The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11 November 24, 2003 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 2:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, November 24, 2003 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1 s` Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS Coachella Valley Association of Governments (Video Conference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 119 Palm Desert, CA 92260 ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Robert Schiffner, Chair / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Terry Henderson, Vice -Chair/ Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Art Welch / Barbara Hanna, City of Banning Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Alan Seman / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Anneal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two/ County of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission Il.3(P-, • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www. rctc. org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 2:30 p.m. Monday, November 24, 2003 BOARD CHAMBERS * * County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1S` Floor Riverside, California * *Coache//a Valley Association of Governments (Video Conference Site) 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 119 Palm Desert, CA The Public is welcome to attend the meeting at the meeting location and at the video -conference site. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Committee at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) • Budget and Implementation Committee November 24, 2003 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in. single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending October 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. APPROVE AGREEMENT #04-31-007 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE CAJALCO - RAMONA CORRIDOR PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 5 • 1) Approve the selection process recommendation of Jacobs Civil Inc. as the lead consulting firm for the preparation of a Project Study Report/Project Development Support, Project Report, and Environmental Document for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 2) Approve the award of a consultant agreement #04-31-007 to Jacobs Civil Inc. based on the negotiated project scope schedule and cost to be presented at the Committee meeting; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. APPROVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING M-23-001 WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND COST REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE (PERRIS VALLEY LINE) PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 8 • Budget and Implementation Committee November 24, 2003 Page 3 • 1) Approve MOU M-23-001 with the SCRRA for the development and cost reimbursement of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. CITY OF CORONA REQUEST TO REPROGRAM FUNDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 16 1) Approve the City of Corona's request to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds on the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) project with TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FY 2004-08 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL • STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT Pg. 18 • Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont, as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 04-005 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 03-04 Pg. 21 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-005 establishing the Commission's Appropriation limit for FY 03-04, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee November 24, 2003 Page 4 • 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the staff report as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview Pg. 27 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 15. NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 P.M., Monday, December 22, 2003, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Committee may wish to consider rescheduling the December meeting. 16. ADJOURNMENT • • AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, September 22, 2003 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairman Robert Schiffner at 2:30 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501, and the video conference location at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California, 92260. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Chris Buydos Terry Henderson Ameal Moore Gregory Pettis* Robert Schiffner Alan Seman* John F. Tavaglione Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Members Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara Michael H. Wilson * Attended meeting via video conference 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 23, 2003 M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve the June 23, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Pettis 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Chairman Schiffner noted additions/revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 7, "Right -of -Way Services Related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and Property Management Support Services" • Agenda Item 8, "Agreement No. 04-31-015 for Revegetation Work Adjacent to State Route 74 Segment I" 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Welch) to approve the Consent Calendar. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending August 31, 2003; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES RELATED TO THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Stephanie Wiggins presented the selection of Epic Land Solutions Inc. to provide right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and property management support services, including the scope of work for both services. She also indicated that staff is in final negotiations with Epic Land Solutions to finalize the scope of services and staff believes will not exceed $450,000 of right -of way services and $250,000 for property management support services. Hideo Sugita added that staff anticipates completing negotiations in time to present at the October Commission meeting. • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 3 • • • Commissioner Buydos expressed concern that sufficient information was not provided regarding the property management support services and be removed from the staff recommendation at this time and brought back to the Committee at its next meeting to provide more detailed information addressing the scope of service, terms, types of properties owned by the Commission, and necessity of the service. Hideo Sugita responded that staff will return to the Committee as requested. M/S/C (Buydos/Welch) to: 1) Approve the results of the selection process for consultant services to provide right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail Project and Property Management Support Services; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-33-009 to Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase I of the right-of-way support services related to the Perris Valley Line Commuter Rail for a not to exceed amount of $450,000; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. No - Henderson, Pettis 8. AGREEMENT NO. 04-31-015 FOR REVEGETATION WORK ADJACENT TO STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT I Bill Hughes, RCTC's Consultant - Bechtel Project Manager, reviewed the scope of services for the revegetation work adjacent to SR 74 including the selection of Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Inc. to perform the work. M/S/C (Henderson/Welch) to: 1) Approve the results of the selection process for revegetation services adjacent to State Route 74 Segment 1 between Dexter Avenue, in Lake Elsinore, and 0.5 Km East of Wasson Canyon Road, in Riverside County; 2) Award Agreement No. 04-31-015 to Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Inc. to perform the revegetation scope of work, for the amount of $28,576.35, plus an contingency amount of $12,423.65, to cover unknown potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed amount of $41,000.00; Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 4 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AGREEMENTS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND CITY OF RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed the agreements with Southern California Gas Company and Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), highlighting the benefits to the Commission and the responsibilities that will be assumed by RPU. Commissioner Buydos asked for the status of discussions with RPU to distribute the energy generated in excess of what is being utilized at the La Sierra Metrolink Station to the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. Stephanie Wiggins responded that both agencies have determined to review the additional unused capacity that the Commission is not being credited for in 12 months. She also noted that RPU has indicated an interest in installing photovoltaic structures at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. M/S/C (Moore/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-034 with the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) for the installation of a gas line at the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station. Approval of this agreement is contingent upon approval of the agreement with the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU); 2) Approve Agreement No. 04-25-035 with the RPU regarding the construction of a gas line at the La Sierra Station and the assumption of responsibilities under the SCGC Self -Generation Incentive Program Contract; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 5 • 10. STATE ROUTE 111 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROJECT FUNDING Hideo Sugita outlined the Memorandums of Understanding with the CVAG and the Cities of La Quinta, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage for funding reimbursement of SR 1 1 1 projects. M/S/C (Wamsley/Welch) to: • 1) Approve Memorandums of Understanding M23-005 with the City of La Quinta and M23-006 with the City of Cathedral City for the funding reimbursement and joint development of SR 111 Improvements; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding M23-007 between RCTC, CVAG, and the City of Rancho Mirage for reimbursement to the City's completed SR 111 Project; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Memorandums of Understanding on behalf of the Commission; 4) Authorize staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise; and, 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AGREEMENT NO. 04-19-029 WITH FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, presented the selection of Fieldman Rolapp and Associates to provide financial advisory services to the Commission. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-19-029 with Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to provide financial advisory services to the Commission; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 6 12. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE — REQUEST TO REPROGRAM CONGESTION • MANAGEMENT AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) PROGRAM FUNDS Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the request from the County of Riverside's to reprogram CMAQ funds to the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project and the State Route 60/Valley Way Eastbound Ramp Project. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the County of Riverside's request reprogramming $1,510,863 of CMAQ funds to the Mission Boulevard Traffic Monitoring Project and the State Route 60/Valley Way Eastbound Ramp Project; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ALLOCATION OF CMAQ FUNDS AND APPROVAL OF CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 04-31-028 FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT FROM VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 Shirley Medina reviewed the Local Assistance Contribution Agreement with Caltrans District 08, allowing Caltrans to claim $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds for the SR 60 HOV Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15. M/S/C (Henderson/Wamsley) to: 1) Approve allocation of $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds on the State Route 60 High Occupancy Vehicle Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15; 2) Approve Agreement 04-31-028, Local Assistance Contribution Agreement with Caltrans District 08, allowing Caltrans to claim $21 million of TEA 21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funds for the SR 60 HOV Project from Valley Way to Interstate 15; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 7 • 14. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 04-45-027 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the Fund Transfer Agreement between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Fund Transfer Agreement No. 04-45-027 between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol Program in the amount of $1,041,618 in State funding for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE • John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the status of the State Budget, the extension of the Federal Transportation Act, Senate Bill 1055, Assembly Bill 487, and Proposition 53. After receiving further clarification of Assembly Bill 487 from John Standiford, Commissioner Henderson stated that she is unable to support this bill. M/S/C (Pettis/Tavaglione) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. No - Henderson 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. • Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting September 22, 2003 Page 8 17. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF A. Hideo Sugita noted: • Eric Haley, Executive Director, will be out of the office from September 26th through October 21St on vacation and attending the Focus on the Future Conference. In his absence, Hideo or Naty can be contacted for assistance. • The Commission has received an allocation of $300,000 in State Planning and Research Funds for CETAP. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m., Monday, October 27, 2003. Respectfully submitted, (___st-x‘x"je;Pz- \-\c„,,,,,,, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • • • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule report for the month of October 31, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending October 31, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — October 2003 1 - RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/RIROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % CO MMITTED EXPENDITURE F OR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 10/31/03 TO DATE COMMITMNTS TO DATE ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final De sign/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. $37,222,727 $33,722,727 90 .6% $11,025 $7,807,564 23.2% (2042) (3000) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 $37,222,727 °' $33,722,727 90.6% $11,025 $7,807,564 23.2% ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55.1% $97,870 $36,035,367 93 .6 % (R02142) (R02141) (2140) (3001) (3009) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 $69,847,655 $38,514,368 55 .1% $97,870 $36,035,367 93.6% RO UTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003 & 3004) $2,894,497 $2,793,935 96 .5% $44,725 $1,066,179 38.2 % Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 $2 894 497 $2,793,935 96.5% $44,725' $1,066,179 38 .2°/u ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction $11,902,100 $10,374,324 87.2 % $138 $9,574,055 92.3% (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Hook Ramp & I/C (R03008) $2,954,000 $2,954,000 100.0% $0 $2,109,519 71 .4 % Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) $1,274,430 $1,062,025 83.3 % $0 $661,963 62.3 % Sndwall Landscaping and Plant Establishment $1,603,450 $1,603,450 100 .0 % $0 $876,228 54.6% (RO 9933,9946,2059,3601) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 $17,733,980'' $15,993,799 90.2% $138 $13,221,765 82.7% ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $0 $15,678,997 92 .5 % 3410,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 (3400-3405) SUBTOTAL RO UTE 111 $16,946,856 $16,946,856 100.0% $0 $15,678,997 92.5% Page 1 of 3 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED CO MMITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 10/31/03 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6 % $0 $5,714,908 88.9% Design Sequencing SUBTOTAL 1-215 $6,726,504 $6,428,173 95.6% $0 $5,714,908 88.9% PROJECT & CONSTR. M GMT SERV. (Agreement (03-31-070)) $2,036,698 $2,036,698 100.0 % $0 $413,657 20.3 % SUBTOTAL BECHTEL $2,036,698 $2,036,698 100 .0% $0 $413,657 20.3% PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 $3,923,177 $3,923,177 100.0% $54,117 $3,023,105 77.1 % 2127,2138,2139, 2178,2199 SUBTOTAL PARK -N -RIDE $3,923,177 $3,923,177 100.0% $54,117 $3,023,105 77.1 % COMM UTER RAIL Studies/Engineering/Construction $26,685,414 $25,943,070 97.2% $468,224 $24,616,633 94 .9% (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Perris Multimodal Facility (3816) $2,000,000 $503,000 25.2 % $0 $289,136 57.5 % Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198,4199,4009,3812 $13,900,329 $13,900,329 100.0 % $59,822 $10,566,486 76.0% SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL $42,585,743 $40,346,399 94.7% $528,046 $35,472,255 87.9% TOTALS $199,917,837 $160,706,132 80.4% $735,921 $118,433,797 73.7% Page 2 of 3 • - RCTC MEASURE "A" HI GHWAY/LOCANIFEETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION CO MMITMENT 10/31/03 AD VANCES BALANCE COMMIT MENT APPROVED COM MIT . CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $546,054 $0 34.1 % SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 $546,054 $0 34 .1% CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $2,560,262 $0 49.1 % Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA $5,212,623 $0 $5,212,623 $2,560,262 $0 49.1% CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements $1,936,419 $1,936,419 $1,033,390 $0 53 .4% CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements $1,324,500 $1,324,500 $706,833 $0 53.4% CITY OF TEM ECULA Local streets & road improvements $5,094,027 $5,094,027 $2,718,481 $0 53.4% CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts $2,139,067 $2,139,067 $1,141,536 $0 53.4 % CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $442,322 $0 29.5 % TOTALS $18,806,636 $0 $18,806,636 $8,706,556 ;' $0 46.3% NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. Status as of: 10/31/03 Page 3 of 3 • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • (0635-3 Revised Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement #04-31-007 with Jacobs Civil Inc. to Provide Engineering Services Related to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection process recommendation of Jacobs Civil Inc. as the lead consulting firm for the preparation of a Project Report, and Environmental Document for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 2) Approve the award of a consultant agreement #04-31-007 to Jacobs Civil Inc. based on the negotiated project scope schedule and cost that is attached to this agenda item for a not to exceed amount of $5,030,501 to perform Phase I activities related to developing the Project Report and Environmental Document; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 11, 2003 the RCTC Board approved acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document. Staff was directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on schedule, budget, and implementation. At the September 3, 2003 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS), Project Report (PR) and a project level Environmental Document (ED) for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project. The calendar of events was as follows: Item Date 1 Request for Proposals was issued 09/04/03 2 Proposals were due 10/16/03 3 Short List Notification was made 10/30/03 4 Consultant interviews were held 11/13/03 5 Recommendations to Committee will be made 11/24/03 6 Recommendations to Commission for award will be made 12/10/03 7 Anticipated Notice to Proceed 01/12/04 SELECTION PROCESS: A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC, Caltrans, County of Riverside and Bechtel. Staff received proposals from eight (8) firms. The selection panel reviewed the eight (8) proposals and short listed three (3) of the eight (8) firms. The three (3) firms each demonstrated that they would be capable of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Jacobs Civil Inc. Second CH2M Hill Third Washington Since the project is approximately 32 miles long, and will link to the SR 79 realignment project on the east end of the project, staff is recommending that the top firm, Jacobs Civil Inc. include the second ranked firm, CH2M Hill to their proposed core team since CH2M Hill is already performing the delivery of the SR 79 realignment project. By linking the delivery teams of these two projects, staff hopes to be able to re -invigorate the stalled progress of the SR 79 project that the resource agencies have not been able to address due to resources/priorities that have been directed to support CETAP. While negotiating the development of an integrated Jacobs & Ch2M Hill team for the delivery of the CRC project, it was determined that a PSR/PDS document, which is a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding document, would not be required since the new funding for this project is anticipated to come from the Riverside County TUMF Funds. This being the case, the project scope was modified to proceed directly into the delivery of the Project Report and Environmental document. Staff has negotiated the necessary scope, schedule and cost to be consistent with the desired engineering services for Phase I of the engineering work to be performed. Phase I will include early development of time sensitive activities and initial alternative development that will be used to scope the final work products to deliver the completed Project Report and Environmental Document for the Cajalco- Ramona Corridor project in the Phase II activities. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Attached to this document is the agreed Cost and Scope to complete Phase I of the Project. Prior to the completion of the Phase I activities, staff will bring back another action item for the Commission to consider approval of the Phase II work elements that will complete the delivery of the Project Report and Environmental Document. The Phase I project funding will consist of $30,501 of the remaining Federal Streamlining allocation and $5,000,000 of western Riverside County TUMF funding. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 03/04 FY 04/05 Amount: $3,000,000 $2,030,501 Source of Funds: $30,501 Federal Streamlining Funds $5,000,000 Western County TUMF Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 210/72/81101 (P2302) 210/73/81101 (P2302) Funds to be split 50/50 Fiscal Procedures Approved: 10,15,�' Date: 11/24/03 Attachments: 1. CRC Scope 2. CRC Cost 3. CRC Schedule CRC SCOPE ATTACHMENT A 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK - PHASE I — CAJALCO/RAMONA CORRIDOR PROJECT The following work plan provides the general approach to the Cajalco/Ramona Corridor Phase I activities (Alternatives Report). The Alternatives Report is intended to program additional study efforts and to provide estimated ranges of capital costs suitable for a long-range planning document. This scope of work addresses tasks required to complete Phase 1 only (Final Alternatives Report). Tasks required to complete Phase 2 will be scoped at a later date. It is assumed that nine months will be required to complete Phase 1. PHASE I ACTIVITIES (FINAL ALTERNATIVES REPORT) Task I Project Management/Project Controls 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring and maintenance of project files. Jacobs will supervise, coordinate, monitor and review alternatives development for conformance with Caltrans and local agency standards, policies and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task will also include coordination and preparation of several documents anticipated to be required by Caltrans based on Final Alternatives Report experience. Upon receiving Notice to Proceed, the Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC to initiate the formation of the Project Development Team. This coordination effort will identify all agencies with jurisdiction or an interest within the project limits as well as the individuals who shall represent these agencies as members of the Project Development Team. RCTC, the various cities and Riverside County, and Caltrans will review and finalize the members recommended for participation. Jacobs will prepare all displays and material necessary for the scoping meeting. This "kickoff' meeting shall be the first meeting of the Project Development team and its purpose will be to establish the following: • Introduce members of the Project Development Team ▪ Identify project expectations • Establish the Project Criteria • Define project goals • Identify critical project issues • Define Project Scope and schedule The scoping meeting and Jacobs scheduling and management activities will serve as the basis for the development of the Project Work Plan. This action plan will be provided to all members of the Project Development Team to ensure that all members clearly understand their responsibilities and the timeliness of executing these responsibilities. Quality Control is a continuous process applied by all personnel throughout the planning and design process. Jacobs has a formal Quality Control Manual that sets forth the objectives and procedures for developing and maintaining quality in project development and management. Our QA/QC program effectively and economically ensures technical quality in preparing contract deliverables. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 1 A job -specific quality plan, which includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures, is created at the beginning of the project as part of the Project Procedures Manual/Project Criteria Document. These procedures apply to all team members, and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC Manager to ensure compliance. 1.2 Project Scheduling / Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in a critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for all team members. The schedule will be updated bi-monthly or more frequently as required and a variance analysis provided in our monthly report. It is planned to use Primavera Scheduling Software tied into our Jacobs Accounting System for this activity. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the bi-weekly "Trend" meetings to discuss scope, schedule and cost, attend monthly meetings of the Project Development Team (PDT), and other meetings as required for coordination. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others including Caltrans, Riverside County and affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions and distribute correspondence copies to all Project Team members as appropriate. Provide coordination and support for the environmental streamlining process, MSHCP Amendment and Integration process, NEPA/404 Integration process, Special Area Management Plan, Orange County/Riverside County MIS and SR -79 Realignment project. Task 2 Public Outreach 2.1 Public Information Meetings/Workshops/Hearings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend up to twelve (12) public work shops/ public information meetings to inform the public about the project and to receive public input. These workshops or meetings will be held at different locations to be able to attract the majority of the affected residents. 2.2 Media Relations A media program will be incorporated to consistently and positively convey our messages and successes to the community and elected leaders. These activities are designed to gain further support and increase program awareness. Methodology: • Identify transportation, business and community news reporters in local and regional media outlets. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 2 • Distribute media materials — media kits, news releases and media advisories — to targeted reporters. • Conduct reporter and editorial board briefing rehearsals to review key messages and themes and conduct "hardball" media Q&A sessions. • Schedule and conduct briefings with targeted reporters when the project is launched and at project milestones. • Develop a media calendar based on anticipated milestones. • Schedule and conduct editorial board meetings with targeted media outlets utilizing a media kit that includes project collateral materials. Products: • Media target list document with name and contact information of reporter or editor • Script and Q&A document for reporter and editorial board briefings • Media kit (fact sheet, alternatives map, Q&A document, news releases) • Monthly media calendar document with itinerary of stories to be pitched 2.3 Intergovernmental Relations We will provide on -going contacts at local and federal levels for the transportation and resource agencies. We have strong alliances with the transportation and infrastructure committees in the House and Senate. We will maintain continuous contact with Caltrans, FHWA and other Federal Resource Agencies; assist RCTC in gaining funding and supportive legislation; and arrange meetings with RCTC, the County, and the House and Senate transportation committee leaders to help you sell your program and set the stage for future funding. 2.4 Newsletter/Graphics Support The following communications program is designed to achieve these objectives. Research & Message Development We will identify the most cost-effective outreach activities, help define RCTC's measurements for the success of public outreach efforts, and craft compelling messages for target audiences, extensive research must first be conducted. Methodology: • Meet with RCTC management to collect background information and any research materials produced to date. • Research similar projects in other locations that have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful in terms of public support. • Conduct a messaging session with RCTC management to develop core messages. Products: • A case study document reviewing public outreach on four similar projects. • A key message document. Elected Officials Communication We will provide the following support: Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 3 METHODOLOGY: • Develop a matrix of local, state and federal elected officials, including key staff contacts, and their transportation issue focus. • Conduct a briefing program that includes one-on-one meetings as well as ongoing verbal and written communication with targeted elected officials to highlight progress and accomplishments in the Final Alternatives Report process. • Provide officials with periodic updates via letters, newsletters, brochures and e -mails. • Follow-up with officials' requests and/or concerns. • Invite targeted officials to pen letters of support and guest editorials praising the Final Alternatives Report Process. Products: • Matrix document of local, state and federal elected officials and key staff to be briefed • Draft letters of support and guest media editorials for elected official consideration Script for quarterly e-mail updates to elected officials Stakeholder Communication We will provide the following support: METHODOLOGY: • Develop a matrix of all major stakeholders in affected areas. • Conduct a briefing program that includes one-on-one meetings as well as ongoing verbal and written communication with stakeholders to address concerns and highlight progress. • Provide stakeholders with periodic updates via letters, newsletters, brochures and emails. • Invite stakeholders to pen letters of support and guest editorials praising the Final Alternatives Report Process. Products: • Matrix document of stakeholders to be briefed. • Draft letters of support and guest media editorials for stakeholder consideration. Script for quarterly email updates to stakeholders. Pair communities with corridor areas. We will obtain input from those who want the transportation corridor, as well as those who perceive impacts to validate support in each of the public meetings. We will provide: Corridor/Community Pairing • Establish geographic sub -regions for public input • Conduct survey research to test support for corridor • Enhance CETAP and RCIP databases with broader stakeholder list • Use newsletter, targeted direct mail to build constituent interest • Use newspaper full page advertorial and media relations to build interest community -wide • Hold one community outreach meeting in each region Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 4 Local Decision Makers • Conduct meetings with appropriate local government leader in each constituent community to solicit participation in a PDT -like committee • Form a task activated committee as either a PDT or sub -committee of RCTC • Hold two initial meetings Newsletter/Mailings • Review mailing lists and data bases • Conduct survey research, prepare report • Assist with developing messages for print materials, exhibits • Attend Public Outreach meetings • Attend Local Decision maker meeting • Press briefing and press releases Graphics Support — Our team will provide graphics support as required throughout the project. 2.5 Website / GIS For the Website we propose the following scope of services for Phase 1. 1) Provide Consulting services to identify effective web based mechanisms to achieve identified goals in providing public outreach for the CRC project. This task includes staff time to meet with project proponents and the public outreach team to set goals and identify measurable milestones for web based public participation through interactive web based tools. The recommendations will include a thorough review of existing web sites with recommendations on improvements to navigation, redundancy, internal links, external links, effectiveness of online maps and documents. The final site will be based at the address www.cajalcoramonacorridor.orq or www.crcorridor.org. 2) Provide Consulting services to develop a maintenance mechanism which will allow local project staff to maintain priority and frequently changing areas of the web site without requiring additional advanced programming. This task will be accomplished through the use of ASP programming, easily updated online databases, and web page templates. When combined, these tools will allow non -technical staff to provide updates to the web site such as updates to the Events Calendar right on the site or the addition of links, maps, or documents through the use of a Microsoft Access database or text file. 3) Provide consulting services for the creation of viewable and/or printable maps for placement on the project web site. We will create files and procedures which will allow for the easy viewing or plotting (where applicable) of web based maps through a variety of mechanisms. Each map or document will be reviewed and compared to the goals of the project to decide to what level of detail the map will be presented to the public. Several options are provided below. A) Maps will be converted to a web viewable format (JPG or GIF) for placement (as -is) and delivered electronically to the webmaster for posting. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 5 B) Maps will be converted to a web viewable format (JPG or GIF). The images will then be divided into quadrants and an image map prepared to allow the user to Aclick@ on a particular location on the map. The server will then deliver a new page containing an image with a higher resolution Azoomed@ representation of a portion of the particular map. These images and supporting web pages will be delivered electronically to the webmaster for posting. C) Maps and/or Documents will be converted to a Portable Document Format (PDF) in such a manner as to allow for web users to make effective use of Adobe' Acrobat Reader, a free plug-in application, to view and navigate such files. For maps this will allow for easy panning and zooming and allow effective plotting or printing to any Windows' printing device. For text and graphic documents, this will include the creation of an interactive table of contents for direct navigation to any section or page of the document and also printing to any Windows' printing device with the final product appearing as close to the author=s intentions as possible. Special attention will be paid to maintaining a reasonable size document for download over a standard 28.8k baud modem Internet connection. D) An interactive map page will be created which will allow for direct user control of online map content in a map window on a standard web browser. This method allows the user the greatest control over the way they wish to view the data which is presented on the site while still maintaining complete security over the proprietary nature of some of the data. As the user adds or removes data layers, or zooms and pans, a new map is created nearly instantly and delivered to the user=s screen. This method also allows the user to interrogate the map components for GIS database information if such access is desirable. A combination of these alternatives will be implemented individually as appropriate for each map or document as it becomes available. Budget has been provided as estimated for the types of projects and data that will be available for the duration of the project. If the budget for this task is reduced through early implementation of a significant number of maps, the most cost effective method of posting will be used for the remainder of the budget. 4) Provide web programming services for the creation of online forms and databases for the collection and dissemination of information through the RCIP project public web site. This task would begin with creation of an effective feedback and public comment mechanism. Through identification of specific information to be collected and stored in a project database, a predefined form will be created which collects more than just the public comment, but also pertinent information which will help to classify the comment and identify the individual providing the input. These fields will then be built into an online form, archived in a database on the web server, and the information will be forwarded to the appropriate team member via Email and copied to the project managers to assure that issues are properly addressed and a proper response returned. Other such forms and databases may include online surveys, requests for additional information, and lookup of appropriate contact name/phone/email information for specific components of the project. All data collected in this manner will be archived in a database file and can be reported immediately or periodically as required. Additional Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 6 uses of this technology include the lookup of project information such as a project glossary. 5) Provide on -call design, graphics, programming, and mapping services as -needed for the development of web pages, and online documents and maps. GIS For this project, the Geographic Information System (GIS) will provide the base structure for data collection and organization. The GIS Team will also provide data organization, dissemination and support for all the project team members. There are six main tasks that the GIS team will address: 1. Setup, development, and maintenance of data library and distribution system. 2. Publish base data and alignment layer, data standards to be used by project teams. 3. Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, & maintenance. 4. Analysis utilizing the GIS system as required to support general project needs. 5. Generate maps, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS resources. 6. Data archive, documentation, delivery, and training. Task 1: Setup, development, and maintenance of data library and distribution system. A Project Data Control and Management Library will be established which will contain all of the data collected or generated for the project. This system, which will be maintained and operated in conjunction with the project and document management collaboration site, will serve as a central online repository for project data. Data stored at the site will be registered to the project alignment layer developed by the Survey and Mapping team, and meta data will be made available to provide users with pertinent information relating to the data's source, level of accuracy, date of completion, and any specific limitations in the use of the data. Additional functionality of the site will maintain a list of data downloads for notification of modifications by the data originator. Base data and data sets too large for distribution from the FTP site will be made available by CD. CD updates will be distributed as warranted throughout the 18 month project life. Task 2: Publish base data and alignment layer, and create data standards to be used by project teams. Meetings will be held with all teams and individuals working on the project to provide information on how to access data and to describe the data standards that have been set for graphics, feature attributes, symbology, and meta data. The GIS team will provide support to other production teams to assist in maintaining the standards in their data generation and utilization. The data standards created for the project GIS will conform to the data standards currently in use on County systems. Data standards will be determined and established per the Data Dictionaries provided by the governing agencies and their GIS departments. A base data set will be established and maintained by the GIS team in conjunction with the work to be completed by the Survey and Mapping team, which will be used by the Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 7 other team members for convergence of data sets. This base data layer will be referred to as the "Data Alignment Layer." The Data Alignment Layer will consist of points, lines, and polygons taken from various data sources at various scales and levels of accuracy. Meta data relating to these geographic features will be of primary importance and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. The datum and projection of the Data Alignment Layer will be based on the County Parcel Data which is NAD83 California State Plane Zone 6. As new data enters the project, the project team responsible for the new data will develop the appropriate meta data attributes, and align the data to the Data Alignment Layer prior to requesting that the data be placed in the project data library. Data in the project data library will be available for access by other project team members but may only be modified by the responsible team. The GIS team will be responsible for the maintenance of the data library and will provide assistance to the other project teams if required to align and register new data sets. The goal of this task is to have each final data set delivered to the client, whether engineering, planning, or environmental based, to fit the constraints of the overall project coordinate control to make it most useful for future use and assure project quality between disciplines. Task 3: Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, & maintenance. Data will be the core of all of the project tasks. Task 2 simply defines how the data will be provided and the basic format and alignment to other data. The data itself is going to be the most important component of the GIS coordination. Whether existing data is received from other sources or new data is developed during the project tasks, most of the project data will be utilized for many disciplines and all segments of the project. Therefore, the timing and availability of each data set will be important to project team managers. To address this need, the GIS team will coordinate with each project team for identification of required data, adequacy of the available data, and acquisition of the required new data layers. This task will contain the following three components: 3.1 Establish the anticipated data needs, potential sources, and availability of the required data sets. 3.2 Develop a thorough list, presenting the identified data sets, the anticipated source for the data, any additional work which must be completed prior to use of the data, and the schedule for availability of the data. 3.3 Collect data from its source. If the data is among the available data sets at the County, or other global project sources, the data will be acquired, checked, and moved to the project data library for use. Other data sets requiring additional work will be acquired by the responsible project team and modified as necessary prior to being forwarded to the GIS team for checking and placement in the project data library. Task 4: Analysis utilizing the GIS system. Once the project data is available in the project data library, the analysis of this data by each of the project teams will be undertaken. The analysis will be completed using the GIS system as a tool for evaluation of data and for the development of new data sets. New GIS data sets and resulting analyses will be maintained in the project data library and available for the other project teams to utilize. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS analysis services to the other project team members. The budget for such analyses is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 8 team. Analysis will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView or other GIS, CAD, or modeling software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Data created through this process will follow the same rigorous testing and quality checking as original data before documentation, meta data attribution, and placement in the project data library. Task 5: resources. Generate map, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS Mapping standards including global project symbol libraries, line styles, color palettes, and standard map layout at various scales will be provided to the project team members for the generation of their GIS map products. These templates will be provided online with the project data library. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS map design and creation services to the other project teams. The budget for such map generation is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project team. Map generation will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView or other software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Maps created through this process will follow rigorous quality checking procedures for accuracy and completeness. Digital versions of the final map products will be made available to the other team members in the project data library where appropriate. Task 6: Data archive, documentation, delivery, and training. 6.1 Following completion of the project, the project data collected and generated by the project team members will be archived for delivery to the Client to support future work. This archiving process will include the verification and documentation of the data structures and meta data for each data set. The data archive will consist of the creation of a permanent data backup such as DVD or CD-ROM. 6.2 Agency staff will be provided with training from the project GIS team with up to four - two hour training sessions. This training is to include an introduction and demonstration of the expanded GIS database, the new data structures, and uses identified in the project. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. All data required for this project which originates from County government or Transportation Agencies will be provided free of charge to the Team within the time constraints provided in the approved schedule. Such data will be complete, current, and accurate as required for the analysis and mapping purposes designated for this project. Also, it is assumed that the data sets will have been previously registered to each County's parcel land base or the project data alignment layer. Data layers specified in the RFP to be updated as part of this project are specifically excluded from this assumption. 2. Data requiring acquisition through purchase has been identified and budget provided 3. The Client and the Consultant Team will enter into a reciprocal confidentiality agreement concerning the creation, transfer, and use of GIS data specifically pertaining to this project. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 9 Task 3 Data Collection and Review The Jacobs team will begin the process of collecting project information immediately. We have already collected some as -built roadway, and structure plans within the project limit to identify the critical issues with this project. Other pertinent as-builts plans will be obtained from Caltrans and other agencies. We will review or obtain: • Review related studies • As -built roadway plans • As -built structure plans • Traffic data • Field review • Survey and aerial mapping • Preliminary environmental evaluation 3.1 Review Related / Adjacent Studies A review of related studies pertinent to the CRC project will be conducted to gather available background information, including local planning documents. This will include a review of previous work performed by the Team. This information will provide additional identification of potential project issues and will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the Final Alternatives report. 3.2 Review As-Builts (Roadway and Structures) We will obtain as -built information for the existing roadway and structure facilities within the portion of the CRC corridor between 1-15 and SR 79. As -built plans of the existing freeways, and arterial roadways will be obtained from Caltrans and other agencies. Jacobs will compile all existing records pertaining to the existing structures such as as - built plans, maintenance reports, construction records, and utility maps. A field inspection will be conducted by Jacobs' structural staff to evaluate key structural elements. 3.3 Traffic Data and Modeling This task includes the initiation of the study, determination of the study methodology, and collection of existing traffic data. Existing counts will be gathered from published sources and the files of various transportation agencies. Existing traffic and accident data will be collected and evaluated from Caltrans, Riverside County, and the cities. Peak hour turning movements and 24 -hour ADT will be determined at selected interchange locations Other data to be collected and presented in tabular and graphic format includes: • Roadway lane geometry • Accident data • General, Community, Area, or Specific Plan Circulation Elements to identify level of service policies and current and future street, road and highway classifications Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 10 • Construction schedules from affected agencies to determine count data or other factors that may affect count data • Data necessary to develop the traffic model (socioeconomic forecast data from SCAG and local jurisdictions, roadway network data from Caltrans and local jurisdictions) A Current Traffic Data Report will be prepared outlining data collection activities, methodologies, and results. Traffic Modeling Early consultation will be conducted with FHWA, Caltrans, and local public agencies to determine key decisions such as the horizon year(s) for the transportation analysis, design concept for the Cajalco Ramona Corridor roadway, status of the Orange County and SR 79 Corridors, the version of the SCAG model to be used (2025 versus 2030 and RIVSAN versus CETAP), and the extent to which the model land use and network should be refined to meet the needs of the project. Based on consideration of the issues described above, we will propose a detailed methodology for the conduct of the transportation analysis. The proposed methodology will be discussed with interested parties prior to starting the detailed part of the work. For the purposes of this project, traffic modeling is considered to be the preparation of a valid traffic forecast model indicating Average Daily Traffic on the study area roadways for all of the scenarios that are part of the study process. We will work with all Project Team members to identify and define project alternatives, review model socioeconomic data (SED) to ensure that it represents the study area and surrounding anticipated growth, review model assumptions and parameters, and to provide an overview of model findings. The details of the traffic modeling process will be determined during the course of the project in discussions with interested transportation agencies. The traffic modeling analysis will be prepared using the following guidelines: • The Project Team will select a version of the SCAG model for the transportation model analysis. Network and land use refinements will be made if necessary to reflect the RCIP for Riverside County and the latest available General Plans for adjacent Cities. • Transportation model forecasts will be run for opening day of the project, opening day for conversion of the project to limited access, and for a horizon year to be determined during the course of the study. • Roadway segment ADT forecasts will be prepared from traffic model output for up to four alternative alignments as well as the No Build condition. • The extension of the project into Orange County will be modeled for one of the alternatives. • In the case of the SR 79 Corridor roadway, only one alternative will be modeled. The project team will select the most likely scenario for this roadway, based on current information. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 11 The traffic forecasts that result from the process identified above will be distributed to the Project Team for review and comment. Based upon comments received from the Project Team, the traffic forecasts will be revised and presented to RCTC for review. Following RCTC's review and comment, the traffic forecasts will be presented to other affected or interested agencies in order to ensure agreement on this aspect of the analysis. This task also includes up to 12 meetings to discuss the study process with the Project Team, RCTC, and staff members of other affected or interested agencies. Specific steps in the traffic modeling process are listed below: • Coordinate with stakeholder agencies on methodologies, assumptions and other details of travel demand forecasting. • Obtain and evaluate the latest RIVSAN model and its various necessary tools and components. • Refine the model's zonal structure, zonal socioeconomic data and highway networks, coordinate with local jurisdictions for appropriate land use data from corresponding general plans. • Conduct focused localized validation of the model to ensure the appropriate level of detail for traffic projections for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor facility and all other roadways in the immediate focused project study area. • Code model networks for the various project alternative alignments with the appropriate assumptions on geometrics details of the facility, number of lanes, capacities, arterial/freeway connections, location and alignment of other existing and future facilities in the corridor, etc. • Perform the model runs and develop detailed traffic forecasts for alignment alternatives and post -processed data at the segment and intersection level. It is assumed that a maximum of four (4) project alignment alternatives will be modeled. • Generate model statistics from the traffic assignments, including vehicle miles of travel (VMT), volume/capacity ratios, levels of service, congestion levels, average travel time, speed, delay, etc. • Conduct overall corridor -level mobility analysis using comparative measures of effectiveness (MOEs) similar to or more focused than those used in Tier I (such as: volumes, V/C, delay, VMT, etc.) to assist in refinement of alignments and corridor access points, and selection of the preferred alignment and access alternatives provide detailed travel demand forecast data to other team members to be used in corridor -level environmental analysis. The transportation modeling and traffic engineering analysis will be clearly documented for both technical and non -technical audiences. For technical audiences, the key issue will be to document the study process and its results so that it can be understood by Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 12 interested transportation agencies. For non -technical audiences, summaries will be prepared with effective use of graphics and avoidance of technical terms. 3.4 Survey and Aerial Mapping We will provide surveying and mapping services in support of this project study. All work will be completed in conformance with Caltrans standards and specifications. Our surveyors and aerial photographers have prior survey experience with the subject corridor. Complete research within Caltrans District 8, the County of Riverside, and cities within the project area. This includes obtaining copies of survey notes, as -built plans, existing mapping data, and record maps. • All information will be reviewed and a duplicate set of data will be provided to the design team. • Mapping will be compiled in conformance with Caltrans standards. Since the proposed approach relies in large measure on aerial photography, the requirements for aerial photography will be discussed early in the project. Aerial photography will be obtained as soon as consensus is reached regarding the refined approach. It is anticipated that aerial photography of the entire Corridor at 1:2000 (Metric) 1" = 200' scale will be required for Preliminary design in Phase 1. For the Altematives Report Phase 1, our mapping needs to be ortho-rectified which means it needs to have ground control tied to panel points on the ground both coordinate and elevation wise. We propose that for phase 1 we provide 1:2000 (1"=200') ortho-rectified photography with a digital elevation model suitable for 2 meter contour intervals for the Final Alternatives Report. We will provide a bandwidth coverage of approximately 9400 feet. The 1" to 200' strip map of the Corridor will be used for such items as reviewing alignment alternatives and major study area features, depicting the right-of-way lines, property lines, and other features. DELIVERABLES • MicroStation and mapping file with a full Digital Terrain Model (DTM). • Hard copies of all survey notes, record maps and data obtained during research phase. • A survey report with notes and survey adjustments. • Encroachment permits will be obtained so that all survey monumentation required for aerial surveys can be established. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans standards. Field Review This task will include a reconnaissance of the existing field conditions to verify the accuracy of the as -built and aerial mapping. Discrepancies will be noted and corrected. Photographs taken during the field reconnaissance will be assembled into a project photo log 3.5 Deleted Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 13 3.6 Geotechnical Evaluation We anticipate that our geotechnical assessment will be performed during the Phase 1 work and carried forward with additional effort required for Phase 11 Geotechnical Task 1 — Literature Review — We propose to begin our study by reviewing available geologic and geotechnical literature pertaining to the project site. We will review published and unpublished soil and geologic data in our files and as available from appropriate public agencies. This will include a review of historical aerial photographs, reports and maps prepared by the California Geological Survey, the U.S. Geological Survey, the County of Riverside, and other govemmental agencies. We will review available information pertaining to existing improvements and structures along the proposed alignment(s) that is available from Caltrans, the Reiverside County Transportation Commission, the Riverside County Transportation Department, and local agencies. Geotechnical Task 2 — Site Reconnaissance — We will perform a geological/geotechnical reconnaissance of the project corridor area by a California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) and/or a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) from our Team. The purpose of the site reconnaissance will be to verify and correlate geological conditions and features identified during the literature review that could impact project planning, design and construction. Geotechnical Task 3 — Faulting and Seismic Hazard Assessment — We will perform a preliminary geologic/seismic hazards evaluation for the project alignment. This will include preliminary evaluations of the potential for surface fault rupture, seismic -induced ground deformation or settlement related to liquefaction, seismic compaction, lurching or lateral spreading. Geotechnical Task 4 — Geotechnical Analysis and Report — We will provide preliminary information with regard to geotechnical constraints and preliminary design recommendations. This information will include: General surface conditions Existing structure and foundation data Site geology, seismicity and geologic hazards Magnitude of maximum credible event Name of the causative fault and distance from the site Depth of rock or rock -like material Liquefaction potential Types of foundations for new structures Comments on pavement design, slope stability, retaining and soundwall Foundations. Assumptions: No drilling and sampling is required in Phase 1. Task 3.7 Utility Identification Contact lists of utility companies with existing or planned utilities in the project study area from 1-15 to SR 79 will be compiled. This task will include record search of all existing Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 14 utilities and field verification of existing above -ground facilities. This information will be imported into our database for use in identifying the relationship of the alternatives to the existing utilities. Utility information including sewer and water facilities will be plotted on base maps, with identification of the owner and size (if available) of each facility. Existing rights or needed agreements will be preliminarily identified. Relocation requirements will be approximated to complete cost estimates. Task 3.8 Right of Entry Permits Right of Entry Permits will be obtained for up to 2000 parcels at a cost of no more than $250 per parcel. Task 4 Initial Engineering/Environmental Studies 4.1.1 — 4.1.6 Develop Alternatives (Up to 6 Alternatives) The Jacobs Team will develop a suite of alternatives for consideration for the CRC corridor from 1-15 to SR 79. This will be done using a GIS constraints model developed. For budget estimating purposes, it is anticipated that not more than six alternatives will be developed for consideration. The development of these six alternatives will consist of identification of centerline and right-of-way lines for each alternative. Additional detail beyond that will not be developed. This task will also include the development of design concepts for the interchanges of CRC with 1-15, 1-215 and SR 79. Two concepts will be developed at each of two locations — one 1-215 and Ramona Expressway and the other at 1-215 and Oleander Avenue. One conceptual design will be prepared for the proposed bridge over the San Jacinto River. This design will identify the proposed span lengths, and will also address the issue of scour and the foundation configuration that would be necessary to address scour. Other bridges and minor structures, including drainage culverts and retaining walls, will be identified, but will not require APSs during this phase. Alternatives will be developed for Segment 1 (1-15 to 1-215) and Segment 2 (1-215 to SR - 79). The following assumptions are made for the number of alternatives for each segment. Segment 1 Segment 2 Mainline Corridor (Up To 6 variation alternative alignments 1-15 Interchange (2 alternative locations) Local Access Interchanges (2 alternative locations) • Mainline Corridor (Up To 6 variation alternatives) • 1-215 Interchange (2 alternative locations) • Local Access Interchanges (2 alternative locations) • SR -79 Interchange (2 alternative locations) Feasible Alternatives Engineering 1. Alignment and Profiles are developed graphically and recommendations made to illustrate mainline curvature, approximate work limits, points of access, cross - Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 15 road separations, services roads, retaining walls, and structures, complex/non-complex drainage conveyances, etc. The alignment and profiles will be reviewed for obvious trouble spots to make the project easier to design and construct. 2. Typical Sections will be prepared. 3. Cross -Sections as needed may be provided. 4. Right -of -Way will be identified and estimates will be prepared, based on alternative alignment and profile studies. They will identify properties, delineate structures to be taken, number and type of relocations, acreage to be taken, residuals, etc.. Preliminary Geometric Design Microstation/Inroads will be used to evaluate pioneered alignments south of Lake Mathews and near SR 79, and will also be used to evaluate previously considered alignments along the Ramona Expressway Corridor. Preliminary plans will be prepared at a metric scale of 1:2000 Initial earthwork runs be will generated. Conceptual Structure Assessment The location, length, width, and a square foot construction cost will be developed for each anticipated structure. 4.1.7 Screen Alternatives. Using the six alternatives developed we will analyze these alternatives against the project Purpose and Need and the evaluation criteria developed. Recommendations will be made to RCTC on the reduction of these alternatives to not more than three that will be carried forward into Phase 2. We will identify the right-of-way limits for each of the three alternatives. 4.2 Deleted 4.3 Traffic Operational Analysis (LOS) and Report For the purposes of this project, the traffic engineering task is defined to include the following: • Post -processing of the traffic model forecasts to provide roadway segment Average Daily Traffic and peak hour intersection turning movement forecasts • Roadway segment capacity analysis • Recommendation of intersection number of lanes. • Freeway mainline, weaving, and ramp junction capacity analysis to support the development of roadway and interchange design alternatives We will use the existing traffic data collected and traffic forecasts prepared to conduct these tasks. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 16 We will propose methodology for conducting various aspects of the traffic engineering task and will discuss the methodology with interested transportation agencies prior to proceeding. For the purposes of this proposal, the following assumptions have been made: • Roadway segment capacity analysis based on Average Daily Traffic will be conducted for opening day of the project, opening day of conversion of the project to limited access, and for a horizon year to be determined during the course of the study. • Roadway segment capacity analysis based on ADT forecasts will be prepared for altemative alignments as well as the No Build condition. • The extension of the project into Orange County will be analyzed for one of the alternatives. • In the case of the SR 79 Corridor roadway, only one alternative will be analyzed. The project team will select the most likely scenario for this roadway, based on current information. • Peak hour mainline and ramp forecasts will be prepared for three selected alignment alternatives, as well as the No Build condition. • The basic capacity analysis will be prepared using the methods of the Highway Capacity Manual for intersection analysis and the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) for roadway segments. Other capacity analysis tools such as alternative methodologies (ICU, ILV, etc.) or simulation tools (Sim Traffic, CORSIM, VISSSIM, Paramics, etc.) could be added through a change in the scope of work and fee. • The capacity analysis will be based upon an established minimum LOS for the project. Transportation documents collected will be reviewed to identify minimum LOS standards of the affected agencies. Based upon this review and discussion with the Project Team, RCTC, and other affected or interested agencies, a minimum LOS for the project will be defined. All capacity analysis will be graphically displayed and documented in the Traffic Engineering Report. The analysis will be conducted in accordance with the level of detail described above. In cases where the capacity analysis indicates that deficient LOS conditions will be experienced, the analysis will include a recommendation of appropriate roadway improvements. An Administrative Draft of the Traffic Engineering Report will be distributed to the Project Team for review and comment. Based upon comment received, we will prepare the Draft Report for distribution to RCTC. Following RCTC's review and comment, a Final Draft will be prepared for review by other affected and interested agencies in order to ensure agreement on this aspect of the analysis. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 17 4.4 Preliminary Cost Estimate A cost estimate will be prepared for each of the alternatives developed under task 4.1 to obtain a planning level construction cost for the facility. The cost estimates will identify major construction items, such as earthwork, pavement, drainage, structures, sound walls, retaining walls, pavement delineation, signing and traffic signals, SWPPP, erosion control, landscaping, right-of-way, utilities, and construction staging -related costs (excluding TMP Measures). 4.5 Environmental - Preliminary Additional Studies In order to expedite the project delivery we will be performing the following Miscellaneous Studies in Phase 1. 4.5.1 Resource Agency meetings and Coordination 4.5.2 Development of Evaluation Criteria for determination of range of alternatives 4.5.3 HCP/MSHCP Coordination 4.5.4 SAMP Coordination 4.5.5 Initiate Jurisdictional delineation on known portions of preferred CRC alignment. 4.5.6 Develop Research Design for archaeological testing for known portions of preferred CRC alignment. Environmental Studies Most of the environmental technical studies will be initiated after the transportation and resource agencies have agreed to a set of alternatives to be evaluated as well as the evaluation criteria. However, there are several critical path activities in the environmental process that warrant initiating technical studies as early as possible in the process. While there can be risk in doing this (e.g., some areas may be surveyed which later get removed from the project alignment), the Jacobs team will manage this risk by facilitating early and ongoing review of the proposed technical work with the transportation and resource agency partners. The following early environmental study work is proposed in Phase 1 (this work does not represent full completion of these tasks, rather it provides scope and budget to start this work during phase 1). • Conduct focused floral surveys for any plant species that may require a multiple year survey or where a dry year may trigger the need for a second year's survey. • Conduct jurisdictional delineations of waters of the U.S. and the State within the preferred CRC alignment and submit the delineation to the Corps for verification. Jurisdictional delineations for other alternatives will be conducted in Phase II. • Initiate testing of known cultural resources within the preferred CRC alignment to establish National Register eligibility. The initial tasks proposed in Phase I include developing a draft research design for review and approval by Caltrans and FHWA. Actual field excavations will be conducted in Phase II. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 18 4.6 Value Analysis (Informal VA Study) A value engineering analysis will be conducted on the alternatives developed to determine if there could be significant cost savings by incorporating a range of cost saving measures. 4.7 Drainage Analysis A preliminary off -site drainage analysis will be prepared for the area within the corridor using USGS Quad Maps. The purpose of the study will be to identify potential major crossings and significant drainage improvements, and the cost associated with these improvements. For the San Jacinto River Crossing, our team will research the 100 - year flow and the high water elevation which will affect the profile and bridge soffit. Potential bridge scour will be assessed based on available studies. An assessment of preliminary drainage easements for major drainage facilities for the three screened alternatives will be performed. Drainage for major and minor drainage ways will be based on the alternative developed, and a graphic solution for major and minor drainage will be presented. A stormwater Data Report will not be provided or required. Task 5 Draft Alternatives Report The Jacobs Team will finalize the engineering design criteria based on the facility type and cross-section for the corridor. The basic design features to be identified will include lane and shoulder widths, design speed, cross slope, grade, superelevation, stopping sight distance, horizontal and vertical alignments, and horizontal and vertical clearances. The Jacobs Team will prepare conceptual layouts at 1:2000 -scale (metric units). Preliminary mainline profiles will be prepared. Layouts will include preliminary right-of- way footprints, excluding easements. Typical sections for the CRC mainline will be prepared. Reconfiguration of major streets will be identified on layouts. The Jacobs Team will prepare plans and other supporting information for inclusion in the Draft Alternatives Report. Upon completion of the initial engineering studies, a draft Alternatives Report will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines, which will summarize the finding of the initial studies. Project cost ranges will be developed for each of the alternatives. Separate costs for right-of-way and utility relocations will also be included. The Draft Alternatives Report will be circulated to Caltrans and other agencies for review comments. Task 6 Final Alternatives Report Comments received from the reviewing agencies will be adjudicated and revisions made as appropriate. Jacobs will provide copies of the approved Final Alternatives Report for final distribution. PHASE 1 DELIVERABLES: INTERIM, DRAFT AND PROGRESS PRODUCTS The majority of our work will include, data gathering, alternatives development and analysis, draft NEPA/CEQA compliance documentation, appropriate engineering reports, Alternatives Report Specific draft or interim documents will include the following: Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 19 • Agendas, Progress Reports & text materials to support the monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings. • Agendas, Progress Reports & text materials to support bi-weekly Trend meetings. • Agenda, mailing labels, brochures, Progress Reports & text materials to support twelve (12) workshops or public meetings. • Existing and Future Traffic Conditions Report (electronic version, plus 50 hard copies). • Draft Altematives Report (electronic version, plus 50 hard copies). • Other products to match our work plan. • WEB Page creation and maintenance. FINAL PRODUCTS FOR PHASE 1 Specific final products related to the project are listed below: • Final Alternatives Report (electronic versions plus 50 hard copies). • Approved Technical Reports completed during this phase (electronic versions plus 50 hard copies). • Other products to match our work plan. Assumptions: • Surveys and mapping, will be provided by the Jacobs Team. • Traffic forecasts, TMP, and traffic operational analyses will be prepared on a corridor -wide basis by the Jacobs Team. • Determination of facility type and typical cross section will be provided. • A Multi -modal overview will be done at a corridor -wide level. • We will provide a GIS database which will include parcel information including parcel numbers and ownership information. This database will also identify the environmental constraints within the project. • Fact Sheets for Mandatory and/or Advisory Exceptions will not be prepared. • Right -of -Way Data Sheets will not be prepared. • A PSR/PDS will not be prepared. Created on 10/14/2003 1:28 PM 20 CRC COST P7 JACOBS Entire Corridor CRC Design Estimate LABOR CATEGORY PERSON HOURS 'roject Principal 'roject Manager deputy/Segment Leader (2) 'roject Engineer Structure Engineer Engineer ADD Technician 'roject Control - QA/QC Admin rOTAL DIRECT LABOR )VERHEAD @ 134.6% X DIRECT LABOR =EE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) )DC'S 100 1,581 1,687 1,825 100 1,910 842 684 1,454 UNIT E) f nvironmenta ntcai achP. O'Reilly (Public Relation) MIG (Community Outreach) Geographics RATE/ HOUR $66.00 $61.19 $58.84 $45.83 $46.10 $36.33 $32.60 $46.03 $25.00 UNIT RATE Subs ODC Subtotal Cost $5,246 $4,300 $506,468.89 $347,330.40 $40,854.93 $188,743.28 $2,575 $55,391.90 $45,558 $500,000.00 $40,000 $379,357 $0 $564,672 $44,504 $890,079 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $6,600 $96,711 $99,255 $83,639 $4,610 $69,393 $27,435 $31,484 $36,350 $455,477 $613,073 $106,855 TOTAL ODC Total Sub Cost $188,743 $57,967 $59,246 ;BF - Engineering ntire Corridor CRC Design Estimate ABOR CATEGORY PERSON HOURS roject Principal roject Manager eputy/Segment Leader (2) roject Engineer tructure Engineer ivil Engineer ADD Technician -oject Control - QA/QC min 0 0 1,179 1,050 0 1,122 686 114 212 DTAL DIRECT LABOR VERHEAD @ 169.64% X DIRECT LABOR @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) DC'S RATE/ HOUR DIRECT LABOR TOTAL $70.00 $0 $65.00 $0 $65.00 $76,635 $42.00 $44,100 $50.00 $0 $35.00 $39,270 $30.00 $20,580 $45.00 $5,130 $22.00 $4,664 $190,379 $322,959 $51,334 UNIT UNIT RATE TOTAL ODC LSA, Dudek, Applied Earthworks Entire Corridor CRC Design Estimate PERSON LABOR CATEGORY HOURS Project Manager Task Leader Sr Professional Professional Graphics Support/Crew RATE/ TOTAL HOUR DIRECT LABOR 456 $70.00 $31,920 360 $45.00 $16,200 400 $35.00 $14,000 440 $25.00 $11,000 40 $30.00 $1,200 2,000 $20.00 $40,000 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR DVERHEAD @ 170% X DIRECT LABOR FEE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) DDC'S UNIT >ubs total $114,320 $194,344 $30,866 V. UNIT RATE TOTAL ODC ''47;40:03,19 Subs ODC Subtotal Cost Total Sub Cost RPA Technologies, Inc. raffic Fee IRECT LABOR kBOR CATEGORY PERSON RATE/ HOURS HOUR oject Principal ce President rector of Traffic Engineering mior Professional anner II annerl erical/Technician imin TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 0 $0.00 $0 304 $53.00 $16,112 484 $48.00 $23,232 644 $31.00 $19,964 592 $25.00 $14,800 456 $17.00 $7,752 476 $15.00 $7,140 64 $18.00 $1,152 )TAL DIRECT LABOR ✓ERHEAD @145% X DIRECT LABOR EE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) )C'S UNIT LEAGE 6250 =PORTS / BLUEPRINTS LS ELEPHONE LS )STAGE/FEDEX LS $90,152 $130,720 $22,087 UNIT RATE TOTAL ODC 0.36 $2,250 $373 Page 4of 11 11-21-03 CRC fee file for Committee.xisVPRA 11/21/2003 Meyer Mohaddes Traffic Fee DIRECT LABOR LABOR CATEGORY PERSON RATE/ HOURS HOUR Project Principal Ace President )irector of Traffic Engineering Senior Professional Planner II Planner :lerical/Technician >dmin TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 52 $68.00 $3,536 422 $59.00 $24,898 202 $40.00 $8,080 502 $36.00 $18,072 932 $26.00 $24,232 400 $21.00 $8,400 58 $17.00 $986 52 $18.00 $936 =OC�Ft TOTAL DIRECT LABOR )VERHEAD @ 168.74% X DIRECT LABOR =EE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) )DC'S UNIT UNIT RATE MILEAGE 6250 0.36 tEPORTS / BLUEPRINTS LS -ELEPHONE LS 'OSTAGE/FEDEX LS $89,140 $150,415 $23,955 AVON TOTAL ODC $2,250 $373 Page 5of 11 11-21-03 CRC fee file for Committee.xlsMMA 11/21/2003 :leinfelder :ntire Corridor CRC Design Estimate PERSON ABOR CATEGORY HOURS roject Principal roject Manager roject Engineer roject Geologist taff Engineer tall Geologist ADD Technician imin RATE/ HOUR TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 12 $62.00 $733 59 $51.00 $3,021 62 $36.55 $2,270 46 $42.00 $1,936 88 $22.85 $2,011 76 $32.00 $2,432 5 $18.19 $98 7 $15.00 $111 DTAL DIRECT LABOR VERHEAD @ 1.945% X DIRECT LABOR =E @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) DC'S UNIT I LEAG E 5000 =PORTS / BLUEPRINTS LS )STAGE/FEDEX LS ibs total $12,611 $24,529 $3,714 UNIT RATE TOTAL ODC 0.36 $1,800 $2,000 $500 Subs ODC Subtotal Cost Total Sub Cost RC Design Fee IRECT LABOR ABOR CATEGORY PERSON RATE/ HOURS HOUR rincipal ;ad Facilitator 4 Director roject Associate roject Assistant TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 90 $43.26 $3,893 144 $31.73 $4,569 84 $31.25 $2,625 222 $22.00 $4,884 88 $20.85 $1,835 )TAL DIRECT LABOR VERHEAD @ 182.8% X DIRECT LABOR EE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) DC'S UNIT ILEAGE 695 !SPLAY BOARDS/MEETING SUPPLIE LS ELEPHONE LS DSTAGE/FEDEX LS EPRODUCTION FEES UNIT RATE 0.36 Subs ODC Subtotal Cost $17,806 $32,550 $5,036 WA. TOTAL ODC $250.20 $1,625.00 $100.00 $50.00 $550.00 O'Reilly P ublic Relations RCTC - CRC Fee Proposal Phase One Budget - Year 1 .. A �J, h... G. 'YI .k.,' ,aY' �dvlsl .w ro cad .4;:x r,..y ,,ti ., r ._.... ..._.�ssin e :y . r- � 'mo d CjC Research & Message Dev, Case study document 0 $0 50 $3,732 56,979 Messaging session 8 8 8 24 $3,732 Key messages document 5 10 10 15 20 10 10 80 $6,979 »A10 4 0 2"$1,711 ? �; 0 ,,'f $ 511,5 Elected Official Co mm. 3,453 3,453 Briefings matrix 2 5 10 10 10 10 47 $3,453 Letters of support (10) 2 5 10 20 10 47 $3,453 Guest editorials (6) 6 12 12 30 10 70 $5,997 5,997 One-on-one briefings (60) 60 120 120 60 60 60 480 $49,200 49,200 Respond to requests 15 30 30 30 5 110 $11,986 11,986 Project updates 30 30 40 40 6 146 _ $17,295 17,295 20,694 Strategic planning & counsel 36 40 45 24 24 169 $20,694 »-080 '2471 ,.,$, r51l, y 77 Media Comm. Media target list 0 $0 50 Script for media briefings (10) 0 $0 50 Fact sheet 0 $0 $0 08,A document 0 $0 50 News releases (10) 0 $0 50 Reporter briefings (6) 0 $0 50 Editorial board briefings (4) 0 $0 50 Media calendar 0 $0 50 Strategic planning & counsel 0 $0 $0 '0= $Q"'' ?..$0 $0,;. . Stakeholder Comm. Briefings matrix 2 5 10 20 10 47 $3,453 3,453 3,453 5,997 16,400 15,960 Letters of support (10) 2 5 10 20 10 47 $3,453 Guest editorials (6) 6 12 12 30 10 70 $5,997 One-on-one briefings (20) 20 40 40 20 20 20 160 $16,400 Respond to requests 20 40 40 20 20 6 146 $15,960 Project updates 0 $0 0 2C,694 Strategic planning & counsel 36 40 45 24 24 169 $20,699x4 @ n Hours Total 250 394 18 447 368 168 167 RATE (per hour) $250 $116.55 $116.55 99. 90 $ 52.84 $ 52. 84 $31.24 TOTA L AMOUNT $62,500 $45,921 82,098 $44,655 $19,445 $8,877 $5,217 8;43 4 .v 3 y H2MHILL AST SEGMENT 0 miles) 12M HILL LABOR CATEGORY CRC Design Estimate PERSON HOURS ;puty/Segment Leader oject Director oject Engineer vil Engineer kDD Technician oject Control - QA/QC Imin RATE/ HOUR TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 948 $60.80 $57,638 228 $70.00 $15,960 2,438 $56.00 $136,528 1,470 $35.00 $51,450 766 $30.00 $22,980 112 $40.00 $4,480 338 $25.00 $8,450 )TAL DIRECT LABOR /ERHEAD @ 172% X DIRECT LABOR iE @ 10% X (DL+OVHD) )C'S $297,486 $511,677 $80,916 UNIT UNIT RATE TOTAL ODC Geographics Public Outreach Phase I: Costs for Geographics Tasks Option 2a — Segment 1 1. Data Base Refine and update existing database for project opinion makers 80 hours @ $55/hour 2. Newsletter $ 4,400. Copy/Coordination* 24 hours @ $110/hour $ 2,640. Mockup (including maps)* 32 hours @ $77/hour Imaging* 20 @ $21 /each Revisions (Two rounds)* 20 hours @ $77/hour Imaging* 10 @ $21/each $ 2,464. $ 410 $ 1,540. $ 210. Printing -1 1" x 17" book weight paper, newsletter style* 5,000 total $ 3,340. $ 10,604. *sales tax on taxable portion $ 821.81 11,425.81 3. Direct Mail Print Letters, Envelopes, Schedules (2,000 each, 2 colors)* $ 1,500. Mailing Services $ 400. Postage $ 780. $ 2,680. *sales tax on taxable portion 2,796.25 4. Advertising: Placement of zoned ads for the Press Enterprise and La Prensa Development/Translation (including two revisions)* 16 hours x $77/hour 18,897. *sales tax on taxable portion 18,992.48 5. Full page Advertorial (Based on Newsletter) $ 116.25 $ 17,665. $ 1232. $ 95.48 Development/Translation (including two revisions)* 32 hours x $77/hour $ 2,464. Revisions (Two rounds)* 20 hours @ $77/hour $ 1,540. Imaging* 10 @ $21/each Placement Full Page During run of meeting ads Press Enterprise and La Prensa sales tax 6. Coordination Attendance at 6 Team and 3 Public Meetings 9 meetings @ 3 hours/meeting average 27 @ $165/hour Total Cost $ 210. $ 12,636. $ 16,850. $ 326.59 $ 17,176.59 $ 4,455.00 $ 59,246.13 CRC SCHEDULE Activity ID Activity Early Descripti on Start Early Finish Orig Dur 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 111111071111111 2009 2.10 2011 ®m mmoun® ! 1 j I ■PNbi`c ou n Pr411n1. -� - -" • ut a ummun Engineering HCtj/M$HCP/SAAiIP h n" impou non j ! 1 i & "Tra fic .Analysis 1 1 DodrdiFrat� on eeiings H I 1 ! 1 mimon nu n umminn uwmu nmum I i Pre-Sco ping. , �: . ,:. . 2110 Prelim. Engineering & Traffic Analysis 12JANO4` 27SEP04 260 2235 HCP/MSHCP/SAMP Coordination 12JANO4 28FEB05 414' 2120 Public Outreach Meetings 15JANO4 13FEB04 30 2160 Prepare/Publish NOI/NOP and Scoping Meetings 28SEP04 11NOVO4 45 1 Pre•a - . •hsh N OVNOP and Scgptng 11111i IIIII ee ings 1 I I I DR' JS/Di=1R 2440 e'_ - @ ... . < .. : otice ',: I 1 Dev/Concur Project Alts (PR/DEIS/DEIR) 12JUL04 16DECO4 114 l 1 ! DeV/Concur Devi/C4nciJr ProjectAlta (RR/DEIS/DEIRh I ! Eval Criteria for Alts Analysis I ! ' , 1 1 2190 Dev/Concur Eval Crite ria for Alts Analysis 10AUGO4 16DECO4 129 ` 2175 Environmental Analysis/Draft Technical Studies 17DECO4 16DECO5 365 eyFiri Environmental Analysis/Draft Technical Studies ! 2180 Draft Jurisdictional Delineation of Waters 17DECO4 15JUNO5 181 1 1 Drat Draft JurisdiGti ohal Delj neAtign W aters ! of ! 2225 Conduct Project Level Eng. - Dra ft PR/MAR 17DECO4 15NOV05 334 I Conduct Project Level Eng. - Draft PR/ MAR ' 1 fmr ll 2485 M SHCP/HCP/EI Sobrante Analysis a nd Amendmen :• 1 MAR05 07SEPO7 921 ` MS�ICpMCP/El S obrante &nalysjs Amendments I ' I � I I 1 C orps/CDFG V erifies J I�Review Draft T echni cal 4tudies ®Prepare Final TechnicalStudies Prepare Dtaft;EIR/E1 and risd. Dellrfeat. of Waters I 1 I 1 1 1 1 2205 Corps/CDFG Verifies Jurisd. Delineat.of Waters 01 NOV05 ` 28FEB06 120 2470 Review Draft Te chnica l Studies 17DECO5 3OJANO6 45 ' 2220 Prepare Final Technical Studies 31JANO6 01 MAR06 30 2240 Prepare Draft EIR/EIS 02MAR06 01JUNO6 92 2495 Review & Approve DEIS/DEIR 02JUNO6 11SEPO6 102' f ' � Review & Appr ov'e Draft EIR/EfS alnd DEIS/DEIR 1 P ublic;Hearir gs 2505 Draft EIR/EIS and Public Hea rings 12SEPO6 10NOV06 60 2480 , � Iii: Response onse To Comments P ��„ 11 NOVO 6 F 09 EB07 91` 1 i j j i ( i 1 i i R$sponseToCorttiments !I ®Preliminary ! Prepare i3loiogicai FW$/FHWA E ngin eering-nal 1 Agreement'on!Preferred;Alternative Asls essnle nt i 1 ! Consultation -Secti on 7 1 PR/MAR ; 1 2490 Preliminary Agreement on Preferred Alternative 10FEB07 11 MAR07 30' 2340 Prepare Biological Assessment 12MAR07 25APR07 45 2390 FWS/FHWA Consultation -Section 7 26APR07 07SEPO7 135 2345 Engineering -Final PR/MAR 11 MAYO7 OSAUGO7 90 2350 Prepare Final EIR/EIS P 2OJUL07 17SEPO7 60 I y 7 — . Prepare Finali EIR/EIS I 1 FEIS/FE111 Approval,Citcufate(40ti Per* 2500 FEIS/FEIR Approval Circulate/404 Permit 19AUGO7 16DECO7 120 Geametrlc A proval I I 2405 GAD- Geometric Approval Drawings s ° 180CT07 07JUNO8 234 ! i 1 ! e'ri o a GA - G�eojn c ppr I Drawings D t o v evelo e b � �. _ rv. .e ��p��* ��x .� � inw� �� r� Tk �. � 1 1 i i i 1 1 Iiiiii ! FHWA ROD, 1 ; i Cyorps I OQ 1 1 2465 FHWA ROD ., .. 180CT07 , 15JANO8 90` 2475 Corps ROD "f 17DECO7 14FEB08 60 O P rmit'D.""c 2420 dgJ auk, z , Obtain Sec. 401 Certification from RWQCB 'x,.,. 15FEB08 ' .. .. 14APRO8 60 r ! I I 1 i I I 1 ! ! IObtaih Sec . 4011Cer:tification tromp RWQCB C orps Permit. Decisi on ; 2425 Corps Permit Decision 15APRO8 13JUNO8 60 © Primavera S stems, Inc. C ETA P Cajalco Ra mona Co rridor Streamline Summary Date Revision Checked A..roved 24NOV0 Revised 01OCTO Detail MC • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement #04-31-007 with Jacobs Civil Inc. to Provide Engineering Services Related to the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection process recommendation of Jacobs Civil Inc. as the lead consulting firm for the preparation of a Project Study Report/Project Development Support, Project Report, and Environmental Document for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project; 2) Approve the award of a consultant agreement #04-31-007 to Jacobs Civil Inc. based on the negotiated project scope schedule and cost to be presented at the Committee meeting; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 11, 2003 the RCTC Board approved acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document. Staff was directed to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on schedule, budget, and implementation. At the September 3, 2003 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop a Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS), Project Report (PR) and a project level Environmental Document (ED) for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project. 5 The calendar of events was as follows: Item Date 1 Request for Proposals was issued 09/04/03 2 Proposals were due 10/16/03 3 Short List Notification was made 10/30/03 4 Consultant interviews were held 11/13/03 5 Recommendations to Committee will be made 11/24/03 6 Recommendations to Commission for award will be made 12/10/03 7 Anticipated Notice to Proceed 01/12/04 SELECTION PROCESS: A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC, Caltrans, County of Riverside and Bechtel. Staff received proposals from eight (8) firms. The selection panel reviewed the eight (8) proposals and short listed three (3) of the eight (8) firms. The three (3) firms each demonstrated that they would be capable of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Jacobs Civil Inc. Second CH2M Hill Third Washington Based on the results of the selection committee, staff is reviewing the cost proposal of the top firm, Jacobs Civil Inc. and staff is negotiating the necessary scope and cost to be consistent with the desired engineering services for Phase I of the engineering work to be performed. Phase I will include the development and completion of a Project Study Report/Project Development Support, and develop scoping for the Phase II Project Report and Environmental Document for the Cajalco-Ramona Corridor project. Since the project is approximately 32 miles long, and will link to the SR 79 realignment project on the east end of the project, staff is recommending that the top firm, Jacobs Civil Inc. include the second ranked firm, CH2M Hill to their core proposed team since CH2M Hill is already performing the delivery of the SR 79 realignment project. By linking the delivery teams of these two projects, staff hopes to be able to re -invigorate the stalled progress of the SR 79 project that the resource agencies have not been willing to address due to the priorities that have been placed on the CETAP activities. • 6 • • • The contract for the development of a PSR/PDS, PR and ED with detailed scope of work and cost break down is in the process of being negotiated and will be presented to the Committee at the meeting. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. 7 • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Memorandum of Understanding M-23-011 with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for the Development and Cost Reimbursement of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line) Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve MOU M-23-01 1 with the SCRRA for the development and cost reimbursement of the San Jacinto Branch Line (Perris Valley Line); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC currently owns 38 miles of railroad known as the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). The Line originates in Highgrove and extends to San Jacinto. At its June 11, 2003 meeting, the Commission adopted a locally preferred transit alternative for the SJBL/I-215 Corridor ("Alternative E": Commuter Rail with New Connection to Union Pacific Riverside Industrial Lead at Rustin Avenue"). RCTC is in the process of studying alternatives to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to Perris using approximately one half of this rail facility. The new transit alternative that will be referred to as the "Perris Valley Line" (Riverside -Moreno Valley - Perris) is needed because the 1-215 Freeway 8 PROPOSED PER S VALLEY LINE (2008) is one of the most congested roadways in the region and travels through the heart of the corridor providing the only existing option to the freeway for travelers between the City of Perris and downtown Riverside. The new service would begin in the City of Perris where it would generally follow the 1-215 freeway along the San Jacinto Branch Line north through Moreno Valley and then southwest towards downtown Riverside where it would continue as existing Metrolink service to Los Angeles via Fullerton. Partnership with Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Key to the successful delivery of this project is our partnership with SCRRA. As the presumed operator of the Metrolink extension, the MOU will address the following main areas: • Assignment of SCRRA senior management staff to provide ongoing support for RCTC and SCRRA staff in identification and management of issues of importance as they arise; • Assignment of the SCRRA Manager of Construction to advise on technical issues relating to construction in support of commuter rail service. This assignment may be amplified by the retention of a consultant engineer to assist the Manager of Construction with the day-to-day project requirements; • Designation of SCRRA as the lead in coordinating grade crossing issues with the affected cities and the County, the California Public Utilities Commission, the freight railroads, and the Commission; • SCRRA assistance with community relations/public outreach support, including Operation Lifesaver educational sessions; • Assignment of SCRRA staff to participate in FTA New Starts Workshops and other grant management activities; and • Full reimbursement by RCTC for pre -approved SCRRA project related expenses. Why do we Need an MOU? The estimated cost of this project is $120 million. As a named FTA New Starts project in TEA -21, and the recipient of a $500,000 earmark from Congressman Calvert, this project could be eligible for a Full Funding Grant Agreement in the amount of $60 million from the FTA. While RCTC is in the early stages of eligibility, the next milestone is the submittal of a FTA New Starts application seeking approval to begin Preliminary Engineering. One of the important factors in FTA approval is the Project Management Plan (PMP). The PMP demonstrates RCTC's technical capacity and capability to implement and maintain a new project together with its existing system. Since RCTC is a member agency to SCRRA responsible for funding commuter rail in Riverside County, and SCRRA is the presumed operator, a formal agreement • • 9 • • • outlining each agency's roles and responsibilities will strengthen our PMP submittal as part of the FTA New Starts application. Staff recommends the development of a Memorandum of Understanding to outline the roles for project implementation and the reimbursement for SCRRA's project - related costs in a not to exceed amount of $600,000 over a term of four years. ATTACHMENT: Draft MOU #M-23-01 1 w/SCRRA Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY03 04 FY05-08 Amount: $50,000 $550,000 Source of Funds: Measure A (Rail) Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 221-33-81101 P#3800 Fiscal Procedures Approved: A,i5444,14,6,---, Date: 11/18/03 10 Agreement No. M-23-011 • • • DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COST REIMBURSEMENTS OF THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE PROJECT (Perris Valley Line) 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Memorandum of Understanding is executed and entered into this day of , 2003, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ("SCRRA"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 SCRRA is a joint powers authority created and existing pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq. 2.3 RCTC desires to move forward in planning and implementing a proposed commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line (the "Project") and SCRRA desires to provide assistance and guidance where appropriate in planning and implementing the Project. 2.4 SCRRA understands that RCTC has formally selected the Project as the Locally Preferred Alternative and as such, the environmental review process has already begun on the Project. 2.5 This MOU outlines the roles of RCTC and SCRRA in the start up of the Project as well as the reimbursement for SCRRA's Project -related costs. 2.6 The parties responsibilities during the construction and operation phases shall be the subject of a subsequent MOU between the parties. RVPUB\ELC\660685 11 3. Terms. 3.1 RCTC's Responsibilities. RCTC's responsibilities shall include the following: (1) RCTC shall be the grantee of any funding from the Federal Government for the Project and any Full Funding Grant Agreement shall be between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and RCTC. (2) RCTC shall be responsible for coordination of grant application preparation. (3) RCTC shall maintain responsibility for the Project, including budgeting, final costs and quarterly reporting. (4) RCTC shall assume responsibility for Preliminary Engineering, including retention of the primary consultant and its team. (5) RCTC shall reimburse SCRRA for FTA eligible time and materials related to the Project on a quarterly basis. RCTC will not reimburse SCRRA for indirect costs unless such costs are approved by either CalTrans or the FTA. (6) if SCRRA desires to retain a consulting, engineer to assist with the Project, RCTC shall participate in the evaluation of SCRRA consultant proposals and approve the scope of work. 3.2 SCRRA's Responsibilities. SCRRA's responsibilities shall be the following: (1) SCRRA shall assign a member of its senior management staff to provide ongoing support for RCTC and SCRRA staff in identification and management of issues of importance as they arise. This person will be responsible to ensure coordination with SCRRA departments outside of those responsible for construction activities. (2) SCRRA shall assign the Manager of Construction to attend all meetings of RCTC's project team, to advise on technical issues relating to engineering and construction in support of commuter rail service. The Manager of Construction will be the day-to-day technical contact point between RCTC and SCRRA for the Project. SCRRA's engineer will also provide technical support to RCTC's project consultants in preparation of RCTC's Project Management Plan. A consulting engineer may be retained by SCRRA for the Project in order to assist the Manager of Construction. (3) Administration of grade crossings will come to the forefront during the Preliminary Engineering phase, and will continue through the operation of the San Jacinto Branch Line. SCRRA's senior management contact and Public Project staff will take the lead in RVPUB\ELC\660685 2 • • • 12 • • • working with RCTC, affected cities, the California Public Utilities Commission andthe freight railroads on grade crossing issues, including the implementation of SCRRA Board -adopted policies relating to management and reduction of risk associated with grade crossings. (4) SCRRA shall provide community relations/public outreach support to RCTC throughout the life of the Project, and will assist in preparation for and attend community meetings. SCRRA shall assist in the preparation of supporting materials as requested by RCTC. (5) SCRRA shall assign staff to participate in FTA New Starts workshops and other grant management activities and meetings as requested. (6) SCRRA shall provide comments on draft environmental review documents and shall assist RCTC in responding to comments received throughout the NEPA process. SCRRA shall provide a timely review of all documents in a means consistent with the approved project delivery schedule. (7) SCRRA shall provide assistance during preparation and review of the scope of work for a Preliminary Engineering consultant for the Project and shall participate in evaluation of consultant proposals for Preliminary Engineering. (8) SCRRA shall provide technical guidance throughout Preliminary Engineering relating to design, operation and maintenance of the railroad. SCRRA's review and approval of all documents shall be timely in a means consistent with the approved project delivery schedule. (9) SCRRA shall provide standards for track and signal design and will provide or assist RCTC in establishing standards and/or policies relating to operation and maintenance of the right of way. (10) SCRRA shall work with RCTC in determining and coordinating operations, crossings and safety related issues to the Project and shall assist in negotiations with the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Union Pacific and/or any freight railroads for any changes that may be warranted. (11) SCRRA may, at the request of RCTC, assume responsibility for overall maintenance of the non -operating right of way at RCTC's expense. (12) SCRRA shall establish a recollectable account for the Project within SCRRA's finance system and shall invoice RCTC for the full cost of its FTA eligible time and materials costs on a quarterly basis. SCRRA understands and agrees that RCTC will not reimburse SCRRA for indirect costs unless such costs are approved by either CalTrans or the FTA. 3.3 Funding Amount. SCRRA's costs for the Project shall not exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) without the written consent of RCTC's Executive Director. This amount reflects 1/2% of the estimated overall Project cost of One Hundred RVPUB\ELC1560685 3 Twenty Million Dollars ($120,000,000). Al] costs will be continually monitored and refined. No costs shall be incurred without prior approval by RCTC. 3.4 Final Design Phase. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Engineering phase, RCTC shall, with comments and input from SCRRA, decide whether SCRRA or RCTC shall take the lead in the administration of the Final Design phase. 3.5 Indemnification. RCTC and SCRRA each agree to mutually defend, indemnify and hold each other and their officials, officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against all claims, causes of action, demands, damages, expenses, losses and liability, in law or equity, for injury to any person (including wrongful death) or damage to any property to which the other may be subject to the extent that the same are the result of negligent acts of the other, its officials, officers, employees, or agents in any manner arising out of or incident to their performance under this MOU. 3.6 Governing Law. This MOU shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.7 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this MOU, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this MOU. 3.9 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of this MOU or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: SCRRA 700 S. Flower Street 26`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attn: CEO RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Attn: Executive Director 3.10 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this MOU should be altered, the parties may execute an amendment to add any provision to this MOU, or delete or amend any provision of this MOU. All such amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this MOU, or their successors or designees. RVPUB\ELC\660685 3.11 Entire Agreement. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between 4 • • 14 • • • the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.12 Validity of MOU. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this MOU shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this MOU. RIVERSIDE COUNTY [signatures on following page] SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY By: By: Ron Roberts, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUB\ELC\6606$5 5 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning Development and Policy SUBJECT: City of Corona Request to Reprogram Funds STAFF AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the City of Corona's request to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds on the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) project with TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2001, the Commission approved $1,989,792 of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds for the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) project in the City of Corona. This project is currently programmed in the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in fiscal year 2003/04. The City of Corona has also committed approximately $1 million as their local contribution towards this project. The impact of the state budget crisis on the STIP has resulted in several projects being delayed, and no allocations of RIP funds are expected to occur this year for projects programmed in fiscal year 2003/04. It is also expected that funding capacity will not be available in the first two years of the 2004 STIP (2004/05 and 2005/06). The city's ATMS project is ready for implementation and the city is requesting that the Commission remove the project from the STIP and instead program $1,989,792 of TEA -21 Reauthorization Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Although the Reauthorization of TEA -21 has been delayed, and there is speculation that reauthorization may not occur until after November 2004, it is likely that these funds will be made available sooner then the RIP funds. 16 Staff concurs with the city's request and the Technical Advisory Committee recommended approval of this item at its November 17, 2003 meeting. Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will process the necessary amendments to the STIP and Regional Transportation Improvement Program/Federal Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/FTIP) to reflect the change in funding. • • 17 • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2004-08 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont, as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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. On April 24, 2003, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A" revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 11 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 23, 2003 meeting and to the Commission on July 9, 2003. At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but five (5) cities, and since that time, three additional cities have submitted their Plan for approval. Subsequently, we have received the required Plan, MOE, certification and supporting documentation from the City of Beaumont. The City of Desert Hot Springs is the only city that has not submitted its Plan for Commission approval. It has been notified that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. 18 Attachment: Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont • • • 19 • RIVERSI DE COUNT Y TRANSP ORTATION C OMMISSI ON MEASURE " A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003-2008 A gency: City of Bea umo nt Prepared by: Public Works Department Date; June 3, 2003 Pagel oft Fiscal Year PROJECT NAME/LfMTIS P ROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST STATUS MEASURE "A" 2003 1' Street and 6th Street Signals I-101S R79 Interco nnect i $573,608 Complete $68,834 2003 Sixth Street, Phase 11 Road Rehabilitation $1,233,750 Complete $638,750 2003 Oak Valley Parkway Wide ning, Ext. & Rehab . $1,150,979 Under Co nst . SO 2003 Fourth Street, Vice Ave an d First St Widening, Ext . & Rehab. $2,173,832 Uncles Const. $0 2004 Palm A venue Road Rehabilitation $600,000 Und er Design $200,000 2005 Eighth Street Road Rehabilitations $800,000 Pending Des. $200,000 2003 Oak Valley Parkway Rehab. and Widening '� $ OO,U00 Under Const. $200,000 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Supervisor THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 04-005 establishing Appropriation Limit for FY 03-04 the Commission's STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Resolution No. 04-005 establishing the Commission's Appropriation limit for FY 03-04, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriation limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. Attached is Resolution No. 04-005 and the attachments supporting the calculation. The Commission has historically chosen to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution No. 04-005 to establish the FY 03- 04 appropriations limit. Attachments: Resolution No. 04-005 California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit 21 • • • RESOLUTION NO. 04-005 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, Section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its' appropriations limit at $75 million for Fiscal Year 1988-89 under Ordinance No. 88- 1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen (15) days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with Fiscal Year 1990-91 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Board of Riverside County Transportation Commission is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non-residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Commission wishes to select, as factors in determining the Commission's appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2003-04 the percentage change in California per capita personal income and also the population change within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented calculations of its appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2003-04 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least (15) fifteen days prior to the approval of this resolution. 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. For Fiscal Year 2003-04, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are: a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income; and, b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for Fiscal Year 2003-04 are hereby established and determined to be $212,121,630. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2003-04 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • • 23 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2003-2004 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 2002-2003 Appropriations Limit $203,148,539 2003-2004 Adjustment: Change in California per capita income Change in Population, Riverside County = 0.74 percent = 3.65 percent 0.74 + 100 = 1.0074 100 3.65 + 100 = 1.0365 100 1 .0074 x 1 .0365 = 1.0441701 $203,148,539 x 1.0441701 = $212,121,630 2003-2004 Appropriations Limit $212,121,630 Source: California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County - California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit 24 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME • • • United Califomia California %Change States % Change % of U.S. 1990 21,882 5.4 19,572 5.4 111.8 1991 21,983 0.5 20,023 "2.3 109.8 1992 22,550 3.0 20,95U 4./ 108.1 1993 22,833 0.5 21,539 2.8 105.0 1994 0/ 23,348 2.3 22,340 3./ 104.5 1995 24,339 4.2 23,255 4.1 104.7 1995 25,3/3 42 24,2/U 4.4 104.5 199/ 25,521 4.5 25,412 4./ 104.4 1995 28,240 5.5 25,893 5.8 105.0 1999 r/ 29,(12 52 2/,88U 3./ 105.5 2000 r! 32,363 8.9 29,760 6.7 108.7 2001 ri 32,555 0.9 30,413 2.2 101.4 2002 32,598 0./ 30,832 1.4 105.1 a/ Ketlects Loma -'neta earthquake. CV Ketlects Northndge earthquake. Note: Omits income tor government employees overseas. Jource: U.J. ueparrmem or l.ommerce, bureau or tconornic Analysis, nnp:/Iwww.oea.aoc.gow 1999 to 2001 'Hre-benchmark' Revisions: Released Apnl 2003 Updated: August 25, 2003 Filename: bbpercap E-1: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2002 and 2003 City/County/State CALIFORNIA Total Population Percent 1-1-02 1-1-03 Change 35,000,000 35,591,000 1.7 RIVERSIDE 1,645,300 1,705,500 3.7 BANNING 24,650 25,500 3.4 BEAUMONT 12,200 13,800 13.1 BLYTHE 21,250 21,200 -0.2 CALIMESA 7,275 7,325 0.7 CANYON LAKE 10,350 10,500 1.4 CATHEDRAL CITY 45,450 47,300 4.1 COACHELLA 24,300 26,750 10.1 CORONA 134,000 137,000 2.2 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 16,900 17,200 1.8 HEMET 61,500 62,200 1.1 INDIAN WELLS 4,350 4,400 1.1 INDIO 52,200 54,500 4.4 LAKE ELSINORE 31,100 33,050 6.3 LA QUINTA 28,750 30,450 5.9 MORENO VALLEY 146,500 150,200 2.5 MURRIETA 51,700 57,000 10.3 NORCO 24,900 25,250 1.4 PALM DESERT 42,900 43,900 2.3 PALM SPRINGS 43,750 44,000 0.6 PERRIS 37,550 38,200 1.7 RANCHO MIRAGE 14,350 14,950 4.2 RIVERSIDE 269,600 274,100 1.7 SAN JACINTO 25,300 26,050 3.0 TEMECULA 72,800 75,000 3.0 UNINCORPORATED 441,800 465,800 5.4 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit • • 2d • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: November 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Status Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the staff report as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff will present a report to the Committee at its meeting on November 24. Among the items to be discussed is Congressional approval of a number of appropriations bills that will affect transportation funding and an update on the convening of a special session of the California Legislature to address the state's budget crisis. 27