal distances between each other along the property line between Corona Disposal and the site. The first boring will be drilled to groundwa- ter to assess the actual depth (expected to be approximately 50 feet bgs). The remaining three borings will be drilled to a depth immediately above groundwater, and a hydropunch sampling de- vice will be advanced into groundwater to collect a sample. Soil samples will be collected at depths of approximately 5 -foot intervals beginning at approximately 5 feet bgs and continuing to groundwater. Two soil samples per boring will be randomly selected for chemical analyses. Up to eight soil samples and three groundwater samples will be analyzed for California Code of Regula- tions (CCR) metals, aluminum, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in general accordance 0 013-13 9272 Jeronimo Road • Suite 123A • Irvine, California 92618-1914 • Phone (949) 472-5444 • Fax (949) 472-5445 Oakland , (510) 893-2551 San Diego (619) 457-0400 Los Angeles Ontario Las Vegas (213) 488-5111 (909) 947-1588 (702) 433-0330 Riverside County Transportation Commission June 16, 1999 Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South, Corona Proposal No. P -03770J with EPA test numbers 6010/7000, and 8260, respectively. One trip blank will also be analyzed for the above constituents. Three soil borings will be drilled along the property line between the former Thakar Aluminum facility and the site. Soil and groundwater samples will be collected from each boring in the same manner described above. Up to two soil samples per boring, and one groundwater sample per boring will be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), total petroleum hy- drocarbons as diesel fuel (TPHd), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in general accordance with EPA test numbers 8015 (modified) and 8020. One trip blank sample will also be analyzed for the above constituents. Costs will in- clude disposal of the soil cuttings as non -hazardous waste. Following receipt of the laboratory results, a report will be prepared documenting the findings and presented to the client. COMPENSATION Our fee for the proposed scope of services is $19,658.59. Work will be performed on a lump sum basis. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the costs. If you have any questions or comments regarding this proposal, please call the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jalal Vakili, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer PAR/DLR/JV/av Attachment: Table 1 — Breakdown of Estimated Fee Distribution: (2) Addressee 0t�j.j9- 7 2 lyinyo&4 ore • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Porphyry "Y" to Four Miles South, Corona TABLE 1 - BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED FEE June 16, 1999 Proposal No . P -03770J SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION - PORPHYRY "Y" Task 1 - Soil and Groundwater Sampling Project Geologist Staff Geologist (See also Other Direct Costs) Task 2 - Laboratory Analyses (See also Other Direct Costs) Task 4 - Report Preparation Principal Geologist Project Geologist Staff Geologist Technical Illustrator Word Processor/Reproduction Other Direct Costs Task 1: Miscellaneous Equipment and Supplies Field Vehicle (24 hrs. @ $3.00/hr.) Drill Rig Disposal of Soil Cuttings (non -hazardous) Task 2: Sample Analyses 6 hours @ $ 35.00 /hour 36 hours @ $ 22.00 /hour 2 hours 6 hours 24 hours 5 hours 5 hours Subtotal 46.00 /hour 35.00 /hour 22.00 /hour 19.00 /hour 17.50 /hour Subtotal Direct Labor Indirect Cost @ 167% Total Direct Plus Indirect Cost Profit @ 10% Total Direct, Indirect and Profit Subtotal TOTAL REVISED ESTIMATED FEE $ 210.00 $ 792.00 1,002.00 $ 92.00 $ 210.00 $ 528.00 $ 95.00 $ 87.50 $ 1,012.50 $ 2,014.50 $ 3,364.22 $ 5,378.72 $ 537.87 5,916.59 $ 200.00 $ 72.00 $ 5,950.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,020.00 $ 13,742.00 $ 19,658.59 0 03770J.xis 1 /yinyo&/Moore AGENDA ITEM 17 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Amendment to Five Year Capital Improvement Program The City of Beaumont has requested an amendment to their Five Year Capital Improvement Plan to include the projects listed below. These were originally paid with other funds. The City now desires to transfer these expenditures, which are eligible for Measure A funding, to their Measure A fund. Southwest Properties Transportation 4th Street Highway 60 Potrero Blvd. Interchange Willow Springs This transfer will resolve the audit concern that the City had potentially impaired Measure A funds because of a significant deficit in the General Fund. After posting of these expenditures the Measure A cash balance will be virtually depleted. As a general note, the City indicates that their overall financial condition has improved since the 1998 audit report. Representatives of the city will be present to address any questions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont. O t. • AGENDA ITEM 18 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 28, 1999 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Schedule of Recurring Consultants To streamline the processing of contracts, the Commission has annually reviewed and approved a listing of contracts which are routine and renewable from year to year (in most cases up to a maximum of five years). That process was suspended the past year as the Commission completed reviewing all contracts to determine when and if to hold a competitive process. That review has been completed and most contracts have either been re bid, are in process, or will be initiated based on the timetable established by the Commission. Staff is now reviving the Schedule of Recurring Contracts (renamed the Schedule of Recurring Consultants) for routine contracts and consulting services regularly used by the Commission on an annual basis. All contracts are subject to legal review by general counsel, fiscal impact review by the Chief Financial Officer, and approval of the Chair and the Executive Director. Any consultants which are still pending an RFP process are so noted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Schedule of Recurring Consultants. 0 r; 9 0 • • Consultant Name Bechtel Best, Best, & Krieger Charles Bell/Boyea Capital M arkets Cis Leroy Ernst & Young O'Melveny & Meyers Public Financial Management (PFM ) Schiermeyer Consulting Services (1 Teletran Tek Services Valley Research & Planning Riverside County Tranpsortatio n Co mmission Schedule of Recurring Consultants Fiscal Year Ending .!u ne 30, 2000 Desciption of Services Program management General legal services Financial advisory se ti ices Planning services Audit and consulting services Bond counsel Investment advisory services Rail planning and studies Callbox system support Congestion mgmt. serv ices Budget Budget Dollar Percent 6/30/99 6/30/00 Change Change 1,600,000 1,550,000 (50,000) -3.1 325,000 355,000 30,000 9.2% 145,000 165,000 20,000 13.8 % 35,000 35,000 0 0 .0% 355,600 369,000 13,400 3.8% 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% 25,000 35,000 10,000 40.0 % 110,000 120,000 10,000 9.1% 44,650 62,924 18,274 40 .9% 80,000 80,000 0 0 .0 % 2,730,250 2,781,924 51,674 1.9 % Note: All of the above amounts are included in the approved ZY2000 Budget. (1). Rail consulting services will be reviewed by the Commi:. ;on during the 2000 fiscal year for possible issuance of an RFP based on the instructions of the Recurring Contract Ad r c Committee.