The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About06 June 25, 2001 Budget & ImplementationRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTpr MEETING AC RECORDS TIME: 12:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, June 25, 2001 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 VIDEO CONF SITE: City of La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico - Section Room ...COMMITTEE MEMBERS... John Hunt, Chair / Jan Wages, City of Banning Phil Stack, Vice Chair / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Gregory 5. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / Lupe Dominguez, City of Coachella Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio John Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta Kevin Pape / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Bonnie Flickinger / Frank West, City of Moreno Valley Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside John Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula ... STAFF ... Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications ... 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 Board. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE http://www.rctc.org 3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001 - 12:30 P.M. AGENDA. *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location) 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 21, 2001) 5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT - P. 01 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending May 31, 2001; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 2 5B. SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONTRACTS - P. 05 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) The Schedule of Recurring Contracts for services to be rendered in Fiscal Year 2001/2002 (to be effective July 1, 2001); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 07 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS - P. 22 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Increase the expenditure budget for the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial program by $2,250,000; 2) Reallocate Administration Expenditures by $40,000; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 3 8. TDA MEASURE A OVERHEAD ALLOCATION POLICY - P. 24 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) The TDA/Measure A overhead allocation policy; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. HIGHWAY 111 PROJECTS - P. 26 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The Tier 2 projects for Route 1 1 1 (attached); 2) Authorize Commission staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. APPROVAL OF HIGHWAY 111 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROJECT FUNDING MOU'S - P. 30 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Allocate Measure "A" funding totaling $1,554,000 for the following three (3) State Highway 111 Tier II Corridor projects for construction improvements at: Town Center for $559,000, San Luis Rey for $561,000 and El Paseo for $434,000, subject to award to lowest responsive bidder by the Palm Desert City Council. Of this total $138,000 will be expended in fiscal year 2002 and the remaining balance in 2003; Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 4 2) Authorize the Chairman to enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert, subject to RCTC 'legal council review; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. APPROVE SELECTION PROCESS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AND AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2148 TO SC ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 91, FROM MARY STREET TO 7TH STREET - P. 75 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The selection process to provide the Commission Engineering and Environmental Studies, for Proposed Improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street; 2) Negotiated scope, schedule and cost with SC Engineering to perform the required services; 3) Authorize the award of contract No. RO-2148 to SC Engineering for a base amount of $1,062,025 with a 20% extra work component of $212,405 for a total amount of $1,274,430 to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for proposed improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 5 12. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE CONSTRUCTION PACKAGE FOR SOUND WALL NO. 36 - P. 97 Overview 1) Advertise for construction bids for Sound Walls No. 36 on Route 91 from Myers Street to Harrison Street in the City of Riverside; 2) Bring back the results for further Commission action; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2042 TO HOLMES & NARVER FOR THE PREPARATION OF PROJECT STUDY REPORTS OF BRIDGE OVER CROSSINGS FOR MEASURE "A" HOV WIDENING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY - P. 101 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-2042 to Holmes & Narver for: A. Deletion of the remaining scope of work in Amendment #1 related to the preparation of the Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimates for the bridge replacement of Indian Avenue overcrossing in the amount of $31 1,370; B. Preparation of Project Study Reports for bridge replacements at Indian Avenue, Nason Street and Moreno Beach Drive; Move $31 1,370 from Amendment #1 to help fund Amendment #2; Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 6 D. Approve new authorization in the amount of $44,290. This additional authorization will bring the contract value not to exceed from $2,830,860 to $2,875,150; Maintain the existing extra work authorized in Amendment #1 of $40,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #2 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. APPROVAL OF DRAFT STATE ROUTE 74 UTILITY AND AGENCY AGREEMENTS - P. 123 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Enter into agreements with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Southern California Edison, Verizon, and California Department of Fish and Game defining the respective responsibilities related to the RCTC Measure "A" widening of State Route 74 between Lake Elsinore and the City of Perris; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the final agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 7 15. AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2128 TO STV INCORPORATED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCE PROJECT PLANNING AND COMPLETION OF NEW STARTS APPLICATION RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE - P. 125 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide additional Advance Project Planning and Completion of New Starts Application for a total amount of $157,730 to STV Incorporated to support the potential development of passenger service on the San Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between the Cities of Riverside and Perris; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #3 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2027 FOR ADDITIONAL FINAL PS&E DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED NEW METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATION IN DOWNTOWN CORONA NEAR MAIN STREET & ROUTE 91 P. 135 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Recommend the approval of Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) to provide additional final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Design Services for the proposed new Corona Main Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, for an additional base amount of $298,426, with an additional extra work contingency of $51,574. The new total Contract Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 8 value shall not exceed $1,295,000. (note: If negotiations result in a reduced cost for these services, the lower number will be used for award); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #3 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. AMEND CONTRACT WITH PB FARRADYNE INC. (CONTRACT NO. RO-9952) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) SYSTEM FOR THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION - P. 141 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The Phase I Communication Study for the Proposed Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Staff's recommendation to employ one of the four DSL/T-1 transmission options from the Phase 1 Communications Study to Connect the Pedley Station to the centralized monitoring location at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station; 3) Approve Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-9952 for PB Farradyne Inc. to begin Phase II Final Plans, Specifications, and cost Estimate (PS&E) for the Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for $44,084 plus a contingency amount of $5,916 (13% - to cover potential changes encountered during design) for a total contract amount not to exceed $50,000; 4) Authorize the use of Fed Aid funds for the Phase II work; Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 9 5) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Amendment #2 on behalf of the Commission; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. 18. FY 2002-06 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS - P. 158 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 19. AMENDMENT TO CITIES OF CALIMESA AND PALM DESERT'S FY 2001 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS - P. 270 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Approve the amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calimesa and Palm Desert, as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 20. FY 2001-02 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS - P. 279 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval of: Budget & Implementation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 10 1) The FY 2001-02 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations as shown on the attached schedule; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 21. APPROVAL OF CITY OF CORONA'S BICYCLE MASTER PLAN - P. 285 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Review and approve the City of Corona's Bicycle Master Plan, dated May 31, 2001, as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 22. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA - P. 334 Overview This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Grant the City of Temecula a six-month extension to December 30, 2001 to complete the Southern Cross Road Sidewalk Project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 23. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 23. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m. on Monday, August 27, 2001 at the RCTC offices. AGENDA ITEfrI 4 PI/NUTES RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, May 21, 2001 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairman John Hunt at 2:30 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501 and at the video conference location in the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Jeff Comerchero Lupe Dominguez* John Hunt Ameal Moore Kevin Pape John Pena* Gregory Pettis* John Tavaglione Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Bonnie Flickinger Phil Stack Patrick Williams Mike Wilson *Attended meeting via video conference 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 23, 2001 M/S/C (Venable/Tavaglione) approve the April 23, 2001 minutes as written. Abstain: Comerchero Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 2 At this time, it was requested to add 'Approve Agreement 8-1156 with the State for RCTC to Provide Design Sequencing Support to the State for the Early Delivery of the Measure 'A "1-215 Projects ': This item needed the immediate attention of the Commission and the item arose after the posting of the Budget and Implementation Committee agenda. M/S/C (Moore/Tavaglione) to approve the addition of the item requested as an urgency item that arose after the posting of the agenda. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Venable/Comerchero) to approve the Consent Calendar. 5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1. Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending April 30, 2001; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1. Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending March and April 2001; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 5C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1. Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending March 31, 2001; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 5D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1. Receive and file the Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2001; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 5E. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE 1. Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box System for the quarter ending March 31, 2001; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 3 6. STATE ROUTE 91 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1152 BETWEEN CALTRANS AND RCTC TO PREPARE PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN HOV LANE BETWEEN MARY STREET AND THE 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed Agreement No. 8-1 152 to prepare Project Approval and Environmental Documents (PA and ED) for the construction of an HOV lane between Mary Street and the 60/91/215 interchange. The agreement provides that the Commission is authorized to expend up to $3,330,000 to provide the studies necessary for the PA and ED documentation. He noted that the state's position is that the disposition of hazardous waste, if discovered, must become a part of the project costs. M/S/C (Moore/Tavaglione) to approve: 1. Entering into cooperative Agreement No. 8-1152 with Caltrans to perform Project Approval and Environmental Documents (PA and ED) for the addition of an HOV lane on SR 91 between Mary Street and the 60/91/215 interchange; 2. Authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate any final changes required; 3. Authorizing the Commission Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and 4. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 7. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTRACT SERVICES FOR THE RELOCATION AND/OR REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OTHER ITEMS WITHIN THE PROPOSED STATE ROUTE 74 RIGHT-OF-WAY Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the status of the SR 74 Realignment Project and the next phase of demolition and relocation of structures. He also noted the significant time -savings achieved by establishing a list of qualified contractors or using approved contractors listed by the County of Riverside as opposed to obtaining Commission approval for each contract. Also, staff recommends a single signature authority separate from the existing single signature authority due to the budget of $1 million for this project. Commissioner Kevin Pape asked when staff anticipated the project be completed. Hideo Sugita responded that the project should be completed in approximately three years. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 4 M/S/C (Pape/Venable) to approve: 1. Authorizing staff to either solicit statements of qualifications from contractors for services to demolish or relocate structures and other improvements within the proposed State Route 74 Right -of -Way to establish a qualified list of contractors, or use approved contractors listed by the County of Riverside that have already been qualified by the County of Riverside to perform similar services; 2. Authorizing staff to solicit a minimum of three bids from the combined list of pre -qualified contractors from action (1) above for services required on each parcel, evaluate the bids and recommend the lowest cost qualified contractor for selection; 3. Authorizing the Executive Director to enter into an agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review, with the contractor to perform the above referenced work under a single signature contract; and, 4. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 8. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITIES OF MORENO VALLEY, MURRIETA, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE, AND CORONA Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed each of the cities extension requests under the SB 821 Program. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to approve: 1. Grant the City of Moreno Valley a three-month extension to September 30, 2001, to complete the School Area Enhancement Project, the Accessibility Enhancements Project, and the Brodiaea Avenue Sidewalk Project; 2. Grant the City of Murrieta a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2002, to complete the construction of the Washington Avenue bike lane project; 3. Grant the City of Perris a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2002, to award the construction contract on the Orange and Indian Avenue Sidewalk project; 4. Grant the City of Riverside a two -month extension to August 31, 2001, to complete construction of the Hole Avenue Sidewalk project and a ten-month extension to April 30, 2002, to complete construction of the Well Avenue Sidewalk project; 5. Grant the City of Corona a twelve-month extension to June 30, 2002, to complete the Chase Bikeway and the Bus Stop Accessibility project Garretson and Fullerton Avenue to the segment between Gilbert Avenue and Rimpau Avenue; and, 6. Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 5 9. AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) AND SAN BERNARDINO SAFE FOR THE PROVISION OF CALL BOX CALL ANSWERING AND DISPATCH SERVICES Jerry Rivera reviewed the agreement between Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) and San Bernardino SAFE for the provision of call box call answering and dispatch services. All calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) at either by Inland Dispatch Center in San Bernardino and Indio Dispatch Center. Due to concerns about increasing costs and declining service, the Commission authorized staff to develop a joint RCTC and SANBAG request for proposal for call box answering service. Professional Communications Network has been selected and a contract is scheduled to be awarded by the SANBAG board at their June meeting. The development and start-up costs will be shared by Riverside and San Bernardino SAFEs. Once the Call Answering Center (CAC) is operational, Riverside SAFE will reimburse the San Bernardino SAFE for its actual number of calls. The total estimated CAC costs to Riverside SAFE is $359,250 for three years compared to the total estimated CHP costs of $236,310 for one year. Commissioner Kevin Pape inquired if the public would be affected by this transition. Jerry Rivera responded that the public will be unaffected by the transition and service will actually be improved. Marilyn Williams added that the transition period is estimated to be approximately six months long. M/S/C (Venable/Pape) to approve: 1. Authorizing the Commission Chairman to enter into an agreement, subject to legal counsel review, with San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) for call box call answering and dispatch services from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2004, with two one-year options; and 2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 10. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Michele Cisneros, Accounting Supervisor, reviewed the need to increase the expenditure budget for the Regional Arterial Program by $1,250,000. The cities of Coachella Valley have completed construction in addition to what they initially planned and requested reimbursement. This increase will allow the cities to be reimbursed for construction projects that they have already completed. The source of funds is the Regional Arterial Reserves. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 6 M/S/C (Venable/Pape) to approve: 1. Increasing the expenditure budget for the Regional Arterial Program by $1,250,000; and 2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 11. RCTC / WRCOG ACCOUNTING SERVICES AGREEMENT M/S/C (Venable/Pape) to approve: 1. The agreement between Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); and 2. Authorizing the Commission Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review; and, 3. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 12. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, provided a state and federal legislative update highlighting the following items: 1) There are no current bill positions for the Commission to take; 2) AB 37, which threatened the loss of sales tax revenue on gasoline, has been defeated; and, 3) The Governor's May revision of the budget, noting minimal impacts. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action. 13. URGENCY ITEM - APPROVE AGREEMENT 8-1156 WITH STATE FOR RCTC TO PROVIDE "DESIGN SEQUENCING SUPPORT" TO THE STATE FOR THE EARLY DELIVERY OF THE MEASURE "A" 1-215 PROJECTS Hideo Sugita reviewed Agreement 8-1156 with State for RCTC to provide "Design Sequencing Support" to the State. Caltrans and RCTC staff have been discussing methods of accelerating delivery of the Measure "A" 1-215 project that includes over $300 million of improvements between East and West Junctions with SR 60. To accelerate delivery, there are many issues that need to be resolved such as R/W acquisition, utility relocation, construction sequencing and availability of engineering design staff. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting May 21, 2001 Page 7 M/S/C (Tavaglione/Venable) to approve: 1. Entering into cooperative Agreement No. 8-1156 with the State for RCTC to provide "Design Sequencing Support" to the State for the early delivery of the Measure "A" 1-215 projects; 2. Authorizing the Executive Director to negotiate any final changes required; 3. Authorizing the Commission Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and, 4. Forwarding to the Commission for final action. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. The next meeting will be at 12:30 p.m., on Monday, June 25, 2001, at the RCTC offices. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEfrI5A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending May 31, 2001; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of 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 May 31, 2001. Attachments 000001 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWA AL PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) SUBTOTAL:ROUTE 60 ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) (R02141) (2140) SLIBTOTAL-ROUTE 74 RO UTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ. /ROW Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R0 9961) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 7 ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3) (Caltrans Funded Proje cts) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 86 ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall design and co nstru ction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535) Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,9945 2059) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9540,9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629 SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111 COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION $2,830,770 $2,830,770 $8,000,400 $8,000,4 .00 $740,000 $740,000: $20,253,000 $33,860,000 :$54,11 3,000 $10,632,800 $2,300,000 $883,450 i 0 16,*50 $16,946,856 $1:6;946;156 CONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE $2,790,860 $Z790,860 $7,605,200 $7,605;200 $630,000 $630;000 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 $53;2604)00 $9,872,324 $2,300,000 $798,291 $12;970,61$ $16,946,856 $16,946,856 Page 1 of 3 % COMMITTED AGAINST AUTH. ALLOCATION 98.6% 98.5% 95 .1% •95.1% 85 .1% 85;1%i 96 .3 %1 99 .7% 92.8% 100.0% 90.4% 93.9% 100.0% 100.0% EXPENDITURE FOR MONTH ENDED 05/31/01 $33,551 $33,551 $71,564 $71,564 $0 $O Project Complete $950,000 aasn nnn $135,457 $6,544 $142,001 $500,000 $500,000 EXPENDITURES TO DATE $390 .287 $390,287 $3,590,761 $3,590,761 $116,038 $116,038 $18,060,000 $27,750,000 $45,80,000 $8,529,171 $1,797,708 $740,471 $1 .1A8706.0 $10,961,347 $10,961,347 EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMNTS TO DATE 14.0 % 14.0 % 47.2% 47.2% 18.4% 18.4% 92.6 % 82 .2% 86.0% 86.4% 78.2 % 92 .8% 85 .3 % 64 7% 64.7% RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHW AY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE C OM MISSION CONTRACTURAL P ROJECT AUTHORIZED COM MITMENTS DESCRIPTION ALL OCATION TO DATE 1-215 PR OJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUBTOTAL1-215 $6,726,504 $6;726,504 $5,878,173 $5.878,173 % COM MITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION 05/31/01 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE 87.4% 7.4%, INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R0 9926,9946) SUBTOTA L INTERCHANGE PROJECT & CONSTR. MGM T SERV. (RO 2100) UBTOTAL B CHT L ....:. PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) ISUBTOTAL PROORAAi1 PLAN SVCS. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) SUBTOTAL PA RK=N-RIIIE COM MUTER RAIL Studie s/Engineering (RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028) R02031,2027,2120,2029,9937,2128, 9956) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs (0000,2026,2056,9929,9845,9953,9957,9932,9972) SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL TOTALS:: $440,000 $440,000 $1,750,000 $1;750,t100 $125,000 $125,000 $2,293,911 $2;293,911 $2,807,070 $13,190,402 $1.5,997,472 $123,780,163 $400,000 $400,000 $1,715,104 $1,715 .;104 $125,000 $125,000 $2,293,911 $2,764,070 $12,810,402 $15,574,472 $120,190,191 Page 2 of 3 90 .9 % 90.9% 98.0% 98.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 .0% 100.0% 98 .5 % 97.1% 97.4% i97.1% $0 $0 $118,258 118,25 0 $114,892 $114,892 $19,481 $102,878 $122,359 $2,052,625 $5,704,8.97 $5,704,897 $312,519 $312,519 $1,447,024 $1,447,024 $72,607 $72,60 $2,163,280 2,103,2 $2,445,900 $11,570,991 $14,016,891 $95,653,001 97.1 % 97.1% 78 .1 78,1% 84.4% 04,4 % 58.1 % 58.1 % 94 .3% 94 .3% 88.5% 90.3% 90.0 % 79.6% s RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOS .STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT APPROVED DESCRIPTION COMMITMENT CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements SUBTOTA L CANYON LANCE LOAN CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL CITY OF CORONA CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & roa d improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Local streets & road improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improv ements CITY OF HEMET Local streets & roads improve ments TOTALS $1,600,000 $1,600,OQ0 $5,212,623 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $18,806,636 EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST 05/31/01 ADVANCES BALANCE COM MITMENT APPROVED C OMMIT $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $5,21 6,3 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 $18,806,636 NO TE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. $1,107,300 $1,10 OaD $3,416,507 $3,416,507 $1,409,368 $964,000 $3,707,544 $1,556,860 $1,331,541 $491,905 $12,161,579 $0 $o $0 $0 so $0 $o $0 $0 $0 to 69.2 % 69 .2% 65 .5% 65.5% 72.8 % 72.8% 72 .8 % 72.8% 88 .8% 67 .4% 64 711,, Status as of 5/31/01 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEfrI5B 1- ■ ■ , _ ■ - ■ ■ •. 1• • • ■■ r. ■ • ■ ▪ i ■ 1 1 ■ ■ • ■• •. •. ■ ' • ■ ■■ ■ • I.1 • %• • ■_• • 1 , ,•. r ti • • • r -• ■ r, • ■ 1 • r• • ,4' _I 1 • ■ • • • . ■7 s . ii ■ , ,•; _ N. ■ 77 - ' J 1 •r 1 _ ''J r. • } . 1. _ ■ 1. ir ■ •. 1.em . 1. ■■ • L ▪ • • - ■ ■ _ • - •. ■ • I . 1.11 • ■ 1 Ati • • • r r ■ • • • P .k m • ' Milli. = . . - .ex . ■ • • ■ ■ _ . . 7 ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . - . . . 1 . . ■ ■ • • ■ - 1 1 • ■ .. • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: i Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Schedule of Recurring Contracts STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The Schedule of Recurring Contracts for services to be rendered in Fiscal Year 2001/2002 (to be effective July 1, 2001); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Three years ago, the Commission evaluated all recurring contracts to determine when and if to hold a competitive process. As a result of that review, most contracts were rebid. In addition, the Commission required that these contracts be approved at the beginning of each year. Listed below is the Schedule of Recurring Contracts for Fiscal Year 2001/2002 requiring approval: Schedule of Recurring Contracts Consultant Name Description of Services Budget FY 00/01 Budget FY 01/02 Dollar Change Percent Change Bechtel Program Management (1) $1,750,000 $2,300,000 $550,000 31.4% Best, Best and Krieger General Legal 594,000 600,000 6,000 1.0% Geographics Graphic Design 325,000 325,000 0 0.0% Teletran Tek Services Call Box Consultant 48,538 50,479 2,121 3.9% Comarco WT Ann. Maint. Costs (2) 327,410 371,000 43,590 13.3 Comarco WT System Upgrade (3) 0 567,000 567,000 100% Pepe's Towing Freeway Patrol (4) 369,552 445,534 75,982 20.5% 000005 Schedule of Recurring Contracts Hamner Towing Freeway Patrol 231,879 230,969 (910) (0.4%) Inland Transp. Services Commuter Assistance 510,000 537,000 27,000 5.2% Public Financial Mgt. Investment Advisor (5) 40,000 45,000 5,000 12.5% Schiermeyer Consulting Rail Studies 120,000 120,000 0 0.0% Ernst & Young Audit Services 352,500 360,000 7,500 2.1% Valley Research & Planning Congestion Management 80,000 80,000 0 0.0% (1) Bechtel contract is significantly higher due to the 1-215 project that is being undertaken in cooperation with Caltrans. This project is unique that several activities will take place at the same time thus speeding up the project. This increase will be funded entirely by Caltrans. (2) Comarco WT is higher due to the installation of Smart Call Boxes and the maintenance requirements. In addition, the company was given a CPI increase. (3) The contract with Comarco Wireless Technologies to perform the system upgrade was approved and the service will be performed in the current fiscal year. (4) The increase in costs for the Pepe's Towing contract is due to the additional beat that the company was awarded during the construction of the truck lane on Highway 60. (5) PFM is paid for their services a percentage of the amount invested with them. During last fiscal year, the Commission has invested additional funds through PFM and as such is required to pay the additional amount. Investments with PFM currently average 60-75 basis points higher than the county investment pool. All these items have already been included in the FY 2001/2002 Adopted Budget and as such no budget adjustment is required. 000000 AGENDA ITEfrI 6 rJ IsiNkWt. kitiVink RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to adopt the following bill positions: 1 . Support - SCA 5 (Torlakson) ACR 81 (Hollingsworth) 2 Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and 3. Forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND: State Update The State's electricity crisis might be perceived as being temporarily in hiatus; however, due to the Legislature's latest pressing priority of developing the FY 2001/02 budget, Legislators continue to be reserved in talking about other issues. The last day for fiscal committees to hear and report to the Floor bills introduced in their house was June 1, 2001. Attached to this agenda item is an update from Smith, Kempton and Watts, RCTC/SANBAG's state legislative advocate, summarizing the action on a number of bills. Specific attention should be paid to activities related to the RCTC/SANBAG sponsored bill, AB 1463 (Longville) which passed the Assembly Floor on consent on May 17, 2001. The bill will likely be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2001. Also, please note that AB 227 (Longville), a bill to eliminate the 2006 sunset of the sales tax on gasoline for transportation purposes has been amended to only extend the sunset to 2008, consistent with the Governor's May Budget Revision transportation "refinancing" proposal and now has a new author, Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman John Dutra. Other bills on the sales tax on 00000 gasoline topic which include ACA 9 (Dutra) and SB 829 (Karnette) were held in the respective Appropriations Committee Suspense files. The one bill that remains active is SCA 5 (Torlakson)which was introduced May 16, 2001. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions for approval: SCA 5 (Torlakson) - Senate Constitutional Amendment to dedicate the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes and set a simple majority vote requirement for transportation sales tax measures. SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. ACR 81 (Hollingsworth) - Assembly Concurrent Resolution urging the California Department of Transportation, RCTC, and OCTA to facilitate the establishment of an alternative transportation corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties. SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. Federal Update The House Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee initiated its markup of the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill on the morning of Tuesday, June 12, 2001. In light of this scheduling, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, Darren Kettle, met with members of Congress and staff in Washington, DC the week prior the scheduled markup to remind the Inland Empire delegation of RCTC's and SANBAG's federal appropriation requests. Congressional offices were very receptive to the two agencies' requests and were optimistic that funding would be earmarked for projects, albeit maybe not for as much all of the projects requested. It is expected that the full House Appropriations Committee will consider the transportation appropriations bill the week of June 18 or June 25 and could be ready for full House approval prior to the week long July 4 recess. The Senate is moving at a slightly slower pace with the transportation lobby hoping that the full Senate will take action on the Senate version of the Transportation Appropriations bill prior to the August recess. Once the two houses have completed their actions, a conference committee will "iron out" differences between the House and Senate versions of the two Transportation Appropriations bills. 000003 Date of Analysis: June 12, 2001 Bill Number/Author: SCA 5 (Tom Torlakson, D -Antioch) As Introduced May 15, 2001 Subject: Status: Summary: Senate Constitutional Amendment to dedicate the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes and set a simple majority vote requirement for local transportation sales tax measures. Introduced May 15, 2001. May be acted upon on or after June 16. Assigned to Senate Transportation Committee and Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee. The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax, such as transportation sales tax measures like Measure A or I, by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax. SCA 5 authorizes a local government agency, including the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments, with the approval of a majority of its voters voting on the proposition, to impose a special tax, that it is otherwise authorized to impose, if the tax is imposed exclusively to fund transportation projects and services. Under AB 2928 from the last Legislative session the State Board of Equalization, in consultation with the Department of Finance, on a quarterly basis, is to estimate the amount of sales and use tax revenue that is attributable to revenue collected for the sale, storage, use, or other consumption in this state of motor vehicle fuel, and to inform the Controller, in writing, of the amount estimated. Existing law requires the Controller to transfer that estimated amount from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund in the State Treasury. SCA 5 would "Constitutionally" protect the sales tax on gasoline revenues for transportation purposes. As a Senate Constitutional Amendment this bill must be approved by 2/3 of the membership of each house and approved by the voters of the State of California. Staff Comments: Both the RCTC and SANBAG Boards took a SUPPORT position on ACA 9 (Dutra) earlier this year. ACA 9 addressed one of the two elements of SCA 5, that being the Constitutional protection of sales tax on gasoline revenues for transportation purposes beyond the 2006 sunset in AB 2928. 000009 Last year, the linkage between sales tax on fuel and transportation was reinforced with the passage of AB 2928. AB 2928 created the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) and required deposit of the next five fiscal years of all the sales tax on gasoline into the fund. Deposits into the fund are currently estimated at $1.1 billion annually but early indicators show that this revenue estimate may be conservative. SCA 5, if approved by a 2/3 majority of both houses of the legislature and the California voters, will continue the TIF and dedicate motor vehicle fuel sales tax revenues to the TIF for the purpose of funding transportation activities throughout the state. The second element of SCA 5 is to reduce the super majority 2/3 -vote requirement for approval of transportation sales taxes to a simple majority. This proposal is identical to SCA 3 (Burton) from the last legislative session which was supported by both RCTC and SANBAG. While recent transportation sales tax measures in the Bay area, specifically Alameda County (82% of the vote) and Santa Clara County (70% of the vote) have met the 2/3 -vote threshold for approval, there is growing concern amongst southern California transportation industry experts that a super majority vote is likely unattainable and for that reason a lower voter threshold may be necessary to have any hope of passage of future transportation sales tax measures such as Measure A in Riverside County and Measure I in San Bernardino County. The Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments 2001-02 Legislative Program includes a policy position to "Support legislative efforts to restore the ability of counties to enact or reenact local option transportation sales taxes." SCA 5 is consistent with this policy position as a simple majority vote threshold does improve the two agencies ability to reenact transportation sales tax measures. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 000010 Date of Analysis: June 14, 2001 Bill Number/Author: ACR 81 (Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta) As Introduced May 30, 2001 Subject: Status: Summary: Assembly Concurrent Resolution urging the California Department of Transportation, RCTC, and OCTA to facilitate the establishment of an alternative transportation corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties. Introduced May 30, 2001. Assembly Transportation Committee hearing scheduled for June 25, 2001. This measure would urge the Department of Transportation and the regional transportation planning agencies for Riverside County (RCTC) and Orange County (OCTA) to facilitate the establishment of an alternative transportation corridor between those counties by reviewing possible routes and undertaking, as appropriate, the necessary planning and construction of the route selected. Staff Comments: As an Assembly Concurrent Resolution, ACR 81 does not carry the force of law but does heighten awareness within the Legislature of the magnitude of the traffic and congestion problem on the 91 Freeway between Riverside and Orange Counties. Included within the "Whereas's" of the resolution are statements recognizing the anticipated population growth within Riverside County, the fact the Riverside residents commute to Orange County for employment, the existing single freeway corridor between the two counties is already operating at a capacity beyond for what it was designed, and that the vehicular delay contribute to a worsening air quality problem and costs our regional economy as much as $7 million per day. ACR 81 urges CALTRANS and the regional transportation planning agencies of Riverside County and Orange County to facilitate the establishment of a new east/west transportation corridor between the two counties, a task that RCTC has undertaken as part of the CETAP process. Earlier this year, the Commission took a SUPPORT position on AB 1587 (Pacheco), a bill that, subject funding from the State Budget, requires Riverside County, in consultation with several cities, county transportation agencies, and CALTRANS, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to develop and gain legislative approval for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91 transportation corridor from Riverside County to Orange County. AB 1587 passed 11-0 out of Assembly Transportation Committee but was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file and, barring a committee rule waiver, the bill is effectively dead. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 000011_ Smith, Kempton & Watts Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: June 12, 2001 Subject: Legislative Report and Update AB 1463 (Longville) — Limiting Eminent Domain Litigation Expenses Assemblyman Longville on behalf of SANBAG introduced Assembly Bill 1463. AB 1463 in its current version would not allow a defendant in an eminent domain proceeding from recouping any litigation expenses it they are found not to have an interest in the property being sought by the public agency. AB 1463 passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on consent and also off the Assembly Floor on consent. AB 1463 is likely to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2001. .4B 1587 (Rod Pacheco) — Alternate Routes to SR 91 AB 1587 would require the County of Riverside, in consultation with a steering committee comprised of representatives from Orange County, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County, the City of Riverside, Riverside County, RCTC, the City of Corona Transportation Commission, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to develop and gain legislative approval for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91 transportation corridor from Riverside County to Orange County. The bill would require the study to address the issues of the jobs and housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and environmental protections. In addition to the specified representatives, the steering committee would be authorized to include a representative from the United States Forest Service if the federal government deems it appropriate to provide that representative. AB 1587 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File and has effectively become a two-year bill. 980 Ninth Street, Suite 1560 . Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508 . Fax: (916) 446-1499 000012 General Lecislatnve Items ACA 9 (Dutra) ACA 9 would constitutionally dedicate the revenues generated by the sales tax on gasoline for transportation related purposes beyond the statutory deadline of June 30, 2006. ACA 9 does NOT include a specific formula for allocating those dollars but rather points to a statutorily created formula (see AB 227 and SB 829 below). The bill was amended in the Assembly Transportation Committee to include a provision that required any change in the formula be approved by a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature. ACA 9 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. However, we are working with the Assembly Leadership to move ACA 9 as a part of a larger transportation package. AB 227 (Longville) AB 227 would statutorily dedicate the revenues generated by the sales tax on gasoline for transportation related purposes beyond the current deadline of June 30, 2006. AB 227 would continue the current allocation formula of 40% to the STIP, 40% to local streets and roads and 20% to the PTA. AB 227 was removed from the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and has also changed an Assembly Member Dutra bill. AB 227 is also part of the negotiations for a larger transportation package. AB 608 (Dickerson) This bill was introduced due to a provision in SB 45 that states if a project is programmed in the STIP and the contract for the project exceeds the programmed amount by 20% or more, the difference will be deducted from that County's share of STIP funding. In essence a debit to that county reducing their future funding. However, if the project comes in under the engineer's estimate there is no credit given back to that county. The Assembly member has introduced this legislation at the behest of the Rural Counties Task Force that believes the provision is unfair. AB 608 was also recently amended to increase, from 2% to 5%, the amount regional improvement fund expenditures that designated regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions may request, be designated from planning, programming, and monitoring. AB 608 passed out of the Assembly and is now in the Senate waiting to be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee. AB 1335 (Cohn) AB 1335 provides a means for a regional or local agency to expend regional or local funds on a project that is not yet programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program, and at a future date be reimbursed for those expenses from the STIP. The bill offers local and regional agencies another tool in financing projects. AB 1335 passed off the Assembly Floor and will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on June 19, 2001. 000015 SB 829 (Karnette) SB 829 contains the same dedication of funds beyond the current date as AB 227 but had attempted to change the current 40-40-20 formula to 1/3-1/3-1/3. SB 829 was heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on April 17, 2001 and the Committee did NOT support the change in the formula. The bill was amended to mirror the language in AB 227 and was passed out of the Committee unanimously. SB 829 was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee. 000014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIS! I/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCI ATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS Ok, TATE LEGISLATION Legislati on/ Author Descripti on Bill Status _ Positi on Date of Board Adoption AB 33 (Romero) In the event of a labor dispute, this bill would establish the LACMTA Labor Relations Trust Funds as a continuously appropriated fund in the State Treasury and would require the money in the fund to be appr opriated to the State Auditor. Referred to Assembly Transportation and Labor and Employment Committees 3/5/01. No position taken . AB 37 (Strickland) This bill would exempt m otor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel fr om sales tax . Re -referred to Assembly Revenue and Taxation C ommittee 3/28/01 . In Committee, set for second hearing 5/14/01. OPPOSE SAN BAG: 5/2/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 AB 132 (Horto n) This bill would amend the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to provide that a public agency shop agreement may apply to man agement, confidential, or supervisory employees. Passed out of Committee on Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security 4-2 on 5/2/01 . Passed and to Senate 45-30 . Referred to Senate Committee on Public Employees, Retireme nt & Social Security 5/31/01 . No positi on taken . AB 133 (Alquist) This bill would authorize RTPA's to include other factors of local significance as an element of the RTP. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee on 5/7/01. Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation 5/15/01. No position taken. AB 227 (Longville) This bill would extend indefinitely the period during which the Controller would be required to make the quarterly transfe rs from the General Fund to the TIF, and thereby wo uld make an appropriation. Passed out of Assembly Transp ortation Committee 77-0 late last month . Referred to Senate Committee on Transportati on . SUPPORT SANBAG: 3/7/01 RCTC: 3/14/01 F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.do c Legislatio n/ Author Description Bill Status P osition AB 257 (Longville) AB 321 (Vargas) AB 381 (Papan) E xisting law authorizes a c ounty, and cities within the county, to create a service authority for freeway emerge ncies for the purpos e of establishing and implementing an emergency m otorist aid system on portio ns of the California Freew ay and Expressw ay System l ocated withi n the county in which the authority is established. Existing l aw allows the auth ority to contract with the Departm ent of th e California Highway Patr ol or a private entity to respond to those calls . This bill would make technical changes in that law. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to inform the Controller of the amount and would require the Controller to transfer the amount to the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury . This bill would require that an unspecified percentage of the money in the acco unt be available to the department for the purpose of providi ng incentives to local gov ernments, local transit providers, pri vate developers and financial lenders for the citing and construction of transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented dev elopment within one -quarter mile of an existing or planned transit statio n. Tw o -Year Bill . Re -referred to Assembly Transportation C ommittee. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transp ortation Committee . Read second time and amended 4/16/01. In Committee, hearing canceled at request of author 4/23/01 . Passed out of Re - referred to Assembly Transp ortation Committee 7-2 . Referred to Assembly Appropriations C ommittee . Passed to Senate 55-20 on 6/5/01 and referred to Senat e Rules Committee . No positi on taken . No position taken . No positi on taken. Date of Board Adoption AB 403 (Bates) This bill would autho rize the funds transferred as specified to cities, counties, an d cities and counties to be expended to fund transpo rtation services for the elderly, as defined, if all of certain conditions are met. The bill thereby would make an appropriation by expanding the purpo ses fo r which continuously appropriated funds may be expended. F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc In Committee, hearing canceled at request of auth or 4/23/01 . No position taken . Legislati on/ At Description P ositi on AB 419 (Dutra) This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2010, certain transportation authorities to use a design -build pr ocess for bidding on transportation projects, including a requirement that certain information be verified under oath . Because a verification under oath is made under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state -mandated local program by changing the definiti on of a crime. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee77-1 and Business and Pr ofessions 12-0 . Re - referred to Senate Committee on Transportati on, hearing canceled at request of the author 6/18/01 . No p osition taken. 'te of Board Adoption AB 631 (Oropeza) AB 710 (Chavez) AB 860 (Negrete- McLeod) AB 1039 (Oropeza) AB 1091 (Pacheco) This bill would require the CTC, in conjuncti on with the department and state's regio nal transportati on planning agencies, to prepare and submit to the Governo r a comprehensive statewide transportation needs assessment containing specified information regarding unfunded transportatio n needs every 5 years beginning on 12/1/03. This bill would require the needs assessment to include, to the extent possible, a list co mpiled by the department and the regional agencies participating in the needs assessment prioritizing their top 10 unfunded pro jects. Existing law requires the DOT to develop contract specificati ons to conduct a statewide study of technically feasible and available cost- effectiv e means to reduce 4- and 5 -axle truck traffic fr om congested urban freeways during commute ho urs. This bill would delete the pro visions of the existing law. "Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund transportation projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic impacts caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor . This bill would eliminate the $1 million cap on funding recei ved by the Southern California Association of Go vernments from RCTC, SANBAG, OCTA, and LACMTA to be used for transpo rtation planning. This bill would provide that any pro vision in a co ntract for the design, construction, maintenance, or operation of a transportatio n facility, entered into between a state entity and priv ate party, is v oid if the provision purpo rts to limit the authority of the state to exercise its jurisdictio n o ver the state highway system, or any other transportation system that is subject to state jurisdiction, in o rder to minimize competition with the transportation facility. AB 1303 This bill wo uld declare the intent of the Legislature that alternative (Hollingsworth) ro utes that may be used to travel from Riverside County to Orange County be ev aluated and considered. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee 14-0 . In Senate, referred to Senate Committee on Transportati on 6/12/01 . Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee . Hearing canceled at request of auth or 5/7/01. Pending committee assignment. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee 3/12/01. Passed out of Assembly Transportation Committee 12-1. Referred to Senate Transportati on Committee 6/18/01. Pending c ommitte e assignment. Two -Year Bill. No position taken. No position taken . SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS WATCH No positi on taken. No p osition taken. SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 F: \users\preprin t\j s\legmat. do c Legislation/ A uthor D escription Bill Status Position AB 1396 (Long vill e) AB 1463 (Longv ille) AB 1587 (Pacheco) SB 10 (Soto) SB 18 (A larcon) This bill w ould create the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and M odernization Program S ubacc ount to the Public Transportation Account and appr opriates $100,000,000 from the State General Fund to the subaccount to be used f or commuter and light rail impro vement, modernization and safety projects. Existing law requires a court in an eminent domain action to award the defendant his or her litigation expenses whenever the proceeding is wholly or partly dismissed or when the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property sought . This bill would specify that the court is required to award the defendant his or her litigation expenses whene ver the pr oceeding is wh olly or partly dismissed, provided that the defendant owned or had an interest in the property that is the subject of the litigation . Existing law requires the Departme nt of Transportation to impr ov e and maintain the state highways . This bill, c ontingent upon an appropriation in the annual Budget Act for the purp oses of the bill, would require the Co unty of Riverside, in c onsultati on with a steering committee comprised of representatives from Orange C ounty, the Orange Co unty Transportation Authority, the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County, the City of Riverside, Riverside C ounty Transportation Commission, the City of Cor ona, and Districts 8 and 12 of the department, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later than July 1, 2003, a study and ro ute alignment to de velop and gain legislativ e approval for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91 transportation corridor from Riv erside County to Orange County. The bill would re quire the study to address the issues of the jobs and housing balance in the area, the mov ement of goods and services, and environmental protections. Existing law requires the DOT, in consultation with the California Highway Patrol, to establish and administer a "Safe Routes to School" con struction program pursuant to authority granted under specified federal law and to use federal transportatio n funds for construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. This bill would delete an obsolete study and reporting provision and the January 1, 2002 repeal date, thereby extending the program indefinitely. Existing law provides for the membership of the Los Angeles County Metro politan Transpo rtation Autho rity. This bill would require that 6 of the members of the authority be elected and would otherwise substantially revise the membership of the authority. F:\u sers\preprin t\j s\legmat. doc Passed out of Assembly Transportation C ommittee 11-1. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee . Passed out of Assembly Judiciary Committee . Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee 5/31/01 . Passed out of Assembly Transportati on Committee 11-0 on 4/23/01. Referred to Appropriations Committee. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re - refer to Assembly Appropriations C ommittee (Ayes 11- Noes 3) 4/16/01. Referred to Assembly Committee on Transp ortati on 6/11/01. Set first hearing . Hearin g cancelled at the request of author 4/11/01. SUPPORT No position taken . Staff recommends: SUPPORT No position taken. No position taken . D ate of Board Ad optio n SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 RCTC: 5/9/01 Legisl?•l on/ Au Description Bill Status Positi on •t e of B oard Adoptio n SB 106 (Sher) Existing law authorizes the establishment of a service authority and the importance of a $1 service fee in a county if the county board of supervisors, by a 2/3 vote, and a maj ority of the cities having a maj ority of the incorporated population within the county, adopt a resolution establishing the authority and the imp osition of a service fee on vehicles, as specified. This bill would limit the authority to suspend the ser vice fee to ab at ement pr ograms that have been in existence for at least 2 full fiscal years and would require every service authority that imposes a ser vice fee to issue a fiscal year end report, as specified, to the Controller on or before Oct ober 31 of each year . The bill would require each service authority that fails to submit the report by Nov ember 30 of each year to have its fee suspended for one year . Passed Senate Floor 26-10. Passed Assembly Transportati on Committee 12-3, re - referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee 6/12/01. No p ositi on taken. SB 116 (Kuehl) This bill would prohibit a state or local agency fr om constructing, or approving the construction of a ny public r oad, or from making any impro vement to an existing road that substantially increases vehicular traffic capacity in or thr ough any property under jurisdiction of the State Department of Parks and Recreati on. Passed Senate Floor 23-12 on 4/26/01 . Referred to Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife 5/17/01. OPPOSE SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 SB 127 (Johnson) Under existing law, certain local entities are authorized to us e design- build procurement for specified types of projects. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct a study and rep ort to the Legislature on the appro priateness of expanding the number of local government entities that may use design -build procurement. Referred to Senate Rules Committee on 2/8/01. No positi on taken . SB 171 (McClintock) This bill would authorize a transportation gridlock emergency to be declared for the purpose of relieving traffic c ongestion on any highway or segment of highway for the DOT has determined that the average daily vehicle hours of delay, excludin g weekends, e xceeds 3,000 vehicle hours. Re -referred to Assembly Transp ortation Committee 3/27/01. Hearing canceled at request of author 5/1/01 . No position taken . SB 618 (Margett) This bill would require expenditures for retrofitting soundwalls included on Caltrans priority list to be funded prior to making state transportation funds available for interregional and regional capital impr ovement pro jects in the STIP. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee on 3/12/01. OPPOSE SANBAG: 4/4/01 RCTC: 4/11/01 SB 759 (Murray) Existing law requires that a regional or local receiv ing an allo cation fr om the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund certify that it will sustain its level of expenditures of transportation purposes at a level that is co nsistent with the ave rage of its annual expenditures during the 97/98, 98/99, and 99/00 fiscal years. This bill would make technical, non -substantiv e changes in this prov ision Passed out of Senate Transportation C ommittee 1 5-0 on 4/17/01 . Re -referred to Assembly Committee on Transportation 6/12/01. No position taken. F:\users\preprin t\js\legmat. doc Legislati on/ Auth or Descriptio n Bill Status Position SB 790 (Karnette) This bill would specify that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that rem oves restricti ons on county share advances fr om the State Transportation Improvement Pr ogram process to pr omote efficient use of transportation funding. SB 829 (Karnette) SB 910 (Dunn) SB 956 (Ackerman) This bill extends indefinitely the transfer of motor vehicle fuel sales tax ' revenues from the State General Fund to the Transportati on Improvement Fund . This bill would pro vide that, in any action filed on or after January 1, 2002, challenging the validity of a h ousing element, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of nonvalidity of the element or amendment if the department has found that th e element or amendment does no t substantially comply. Ex isting law prov ides for the funding of state, local, and regional highway projects. This bill wo uld declare the intent of the Legislature to appro priate $500,000,000 annually fro m the General Fund for the purpose of funding the annual maintenance cost of, and to begin to address a backlo g in deferred maintenance for, lo cal streets and roads. F:luserslpreprint\j s\iegmat.doc Passed out of Senate Transportation C ommittee 15-0 on 4/17/01 . Referred to Assembly Committee on Transportation 5/31/01 . Fr om c ommittee: Do pass as amended (15- 0), and re -refer to Senate Committ ee on Appropriations. To be heard on 5/14/01. Placed on Appropriations Suspense File, set f or hearing on 5/31/01. No p osition taken. Date of Board Adopti on Staff recommends: SUPPORT S ANBAG 5/2/01 RCTC 5/9/01 From committee: Do pass, but first be re - referred to Senate Appropri ations Committee (6-1) . Passed out of Senate Transportati on Committee 8-3 . Re - referred to Senate Appr opriations, passed 22-12 . Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee . Failed Senate Transportati on Committee 7-5 . Hearing scheduled for 5/15/01. Reconsideration granted, fail ed passage in 2-5, 5/15/01. OPPOSE No position taken. RCTC: 4/11/01 L egisl atio n/ Au Descripti on Bill Status P osition Th e of Board Adopti on ACA 2 (Vargas) ACA 9 (Dutra) This measure would impose certain conditions upon a loan to the General Fund of funds in the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust Fund in the State Treasury, which fund w ould be created separately by statute, or the Transportation Investment Fund in the State Treasury, or any successor to either of those funds . C ontains other related provisions. This measure w ould impose conditions, on and after July 1, 2006, upon a loan to the General Fu nd of funds in the Transportation Investment Fund in the State Treasury, or any success or to that fund. This measure would authorize the m oney in the Transportation Investment Fund, on and after July 1, 2006, to be allocated only f or the purposes set forth in specified provisions relating to that fund. F: \u sers\preprint\j s\legmat. do c From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re -refer to Assembly Transportation C ommittee . Read second time and amended 4/16/01 . Hearing canceled at req uest of author 4/23/01 . Passed out of Assembly Transp ortati on Committee 15-0 on 4/16/01. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No position taken . Staff recommends: SUPPORT SANBAG 5/2/01 RCTC 5/9/01 AGENDA /TEI►f 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Budget Adjustments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Increase the expenditure budget for the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial program by $2,250,000; 2) Reallocate Administration Expenditures by $40,000; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. As part of the Measure calculations, 40% of the revenues received by the Coachella Valley are set aside for the Regional Arterial program. At the beginning of the year, the cities provide CVAG an estimate of their needs and CVAG provides that estimate that is then included in the budget. At the request of CVAG, staff made a budget adjustment during the June Commission meeting. However, CVAG has forwarded us billings that will surpass the budget appropriation. To pay these claims, the Commission needs to adjust the expenditure appropriation by $2,250,000. This increase will allow the cities to be reimbursed for construction projects that they have already completed. The Commission maintains the Regional Arterial funds and started the year with more than $7 million in reserves in this program. During the year, staff has paid Debt Service and requested reimbursements. Staff will make this adjustment using the reserves of the program and expects to end the year with approximately $4 million in reserves. 2. The Commission pays for its Office Lease and expenditures associated with it. The expenditures associated with the lease were greater than planned and staff is requesting a $25,000 increase in appropriations to cover this expenditure. In addition, costs associated with the rent/lease of equipment and costs of repairs were greater than planned. Staff is requesting an appropriation increase of $10,000 to cover those expenses. Staff will cover these appropriation increases by savings in other departments. No new revenues will be needed to cover these expenditures. 000022 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000/01 Amount: $2,250,000 Source of Funds: Regional Arterial! Reserves Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No. 224/72/86405 $2,250,000 Increase S/12/73001 - Office Lease 25,000 Increase S/12/73111 - Rent/Lease Eqpt. 10,000 Increase S/14/65506 - Legislative Adv. 35,000 Decrease Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/14/01 000023 AGENDA ITEfrI 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TDA/Measure A Overhead Allocation Policy STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The TDA/Measure A overhead allocation policy; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Ernst and Young completed last year's audit and had several suggestions for improvement. One suggestion was to adopt a policy relating to consistent application of overhead allocations for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. This suggestion was provided as there were several entities that were applying overheads using a variety of methodologies. At the Audit Sub -Committee's recommendation, a survey was sent to all the TDA/Measure A recipients, requesting their indirect cost allocation policies. Staff was to review these policies and come up with a policy for the Commission. Most entities responded that they did not apply an overhead to TDA/Measure A claims. Based on discussions with representatives from Ernst and Young and staff, staff is recommending the following: 1. That the indirect cost rate be either the entity's rate or a cap of 8%, whichever is lower. This rate was based by doubling the limits currently set for the Commission's administration budget. 000024 2. If an indirect cost rate is derived based on budgeted numbers, entities are to provide proof that a reconciliation between the budgeted numbers and actual numbers at year end, is performed. 3. An indirect cost rate cannot be applied retroactively. 00002o AGENDA ITEfrI9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Highway 111 Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The Tier II projects for Highway 1 1 1 (attached); 2) Authorize Commission staff to work closely with CVAG to address future cash flow concerns should they arise; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Coachella Valley area's "Measure A" Program includes a state highway element which receives 15% of the Coachella Valley area's Measure A funds. There are two named highway projects eligible for these Measure A funds and they are the recently completed Route 86 project and improvements to Highway 111. This action is to make commitments to balance of the Tier II Highway 1 1 1 projects (attached). Staff recently updated the cash flow table for the Coachella Valley Measure A highway program with the draft Ernst & Young revenue forecast for the period FY 2002 to June 2009. The cash flow table (attached) projects that $16.7 million of project funding capacity will be available for new commitments after meeting existing commitments and retiring debt. The attached listing of remaining funding recommendations for the Tier II Highway 1 1 1 projects totals $15.43 million. The cash flow summary demonstrates that if all current commitments are delivered within the next two years the Coachella Valley Measure A highway program fund could run a deficit for years 2002 and 2003. It is also important to note that the cash flow table is based on an estimate and that as such, revenues are not a certainty. 000025 Staff has discussed these issues with CVAG staff and if a cash flow problem occurs, payments may be delayed until funds are available or an inter -fund loan could occur using Coachella Valley area Measure A funds. Nevertheless, should this occur staff will work with CVAG staff to resolve any cash flow issue. Staff recommends approval of the attached list of Tier II Highway 1 1 1 improvements totaling $15,425,118 of Measure A funds with the above noted conditions. 000027 LVALi COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Blythe • Cathedral City • Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells • Indio • La Quinta • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage County of Riverside • Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians PROJECTS APPROVED FOR USE OF STATE HIGHWAY PORTION OF MEASURE A FUNDS Agency Cathedral City (SR111) Indio (SR111) La Quinta (SR111) Rancho Mirage (SR111) Riverside County (SR86) (SR111) Project West Cathedral Canyon Channel Bridge* Jefferson to Madison St. * Madison to Clinton St. W. Limits to Washington* Simon Dr. to Adams St.* Adams to Jefferson St.* $ Requested $ 1,980,000 $ 6,800,000 $ 4,200.000 $11,000,000 $ 244,616 $ 291,507 $ 2.433.995 $ 2,970,118 Magnesia Falls to Fairway* $ 6,500,000 W. Limits to Fairway Dr. Left Tum Lane @ Pierce* Traffic Signal @ 66th Ave.* Intrsct. Imp. @ Lincoln/ 4th* $ 6.000.000 $12,500,000 $ 100,000 $ 271,000 $ 800,000 Grade Separation @ Dillon $ 5,000.000 $ 6,171,000 TOTAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS (*= Projects Identified for Funds Recommended) $ Recommended $ 1,584,000 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,200,000 $ 244,616 $ 291,507 $ 2,433.995 $ 2,970,118 $ 6,500,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 100,000 $ 271,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,171,000 $15,425,118 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • [760] 346-1127 • FAX [760] 340-5949 000023 5/30/2001 COACHELL A V ALLEY ARE A HIGHWAY RE VEN UES - May 23, 2001 E&Y Fore cast ( S's Show n are in Milli ons) MEASURE A FUNDS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Be ginning B al ance $ (1.8) $ (2.2) $ (0.1) $ 2 .2 $ 4 .6 $ 7.3 $ 10.4 $ 14 .1 New Revenues $ 3 .6 $ 3.9 $ 4.2 $ 4 .4 $ 4.4 $ 4 .7 $ 5 .0 $ 5 .4 $ 4 .3 Debt Service $ 2.2 $ 2.2 $ 2.2 $ 2 .2 $ 2.2 $ 2.2 $ 2 .2 $ 2.2 ' $ 2.2 Interest Earnings $ 0 .0 $ 0.0 $ 0 .1 $ 0.2 $ 0.1 $ 0.2 $ 0.3 $ 0 .5 $ 0.5 Av ailable For Projects $ _ 1 .4 $ (0.0) $ (0 .1) $ 2 .2 $ 4 .6 $ 7.3 $ 10.4 $ 14 .1 $ 16 .7 Pro ject Expe nditures $ 3.2 $ 2.2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - En ding Balance $ (1 .8) $ (2 .2) $ (0.1) $ 2.2 $ 4 .6 $ 7.3 $ 10.4 $ 14.1 $ 16 .7 AGENDA ITEfrf 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Highway 111 City of Palm Desert Project Funding STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Allocate Measure "A" funding totaling $1,554,000 for the following three (3) State Highway 1 1 1 Tier II Corridor projects for construction improvements at: Town Center for $559,000, San Luis Rey for $561,000 and El Paseo for $434,000, subject to award to lowest responsive bidder by the Palm Desert City Council. Of this total $138,000 will be expended in fiscal year 2002 and the remaining balance in 2003. 2) Authorize the Chairman to enter into the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Palm Desert, subject to RCTC legal council review. 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Commission's effort to advance the Tier I & II Route 1 1 1 expenditure plan highway improvements the City of Palm Desert is currently in final design for the three previously identified Tier II Route 1 1 1 projects. As part of this work the City is in the process of preparing required documentation to obtain permits from Caltrans to proceed to construction. Construction is not expected to commence until summer of 2002. However, in order for the City of Palm Desert to be reimbursed for the initial design cost of $138,000, a MOU must be submitted to and approved by the Commission. 000030 As part of the overall Highway 111 expenditure plan RCTC budgeted a total of $561,000 for the San Luis Rey project, $559,000 for the Town Center/EI Paseo project, and $434,000 for the El Paseo/Cabrillo project for a total of $1,554,000. The costs include project development, right of way acquisition and construction. Each of these projects are identified in the expenditure plan for Measure A funding. Final design is currently scheduled for the 2002 fiscal year with construction in fiscal year 2003. The attached MOU's identify the respective roles and responsibilities of RCTC and the City of Palm Desert toward completion of these projects. Some of the major points include: 1. RCTC shall reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of the projects. 2. RCTC shall arrive at an appropriate funding for the overall Project in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert prior to award of the construction contracts by the City. 3. The City of Palm Desert shall be responsible for design, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits, awarding and administering of the construction contract, construction management, and all activities associated with construction i.e. survey and material testing. 4. The projects will be funded based upon current budgets and an appropriate percent contribution to overall project costs. The final determination of funding will be determined by the RCTC Executive Director or his designee, and the City of Palm Desert City staff. The funding split determination will be made based upon the best available technical information and in accordance with approved CVAG and RCTC policies for Route 1 1 1 funding splits. The policy being that the City will pay for construction and right of way costs associated with the cross streets and the Measure A funds would pay for improvements of Highway 1 1 1 intersections and mainline improvements. Attachments: MOUs for Town Center, San Luis Rey, and El Paseo/Cabrillo 000031 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02 Source of Funds: Measure A GLA No. 224 31 81102 Amount: $ 138,000 Budget Adjustment: N Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 6-19-01 000032 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS AT El PASEO/EL CABRILLO 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Palm Desert Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements at or near the intersection of State Highway 111 with El Paseo/Cabrillo. — - 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify in part for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends by this Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. A-1 000033 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide partial funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned within the City of Palm Desert (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Four Hundred Thirty -Four Thousand and no/100 Dollars (S434.000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that the City estimated share of the project in the Measure A Expenditure plan is Two Hundred Sixty Thousand and no/100 Dollars (S260.000.00). Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents approximately thirty-three and five/tenths percent (62.5%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 TerrnlNotice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until December 31, 2002, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. A-2 000031 3.6 The Citv's Representative. The City hereby designates Joseph S. Gaugush or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination.Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. A-3 000035 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. A-4 000036 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons' or entities' performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project; whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Worker's Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. A-5 000037 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not -include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. A-6 00003`► 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through December 31, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess often thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. A-7 000033 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. A-8 000040 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Joseph S. Gaugush RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Ag.reement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. A-9 000041. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: William Kleindienst, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Eric Haley, Executive Director City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission A-10 000042 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibits "D". A-11 000043 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City of Palm Desert prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF PALM DESERT SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. B-1 000041 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a clear -of -way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. C-1 000045 EXHIBIT "D" Construction Improvements The scope of work is the construction and design of the intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and modifying the median islands, curbs and gutters along Highway 111. The construction Improvements will include modifications to the existing drainage facilities in order to mitigate surface flows. The construction improvements will create three lanes in the westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction at the proposed intersection. D-1 000046 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS AT SAN LUIS REY 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this _ day of , 2001, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent ('/2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Palm Desert Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements at or near the intersection of State Highway 111 with San Luis Rey. — . 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify in part for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends by this Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 1 000047 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide partial funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned within the City of Palm Desert (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Five Hundred Sixty -One Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($561,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that the City estimated share of the project in the Measure A Expenditure plan is Three Hundred Forty Thousand and no/1-00 Dollars ($340,000.00). Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents approximately thirty-three and five/tenths percent (62.3%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage ("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until December 31, 2002, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 2 00004 3.6 The Citv's Representative. The City hereby designates Joseph S. Gaugush or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care: Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination.Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3 000049 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold hannless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct ofRCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 4 000050 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons' or entities' performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Worker's Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 5 000051 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not -include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. 6 000052 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through December 31, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess often thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 7 000053 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 8 000051 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Joseph S. Gaugush RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions ofthis Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 9 000055 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By_ By: William Kleindienst, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO FORM: By By: Eric Haley, Executive Director City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ('t Best,. Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission 000056 10 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibits "D". A-1 000057 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City of Palm Desert prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF PALM DESERT SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. B-1 000053 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a clear -of -way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landsc ping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. C-1 0000SO EXHIBIT "D" Construction Improvements The scope of work is the construction and design of the intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and modifying the median islands, curbs and gutters along Highway 111. The construction Improvements will include modifications to the existing drainage facilities in order to mitigate surface flows. The construction improvements will create three lanes in the westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction at the proposed intersection. D-1 000060 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS AT TOWN CENTER WAY/EL PASEO 1. Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is executed and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ("CITY"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1h%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction of improvements along Route 111 from Ramon to Palm Desert Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements at or near the intersection of State Highway 111 with Town Center Way/El Paseo. — 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify in part for Highway 111 Funds. 2.7 RCTC intends by this Agreement to allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. 1 00006.1 3. Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This Agreement is intended to allocate Highway 111 Funds to provide partial funding, design and other services for authorized portions of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned within the City of Palm Desert (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below, is subject to modification as requested by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and only for the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to initially allocate to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the sum of Five Hundred Fifty Nine Thousand and no/100 Dollars (5559,000.00) for project development, right of way acquisition, and construction costs ("Funding Amount"). It is also understood and agreed that the City estimated share of the project in the Measure A Expenditure plan is Three Hundred Forty Thousand and no/1-00 Dollars (S340,000.00). Therefore, the Initial Funding Amount represents approximately thirty-three and five/tenths percent (62.2%) of the estimated Total Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 and 3.14.2 below. This cost/funding allocation percentage("Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage") is subject to an adjustment pursuant to Section 3.14.3 below. In addition, the Funding Amount is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 3.14.5 based upon the final Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage and the final Total Project Cost. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.9 or Until December 31, 2002, whichever occurs first. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.5 RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 2 009062 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates Joseph S. Gaugush or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 Review of Services. The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination.Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall allocate Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. Such allocation shall be determined by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage (which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 3.13.3) by the amount of the Total Project Cost, as defined in Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, incurred prior to the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3 000063 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its records copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. 3.12 Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 4 00006 i 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by the other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such persons' or entities' performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall: 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3.13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Worker's Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 5 000065 3.14 Payment of Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Total Project Cost. The total Project costs ("Total Project Cost") shall include the following items: (1) funds expended by in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation of environmental review documentation for the Project; (3) all costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-way engineering, appraisal, acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs of reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and RCTC; and (8) construction management, field inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by RCTC and the City towards completion of the Project. 3.14.2 Excluded Total Project Cost. The Total Project Cost shall not -include the following items which shall be borne solely by the individual parties without reimbursement: (1) RCTC management costs for Project coordination which are attributed to its total State Highway 111 Project of Measure "A"; (2) City Project coordination costs; (3) City and/or RCTC costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City and/or RCTC fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage Determination. The final determination of the appropriate Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made by the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator using the guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, and the best available cost estimate information from the project design engineer. The determination of the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be made after the design review process has terminated, but prior to the award of the Project for public contracting purposes. In the event of a disagreement between the City's Representative and RCTC's Project Coordinator regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, RCTC's Executive Director and the City Manager shall review the determination and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the City Manager and Executive Director are unable to agree, either party may appeal, in writing, to the RCTC Board. The RCTC Board's determination regarding the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage shall be final. 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for all consultant costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards its Funding Amount. The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under this responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced, which amounts, if appropriate pursuant to Sections 3.13.1 and 3.13.2, shall be applied towards the Total Project Cost. 6 00006E 3.14.5 Funding Amount/Adjustment. If the Project is completed before December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator shall meet with the City's Representative within thirty (30) days following the filing of a proper written Notice of Completion of the Project by the City to determine the Funding Amount. This determination shall be made by multiplying the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage by the Total Project cost. The Total Project Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Project. In the event the Project is not completed by December 31, 2009, RCTC's Project Coordinator and the City's Representative shall meet to determine the Funding Amount to be allocated up through December 31, 2009. The City shall not be entitled to any funding pursuant to this Agreement after December 31, 2009. If as a result of payments made under Section 3.14.4, above, either the City of RCTC has paid in excess of its allowable share of the Total Project Cost, the other party shall reimburse said party for the excess within 30 days of the determination and approval of the Funding Amount by the City Representative and RCTC Project Coordinator. 3.14.6 SB 300 Reimbursements. Any SB 300 (Streets & Highways Code Section 2600) reimbursements received from the State for the Project shall be split proportionally according to the Cost/Funding Allocation Percentage, and credited towards each party's funding of the Total Project Cost. 3.14.7 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.8 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3.15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess often thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the City or RCTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or RCTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.17 Limited Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project. 7 000(0'87 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement charged by them. All such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. • 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant of reemployment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non- discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 8 000065 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Agreement or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Joseph S. Gaugush RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached -appendices or exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees. 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of RCTC. Any personnel performing services on the Project shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. 9 000060 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF PALM DESERT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: _ By: William Kleindienst, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Eric Haley, Executive Director City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: r By: I Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission 10 000070 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibits "D". A-1 000071 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City with appropriate funding contribution at completion of project. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall Project in conjunction with City of Palm Desert prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF PALM DESERT SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all Construction Management of the construction activities including survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding allocation for overall project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. B-1 000072 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Hiahwav 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" Highway funds will be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way would be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street shall also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a clear -of -way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street will be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 will also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs - City Share The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and will be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. C-1 000073 EXHIBIT "D" Construction Improvements The scope of work is the construction and design of the intersection improvements, traffic signal modifications and modifying the median islands, curbs and gutters along Highway 111. The construction Improvements will include modifications to the existing drainage facilities in order to mitigate surface flows. The construction improvements will create three lanes in the westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction at the proposed intersection. 000074 D-1 AGENDA ITEfrI I I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Selection Process for Consultant Services and Award Contract No. RO-2148 to SC Engineering to Provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for Proposed Improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The selection process to provide the Commission Engineering and Environmental Studies, for Proposed Improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street; 2) Negotiated scope, schedule and cost with SC Engineering to perform the required services; 3) Authorize the award of contract No. RO-2148 to SC Engineering for a base amount of $1,062,025 with a 20% extra work component of $212,405 for a total amount of $1,274,430 to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for proposed improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission committed to support full funding for the widening of State Route 91 between Mary and Seventh Streets, in the City of Riverside. The estimated project cost was $170.7 million (current dollars). At the November 8, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved the cost increase for the 1-215 project. That action also affirmed that $20.0 million of TCRP and $15.0 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds were available for the Route 91 project. 000075 The preliminary phase of the project is proposed to be funded with a portion of the $20.0 million of Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds available to the project. To expedite this project, Caltrans and RCTC agreed that the Commission be the lead agency for this project, and contract out for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering and environmental studies for the project. At the February, 2001 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies, for Proposed Improvements to Route 91, from Mary Street to 7th Street The calendar of events was as follows: Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Proposals March 19, 2001 Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline April 12,2001 Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms April 27, 2001 Interview top three (3) qualified firms May 10, 2001 Committee Recommendation to Commission June 13, 2001 Staff received proposals from four firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC staff, Caltrans, City of Riverside and Bechtel. The selection panel reviewed the four proposals and short-listed three of the four firms. The three firms presented teams that would be capable of competing the proposed scope of work. After evaluating the proposed project teams, their knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked SC Engineering Second URS Third HDR, Inc. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff negotiated with SC Engineering the attached cost proposal, scope of work and schedule for a base amount of $1,062,025 with a 20% extra work of $212,405 for a total amount of $1,274,430. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Attachments: Scope, Schedule, Cost for PR and ED services on SR 91 between Mary and 7th Street. 00007C Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02 Source of Funds: Traffic Congestion Relief Plan Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $ 1,274,430 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 06/19/01 000077 route y'l, Mary Street to i' Street PROJECT UNDERSTANDING SR -91 begins in Los Angeles County at the junction of State Route 1 and continues easterly through Los Angeles. Orange and Riverside Counties. and ends at the 60/91/215 Interchange (West Junction) in the City of Riverside SR -91 was originally constructed in 1952 as a four lane divided facility. In 1972 one additional lane was added in each direction within the median. providing a six -lane facility. Subsequent to that. HOV lanes have been added to the facility. The last link between Magnolia Ave (KP 17.86) and Mary Street (KP 28.00) became operational in October 1996. Several Project Study Reports (PSR) have been prepared for various limits along SR -91. In June 2000. a Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) (EA 44840K) was approved which proposes widening for HOV lanes and interchange modifications between Harding Street (KP 27.84) and the 60/91/215 IC. This SPSR will be used as the basis for continuation of the Project Development Process. and preparation of the Project Report and Environmental Document. eventually leading to final design and construction of the proposed improvements. The June 2000 Supplemental Project Study Report (SPSR) identified 4 alternatives as follows: • Alternative 1 — No Build • Alternative 2 — Construct 2 HOV lanes and Modify Interchanges (Arlington Ave IC with hook exit ramp at SE Quadrant) • Alternative 3 — Construct 2 HOV lanes and Modify Interchanges (Arlington Ave IC with hook entrance and exit ramps at SW quadrant) • Alternative 4 — Construct 2 HOV lanes and Modify Interchanges. and Reconstruct Mainline to current horizontal and vertical alignment standards. The June 2000 Supplemental Project Study Report determined that Alternative 4 was not viable due to the extent of adverse impacts to traveling public and surrounding community. The high costs of Alternative 4 were not proportional to the benefits gained. Alternatives 2 and 3 were identified as viable alternatives since they both increased capacity, relieved congestion, provided continuity of the HOV network, while minimizing costs and adverse impacts to the community and traveling public. In fact, the SPSR recommended Alternative 3, to be used as the basis for programming, funding and scheduling the project. Final determination of the preferred alternative will be done during the Project Report/Environmental Document phase. The information contained in this Statement of Qualifications is presented in response to RCTC's request for qualified consultants to prepare a Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document (ED) for the proposed improvements identified in the SPSR. The PR will focus on the addition of one HOV lane in each direction, between the end of existing HOV lanes at Mary Street (KP 28.00) and University Ave (KP 33.00) in downtown Riverside; reconfiguration of existing interchanges; and the reconstruction of existing overcrossings and undercrossings to accommodate the proposed mainline and interchange improvements. The PR will also address re -striping of the existing median pavement between University Ave and the 60/91/215 IC to accommodate the HOV lanes. The SC Engineering Team visited the project site and reviewed the available information in order to establish key issues related to design of the project. These key issues will be examined in detail during preparation of the Project Report, Environmental Document and related technical studies to ensure conformance to established procedures. The following is a synopsis of these key issues: Proposed Improvements Alternatives 2 and 3, identified in the approved Supplemental Project Study Report propose the following improvements: Alternative 2 • Construct one (1) HOV lane in each direction from Mary St. to University Ave. • Re -stripe the median between University Ave. and the 60/91/215 IC to accommodate and HOV lane and a buffer in each direction. Scope of Work_Route 91 1 June 2001 000073 Project Approach/Scope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street • Widen the Brockton/ Mary Street UC in the westbound direction to accommodate the proposed HOV lane, a buffer, and an auxiliary lane. • Widen the Arlington Ave. Under crossing Br. No. 56-330, and reconstruct the WB ramps. • Construct a new under crossing to provide for the realignment of the Arlington EB off -ramp. • Reconstruct Arlington Ave. from Riverside Ave. to 0.2 km south of the Arlington Ave. under crossing. • Widen the Central Ave. Under crossing Br. No. 56-356, and reconstruct ramps. • Reconstruct the existing over crossing at: Ivy St. Br. No. 56-329, Cridge St. Br. No. 56-312, and Fourteenth St. Br. No. 56-313. • Reconstruct the existing railroad overhead at Ivy St. • Construct a new structure and remove the existing Pachappa Railroad Underpass Br. No. 56-325. • Replace existing diamond entrance and exit ramps between Fourteenth St. and University Ave. with braided ramps in both directions. Construct a new over crossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth St. EB entrance braided ramp. • Construct a new over crossing to accommodate the proposed Fourteenth St. WB exit braided ramp. • Widen roadbed to increase horizontal stopping sight distance to 95 -km/ hr. • Widen roadbed to increase horizontal stopping sight distance consistent with a design speed of 110 -km/ hr at two locations (Sta. 80+16.26 to Sta. 83+97.6 and Sta. 93+00.66 to Sta. 99+29.91) on the EB direction. • Construct auxiliary lanes at exit and entrance ramps of the Arlington Ave., Central Ave., and Fourteenth St. Interchanges, except at the Fourteenth St. westbound exit ramp. • Re -designate, re -stripe, and sign Riverside Ave. to the Arlington Ave. westbound exit -ramp as a one-way eastbound direction. Alternative 3 The improvements associated with Alternative 3 are essentially the same as Alternative 2 except at Arlington Ave. Alternative 3 proposes to realign Indiana Ave to allow construction of the EB exit and entrance ramps in a buttonhook configuration next to each other. A new undercrossing structure will be needed for the EB entrance ramp crossing over Arlington Ave. Besides the Project Report and Environmental Document, the Scope of Services will also include regular Project Development Team meetings, Community Participation and Informational Open Houses; and a number of Quality Assurance/Control and Project Control activities. PROJECT APPROACH SC Engineering's Project Manager will maintain close liaison with the RCTC Project Coordinator and the Caltrans Project Manager to ensure schedule compliance with each of the milestones' requirements and deliverables identified in the Scope of Work. The Project will be performed in 7 Basic Milestones as follows: PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT MILESTONE 1 — PROJECT START UP Prior to the Notice to Proceed from RCTC, SC will initiate the administrative management functions necessary to ensure a prompt project start and set the course for timely, budget -conscious project delivery. Detailed Work Plan, Progress Schedule, Progress Report Format, Quality Control Plan, and Permits The successful implementation and completion of any project depends on how well it is managed and controlled. Consequently, we will put into effect a very effective control system at the immediate outset of the Project and maintain it through the Project's completion. A number of different factors contribute to such an effective system. Each is discussed further in this Section. Effective Management: in Project Manager Sal Chavez, SC is committing a veteran of freeway/highway projects with a commendable track record in managing and controlling such projects. These projects include those during his 10 -year employment at Caltrans, 6 years employment with previous employer and projects performed for Caltrans and other agencies. Among the important management considerations/requirements Sal will affect are: Scope of Work_Route 90 0 0 0 7 0 2 June 2001 Project Approach/Scope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7`h Street • He will serve as the primary contact with Caltrans (Districts 8 and DOS), and other agencies with which coordination is required. • He will manage the entire multi -consultant team; and have authority to render decisions on behalf of the entire team. • He will be responsible for scheduling and internally coordinating the team's work. • He will responsibly ensure that the project's contractual and technical/professional requirements are thoroughly fulfilled. • He will establish clear lines of communication both within and external to the team; and establish consistent procedures to enhance this communication. • He will chair all Trend meetings and PDT Meetings; and be the primary respondent to inquiries by Caltrans. • He will initiate and maintain a quality management program - one specifically tailored to this project. • He will be responsible for initiating and maintaining quality and management control. Project Control: Prior to Notice to Proceed, SC's Project Manager, Sal Chavez, working in concert with other lead staff as required and in coordination with RCTC and Caltrans, will prepare a Detailed Work Plan and reconfirm the plan of action for carrying out the work. The end product will reflect the mutually agreed parceling of work into the milestones and tasks/subtasks; a sequence for performing these activities; and the time frames and costs for each part and the project as a whole. Thereafter, expenditure and progress will be closely monitored. All project expenditures will first and foremost be monitored weekly, and a weekly cost status report will be made available to the Project Manager every Monday morning. As practical as possible, costs will be segregated by SC labor, SC direct costs, and subconsultant costs. Likewise, the activity schedules will be closely monitored to ensure that we can assess the need to work around a schedule constraint. In conducting this effort, we will utilize MS Project software for project management, scheduling, and cost control. SC to establish the master project schedule in accordance with the task/subtask breakdown so that cost, schedule, and responsibility are integrated into discrete work packages for budgeting and monitoring purposes uses MS Project. The MS Project system will be then used to monitor project progress and expenditures against the baseline schedule and budget. MS Project will provide essential information necessary to determine the project's critical path and to track the project's status. This program will be used interactively to analyze and determine the most effective management plan. Progress Status Monitoring: SC Engineering will affect this activity by: • Conducting bi-weekly (or at any other time requested) Progress Review meetings with RCTC, City of Riverside, and Caltrans Staff. He will be responsible for preparing and promptly distributing the minutes of such meetings. The meeting minutes will include a list of attendees; the purpose and objectives of the meeting; the summary of the discussions; decisions reached; specific actions decided upon; and identify the individual responsible for each action item. • Preparing monthly progress reports, which will include: * Summary of activities and work completed during the month * Drawing and deliverables progress report, showing percent complete of each drawing and other deliverables currently in production * Updated design schedule with actual progress shown for each activity Identification of schedule problems and proposed solutions, if appropriate * Identification and discussion of potential problems, delays, and design conflicts * List and summary of significant meetings, hearings, and communications * Itemized statement of total work completed to back up payment statement * Payment statement, including detailed outline of work completed * Incremental and cumulative project budget versus actual project expenditures and actual percentage complete (earned value) for each task * Summary exhibits that graphically portray the budget and schedule status 0000 Scope of Work_Route 91 3 June 001 Project Approach/Scope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street Quality Assurance: Quality Assurance is a given at SC and is founded on the following: • The team understands all of the client's specific expectations and project objectives, and can develop with the client a project plan (budget and schedule) that will realistically and cost-effectively meet those expectations and objectives. • Experienced and well -trained professionals and technicians with the right educational background are responsible for the work. • Each person responsible for the work understands and supports the client's expectations from the very beginning. • All project team staff receive daily feedback from their immediate supervisors concerning the accuracy, precision, and clarity of their work and whether it conforms to current professional standards and the expectations of the client. Quality Control: SC's quality control procedures are geared to the systematic elimination of all design inconsistencies in the final construction documents. The primary technique used in quality control is the independent review of all technical work produced by every individual on the project, including: • Reviews within each discipline, where the drawings, specifications, calculations, design analyses, etc., are reviewed for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and for work not shown by a colleague with similar background and experience who is not assigned to the project. • Interdisciplinary reviews to ensure coordination and consistency among disciplines. • Reviews by the technical director, discipline leaders, and supervisors within the technical discipline for content and completeness. Permits: Additionally, prior to NTP is received; SC will prep' are and submit to the Caltrans Encroachment Permit Branch, a Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application on behalf of the SC Engineering Team. The Permit will cover all necessary fieldwork, site visits, required surveys, and environmental explorations. The SC team will also identify to the Caltrans Project Manager, any Rights of Entry required to perform technical and field studies. Research and Data Gathering: SC will prepare a Data Request Log identifying information required by the team to perform their associated tasks. The log will identify: • Materials Needed • Agency and responsible person for obtaining data • Person responsible for requesting and maintaining data • Date material is required • Date material is received Tracking of the log will be done by SC and will be a continuous effort, which will update the log as necessary at each PDT and Trend Meeting throughout the life of the project. Typical Documents, which will be required, are: • As -built Plans • Topographic Mapping, If not performed by the SC Team • Existing Right of Way Maps • Monumentation Maps • Assessors Parcel Maps • Aerial Photos • Materials Report • Project Study Report • Previous Technical Studies These documents will serve as a starting point for our work; and we will maximize the use of the information developed/contained in each; in order that the "wheel is not reinvented". However, during the course of the project we will continuously seek areas where overall reduction in construction costs can be achieved. At the same time such efforts will be tempered by being sensitive to any previous formal or informal agreements reached among the affected agencies regarding environmental issues, Right of Way, impacts to the freeway, and interchange geometrics. Scope of Work Route 91 000081 4 June 2001 rroJect Mpproacn/scope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street After receipt of the Encroachment Permit and attendance to the Permit Safety meeting, SC will conduct a site visit to view and photograph physical characteristics of the existing conditions of the project site. All photos will be labeled and filed in the project's photo history file Design Surveys/Aerial Topographic Mapping: Encroachment permits will be obtained so that all survey monumentation required for aerial surveys can be established. The SC team will establish the required aerial monumentation at 400 -meter intervals. All surveys establishing control will adhere to current Caltrans standards. Analytical aeotriangulation complying with current Caltrans standards will be provided to supplement field established control. All control will be located and identified on one set of contact prints. Digital mapping will be produced from aerial photography at a scale of 1:500 with 0.5 -meter contour intervals and bridge site mapping at 1:200 with .25 meter contours in Intergraph format as directed by Caltrans. All digital map contents will conform to current Caltrans standards. Utility Research and Compile File Drawings: All maps and records shall be requested from all utility owners with facilities within the project limits. Specific attention will be given to plan facilities that may be affected by the proposed interchange alternatives. The verified utilities will be plotted on the project base sheets, particularly the high -risk utilities. A field review will be conducted to verify unmapped lines. The SC team will perform the following services: A. Research and compile a list of affected utility companies. B. Contact affected utility companies to search their files and provide locations for their facilities. C. Catalog all documents. D. Prepare Utility Location maps from utility survey data to prepare 1:500 utility maps. E. Incorporate the utility map into the Right of Way Files. Right of Way Research: The SC Engineering Team will prepare the a Right of Way Parcel file to be used to update the Right of Way Data Sheet and to identify impacted parcels. The Right of Way Parcel file will identify parcels by County Assessor Parcel Numbers. MILESTONE 2 — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Preliminary Environmental Evaluation, Initial Meeting: The SC Engineering Team, in conjunction with the project development staff will conduct a field review of the project site, including the locations of proposed alternative interchanges and/or auxiliary lanes. Based upon this field review and previously conducted research, a preliminary environmental evaluation will be prepared which will identify the environmental technical reports which should be prepared in support of the environmental document. Also, in consultation with Caltrans staff, the stated decision to pursue a combination Negative Declaration and FONSI will be confirmed. The SC Engineering Team shall perform environmental research and analysis necessary for the Route 91 Widening Project pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, as well as the policies and procedures contained in Caltrans' Environmental Handbook and Local Programs Manual. The following tasks will be necessary to complete the environmental document for the project. Draft Technical Studies: For the topics listed below, a technical report, which will be summarized in the IS/EA text, will be prepared and provided in its entirety in the IS/EA appendices. Air Quality. An air quality assessment for the project will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans' Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO) Protocol, Caltrans' Project -Level PM10 Hot Spot Analysis Interim Guidance, and SCAQMD CEQA Handbook air quality guidelines. We will conduct the screening analyses specified in the protocol and conduct CALINE4 modeling for CO hot spots for up to ten (10) receptor locations. Construction related emissions would be quantified and discussed in a general format unless project specific information is available. Noise Study. We will prepare a noise study to address the project's impact on sensitive noise receptors, such as existing residential areas located adjacent to SR -91 between Mary Street and 7th Street. Noise measurements will be taken to document the existing noise environment, as well as to calibrate the traffic noise prediction model. Caltrans SOUND 32 will be used to evaluate the potential traffic noise impact. Recommendations will be made for any required noise abatement measures, including sound walls. Scope of Work_Route 91 5 0 0 0 0 8 2 June 2001 rrcjecr. Mpproacrubcope or Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street Natural Environment Study Report (NESR). A preliminary review of the project site indicates that there may be bats under bridges to be widened for the project. Some species of bats are considered sensitive by resource agencies. We do not anticipate other sensitive issues relating to biology for this project. The following scope of work will be undertaken: 1. A review of literature sources, including the California Natural Diversity Data Base to identify special status species present in the project vicinity, and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as necessary regarding any known. endangered species in the vicinity of the project site. 2. The fieldwork for this task will be conducted by qualified biologists in order to document the presence/absence of sensitive biological resources (e.g., species or habitats) or to determine the potential for occurrence of such resources that may not be detectable when the fieldwork is conducted. The location of sensitive biological resources present on site (if any), including plants and plant communities, will be mapped. 3. Assess the suitability of the site for supporting sensitive biological resources and identify and document the existing conditions with respect to biological resources. If site conditions indicate that bat species are present, The SC Engineering Team will coordinate with RCTC and resource agencies to determine potential impacts and mitigation. If necessary, we will recommend, or subcontract with, a bat expert for additional focused surveys, which would not be covered under this scope of services. 4. Preparation of a NES report, per Caltrans guidelines, describing the survey methods, results, project impacts, and recommended mitigation (if required). The report will be suitable for submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for purposes of project review. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA). The SC Engineering Team will prepare an ISA to document hazardous waste sites located within the project study area, as well as facilities located within the project study area that store, transfer, or utilize large quantities of hazardous materials. The SC Engineering Team's work effort for this task will include the following: An agency records search to identify all hazardous waste sites located within the project study area and classified as hazardous waste under State law. The records search will also identify business types located within the project study area that would be likely to store, transfer, or utilize large quantities of hazardous materials. This information will be obtained from records maintained by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of California Department of Health, Riverside County, and other appropriate agencies. The SC Engineering Team will utilize a database service (such as Vista Environmental Services) to perform this search. A visual survey of the project area via available access (as authorized by the RCTC) to identify any obvious area of hazardous waste contamination. If hazardous waste sites are identified within the project area (via governmental records and/or the visual survey), we will determine the potential impact to the project and identify subsequent procedures to determine the extent of contamination and remediation requirements. An investigation of potential hazardous waste sites located within the project area per information available from local and/or State agencies. Historic land use information for the project study area (including aerial photographs) will be requested from Caltrans and the City of Riverside to determine whether previous uses may have resulted in hazardous waste contamination. Cultural Resources Study. An Environmental Scoping Checklist was prepared by Caltrans for this project that included scoping for cultural resource tasks. The project will be a federal undertaking necessitating compliance with both CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 compliance will require formal Native American consultation for project effects. In addition, the project terminates approximately two blocks from a National Register listed resource (the Mission Inn), and several buildings in the area are also potentially eligible for listing on the National Register (e.g., City Library, Auditorium and Museum). Indirect and visual effects on these resources of the proposed improvements will need to be assessed. Scope of Work_Route 910 0 0 0 8 3 6 June 2001 t roject Mpproacnlscope or Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street We will conduct an archaeological and historical records review and literature search through the Eastern Archaeological Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System. The objective of this archival research will be 1) to establish the status and extent of previously recorded sites, surveys, and excavations in the project area; and 2) to note what site types might be expected to occur within the proposed project area based on the existing data from archaeological sites located within one -quarter mile of the project area. Based on the records search, a systematic on -site pedestrian survey will be conducted to determine the presence of cultural resources on previously unsurveyed property. Previously recorded sites within the project boundary will be field checked, and existing site records will be updated on revised (1993) site forms, consistent with the guidelines established by the State Office of Historic Preservation. We will prepare a Historic Properties Survey Report, Archaeological Survey Report, Historic Survey Report, and Historic Architecture Survey Report as required by Caltrans. We will also coordinate development of project Area of Potential Effects (APE) maps on project maps provided by the project proponent. We will also coordinate Office of Historic Preservation review of the various reports documenting cultural resource compliance for the project. We will use the data to assemble a Section 4(f) analysis for affected properties. This proposal provides adequate budget to address four historic buildings within the project APE. If additional historic buildings are identified within the project APE, additional budget may be required. Visual Resources. The SC Engineering Team will prepare a visual resource analysis that evaluates the visual impact of the project improvements from several nearby viewpoints. The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Project guidelines will provide the basis for the visual analysis. This assessment shall describe the existing visual characteristics of the area involving the interchanges and vicinity and any significant visual resources. The potential visual impacts from project construction and use of the improved interchanges will be evaluated through the use of ground level photographs from viewpoints near the project site. Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce any significant impacts. This scope of work provides for the preparation of three photo simulations that compare current conditions to the proposed project interchanges. Section 4(f) Analysis. A Section 4(0 analysis will be prepared to address impacts to historic buildings adjacent to the project. A Final Nationwide Programmatic 4(0 Evaluation has been approved for federally funded projects that improve existing highways and have a minor impact on 4(0 resources that are adjacent to existing highways. Therefore, a Programmatic Section 4(0 evaluation will be prepared to document the considerations, consultations, and alternative studies supporting the determination that there is no prudent and feasible alternative that would avoid an impact to 4(0 resources, and that all possible measures to minimize harm to these 4(0 resources have been incorporated into the project. The completed, approved Programmatic Section 4(0 evaluation will be an attachment to the Final CE for Caltrans and FHWA approval. Traffic Operations Analysis. As required by Caltrans, the PR traffic operations analysis will examine existing and forecast future year conditions for the section of SR -91 between Mary Street and the SR-60/SR-91/I-215 interchange. The future year conditions examined will be project opening year, interim year, and year 2025. Specific tasks to be performed for the traffic operations analysis include the following: Existing traffic counts data for use in the analysis will be obtained from RCTC and/or Caltrans. Data required will include average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. In addition, information regarding vehicle classifications or percentage of trucks will be required. These data will be required for the SR - 91 mainline, as well as for the freeway ramps at Arlington Avenue, Central Avenue, 14th Street, University Avenue/Mission Inn Avenue, and Poplar Street. Since each of the project alternatives involves modifications to the Arlington Avenue interchange, it will be necessary to collect a.m. and p.m. peak period turn movement counts at the intersections of Riverside Avenue/SR-91 westbound off -ramp, Riverside Avenue/SR-91 westbound on-ramp/Arlington Avenue, SR -91 eastbound on-ramp/Indiana Avenue/Arlington Avenue, and Indiana Avenue/SR-91 eastbound off -ramp. Future traffic conditions will be developed using the SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) traffic model. Forecast year 2025 daily and peak hour volumes will be developed using 2020 data (the latest available) from the CTP model. (For purposes of this scope of work and budget estimate, it is anticipated that SCAG Scope of Work_Route 91 7 000081 June 2001 eroject Npproacnibcope or work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street modeling fees will be paid directly by RCTC.) The raw traffic model output will be post -processed according to methodologies approved by RCTC and other regional transportation agencies. Opening year and interim year traffic volumes will be developed by interpolating between existing traffic volumes and year 2025 projections. Level of service analyses will be performed for the existing conditions. LOS analyses will also be prepared for the No Project Alternative and each of the three proposed alternatives for each of the three future analysis years (opening year, interim year, and 2025 conditions). The level of service analyses will include: Freeway mainline operations analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, or other appropriate methodology approved by RCTC and Caltrans. Merge -diverge, using HCM analysis methodologies. Weaving analysis, using the HCM weaving analysis methodology. Intersection levels of service will be calculated for the Arlington Avenue interchange intersections along Riverside Avenue, Arlington Avenue, and Indiana Avenue, using the HCM analysis methodologies. In this analysis, the Passer II -90 software will be used to assess signal coordination and the resulting influences on intersection levels of service. The results of the traffic operations analysis will be presented in a technical study. This study will document the methodologies used to develop forecast traffic volumes, the level of service analysis methodologies employed, existing traffic conditions, and forecast future (opening year, interim year, and year 2025) traffic conditions for each alternative. Project Management/Meetings: Included in this task is ongoing project team coordination, preparation of monthly progress reports, and attendance at up to 12 project team meetings. Environmental Site Assessment (ESA): An ESA may be required as part of the Environmental Review for the Project. Our approach to the investigative effort for the Project will consist of the following: We will complete a Phase I ESA for the Project and surrounding properties by generally following procedures described in the Caltrans Initial Site Assessment Guidelines and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. As part of these activities we will: Request an environmental database records search. The purpose of this is to evaluate the environmental listings for the Project and surrounding Project within a 1 -mile radius. We will review historical records for the Project including aerial photographs on file at a local aerial photography collection with photographs possibly dating back to the 1920's and readily available records on file at local fire and health departments. Current environmental conditions will be evaluated at the Project by completion of the Caltrans Initial Site Assessment Checklist for Hazardous Waste; local agency personnel interviews with such agencies as the local fire, health, public works department, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and site reconnaissance of the Project and surrounding vicinity, including photographic coverage. The findings of the Project's historical and current environmental condition will be provided in a report for inclusion in the overall Project Environmental Review. It should be noted that our ESA would not include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater, asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials at this stage. 000085 Scope of Work_Route 91 8 June 2001 i- roject Approacn«cope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street MILESTONE 3 — DRAFT GEOMETRIC APPROVAL DRAWINGS & ENGINEERING STUDIES Draft Geometric Approval Drawings: SC Engineering understands the importance of preparing comprehensive geometric drawings during the Project Report phase. Since this project proposes widening of existing conditions and "retro-fitting" of interchange modifications, it is anticipated that several existing non-standard features will be perpetuated. Therefore to in order to avoid re-scoping of geometrics during the design phase, we strongly recommend obtaining Geometric Approval and preparation of necessary Mandatory and Advisory Fact Sheets, as part of the Project Report phase. We have done this on many other projects, enabling timely start up of final design plans. SC Engineering is well versed in obtaining Geometric Approval on projects of this type. As we have done on other previous projects, we will utilize and refine geometrics already prepared by Caltrans and other agencies. Based on established Caltrans policies, Geometric Approval Drawings and a Design Checklist (Design Information Bulletin No. 78) will be prepared focusing on the following criteria: • Freeway Standards for Stopping Sight and Decision Sight Distance • Ramp and Local Road Standards for Stopping Sight Distance and Decision Sight Distance • Freeway and Ramp Superelevation Standards • Freeway and Local Road Vertical and Horizontal Clearance Standards • Freeway, local road and ramp profile grades • Interchange Design Standards • Traffic Volumes and pertinent pavement delineation It is imperative that a comprehensive set of GAD's be prepared and approved prior to preparation of additional technical studies. In addition to Caltrans requirements for GAD's, it has been our experience that on projects of this type, additional information should be prepared to supplement the GAD's and provide the Caltrans Headquarters and District Reviewers with enough data to allow prudent engineering judgments. Additional engineering data to be prepared should include, but not be limited to the following: • Profiles and Superelevation Diagrams focusing on ramp grades and superelevation transitions, particularly on the freeway tie-ins at both ends of the project where connections are made to the existing or widened freeway. • Superelevation Diagrams of ramp transitions to local roads and freeway tie-ins • Additional analysis of ramp freeway ties -ins where warping of ramp gores are anticipated • Sight Distance diagrams at critical locations adjacent to obstructions such as bridge railings, columns and retaining walls • Representative cross sections at critical locations where significant differences of elevations exists between ramps and freeway pavements and other critical locations • Comprehensive queue analysis of left turning movements, storage and pavement delineations between local street and ramp intersections and also between ramp intersections • Ramp lane requirements and merge/diverge queue analysis • Truck Turn Template analysis conforming to appropriate standards Additionally, since this project intends to retrofit certain improvements rather than totally new freeway construction, we anticipate that Design Exceptions to both Mandatory and Advisory Standards will be required. Even though some exceptions to design standards already exist on the existing freeway and ramps, these must be properly documented and approved if they are to be perpetuated along with the proposed improvements. The approved SPSR has already identified several Mandatory Design Standards that require exception as follows: Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards • HDM 201.1 — Horizontal Curve Stopping Sight Distance • HDM 201.1 — Crest and Sag Vertical Curve Stopping Sight Distance • HDM 204.3 — Maximum Grade • HDM 302.2 — Shoulder Widths • HDM 309.2 — Vertical Clearance • HDM 405.1 — Corner Stopping Sight Distance • HDM 501.3 — Interchange Spacing Scope of Work_Route 91 9 0 0 0 0 8 Ejune 2001 Project Mpproacnlcope or work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street • HDM 504.3 — Location of Ramp Intersections and Local Street Intersections Additionally, once profiles and superelevation diagrams are prepared for the various ramp configurations, we have identified additional exceptions that may require documentation: Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards • HDM 101.1 — Selection of Local Road design speeds • HDM 201.1 — Stopping Sight Distance Standards • HDM 201.7 — Decision Sight Distance Standards • HDM 202.5 — Superelevation transitions and runoff • HDM 203.6 — Tangent between Reversing curves • HDM 204.4 — Minimum lengths of vertical curves • HDM 203.6 — Lane drop tapers • HDM 304.1 — Minimum distance between catch point and R/W line • HDM 404.3 — Truck Turn Templates • HDM 405.1 — Decision Sight Distance • HDM 504.2 — Freeway Entrance and Exits Horizontal Standards • HDM 504.2 — Freeway Entrance and Exits Vertical Standards • HDM 504.2 — Algebraic difference in pavement cross slopes • HDM 504.3 — Ramps design speeds • HDM 504.3 — Lane Drops • HDM 504.3 — Minimum distance between local road intersection and ramp intersection These comprehensive studies on geometrics of Alternatives 2 and 3 will allow adequate selection of the preferred alternative based on more detailed analysis of cost impacts, RAN Impacts and Environmental impacts. When establishing the design criteria, SC proposes the following Metric geometrics that meet all of the design criteria mentioned above. Preliminary Plans and Preliminary Right of Way Requirements: As part of the Project Report, preliminary plans for the recommended Alternative will be prepared in PS&E format so they can also be used later in the process for the Plans, Specifications, & Estimate. The plans will focus on the following: • Title sheet will be prepared in accordance with the Metric Plan Preparation Guide showing limits of work and construction • Typical Sections - The typical sections will be included to show the horizontal features of the proposed freeway and surface street improvements. • Geometric Approval Layout Plans - These plans will show all horizontal geometry. Full plan sheets will be provided for the entire project. Separate sheets will be provided for combined profile and superelevation diagrams. This will provide consistency in that all horizontal data will be found on the layout sheet, and all vertical data on the combined profile and superelevation diagram sheet. Layouts will be prepared in a metric scale of 1:500. • Geometric Approval Profile Plans - The profile and superelevation diagrams will be included. Profiles will be prepared in a metric scale of 1:500 horizontally and 1:50 vertically. PVI elevations will be shown to the necessary 0.01 m. Location of critical vertical clearance at the structure will be shown graphically and labeled with the minimum clearance. Profiles at the structures will be prepared to accommodate preliminary structural depth and falsework requirements. • Concept Stage Construction Drawings - An important part of the Project Report is addressing the management of existing traffic, usually identified in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The staging plans developed during this Milestone will be used for planning purposes, and public information (later to be used for PS&E and Public Awareness). It is important at this point to establish a realistic cost for implementation of the traffic control plan since it can be a large part of the project cost. The widening of Route 91 will require construction of the overcrossing, undercrossing, and underpass bridge under traffic conditions with minimum vertical and horizontal falsework clearances. Temporary paved median crossovers connecting both the northbound and southbound roadbeds will be constructed to allow temporary closure of a portion of one of the roadbeds in the vicinity of the bridge while falsework is being erected. Reconstruction of the ramps and 000087 Scope of Work_Route 91 10 June 2001 Project Approach/Scope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street widening of Route 91 could be accomplished with temporary lane and shoulder closures using the Caltrans Standard plan T -series. • Utility plans will be prepared from utility company maps and field data, which will also identify potential utility conflicts and necessary easements. All utilities shall be shown in conformance with the Caltrans Policy on High and Low Risk Facilities within Highway Right of Way. • Cost Estimate - The cost estimate reflecting current construction costs will be included. An accurate cost estimate is critical for assisting Caltrans to monitor its expenditures. • The Layouts and Profiles will be used to establish preliminary Right of Way Requirements to be used for planning purposes. Since this project constructs a new facility, new Right of Way will account for side slope and distance to ROW line requirements. Structures Understanding: For Project Reports, the primary work product for structures is the Advance Planning Study (APS), with its accompanying cost estimate. The APS serves a vital role in early project development by detecting critical site constraints, identifying feasible structure types, establishing control for horizontal and vertical geometry, and providing accurate cost estimates for project planning. Overcrossings. Review of the project site reveals that existing overcrossings are generally characterized by closed abutments and limited or even substandard vertical clearance. These features are not compatible with the proposed improvements, so in all likelihood total replacement will be required. This will raise several issues of concern that need to be investigated as part of the APS effort. The local streets carried by these structures will probably need to remain open, thus stage construction will be required. It must be confirmed that workable staging schemes can be developed, and that constructability issues are not overlooked. Since existing vertical clearance is limited, there may be impacts to local street profiles, and/or difficulty in using falsework for construction. Since most of the areas adjacent to the freeway are already built up, it would be desirable to avoid raising street profiles. This could restrict the use of falsework. There are alternative solutions available (such as building high and lowering into place, or using spliced precast girders), but there are cost implications for these approaches that must be identified and accounted for. Undercrossings. These structures are generally single span, steel girder bridges with closed abutments. If existing local street widths are adequate, it will probably only be necessary to widen these structures. Vertical clearance is a critical concern whenever existing structures are to be widened. As part of our evaluation process, we will independently verify that adequate clearance is available at each structure, during construction and afterward in the permanent case. If vertical clearance is limited, it will be necessary to investigate methods to use shallower structure depth for the widened portions, or other construction techniques to achieve proper clearance. Most of the undercrossings have relatively low skew, with the exception of Arlington Avenue, which is severely skewed. We will pay additional attention to this structure to ensure that an economical solution is achievable. In addition, approach slabs may be a concern for the undercrossings. We will confer with District 8 and Structures Maintenance to determine if rehabilitation is required. This is an additional project cost that is often overlooked in early planning stages. Caltrans standard policy requires that bridges that are to be widened be reviewed for seismic retrofit requirements, since the new addition may alter the stiffness and response characteristics of the structure. This is usually less critical for single span bridges, but our structures team will still verify that seismic retrofit has been adequately addressed and its cost has been accounted for. Pachappa Underpass. This structure has similar characteristics to the overcrossings, and will probably need to be replaced. There is added complexity, however, because of the need to maintain rail service during construction. The easiest approach would be to keep train traffic on the existing structure and build a replacement adjacent to it, on a new permanent track alignment. It is uncertain, however, what the geometric, right-of-way, and construction impacts would be. We will investigate this issue closely, and coordinate with the railroad company to find the best solution. 00008r Scope of Work_Route 91 11 June 2001 eroject Mpproacniscope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street Foundations. Early evaluation of foundation conditions and requirements is essential to develop a complete structural cost picture. Our team will prepare Preliminary Geotechnical Reports for each bridge, as specified in Caltrans' "Guidelines for Foundation Investigations and Reports." At the Project Report stage of project development, structural complexities must be accounted for by making appropriate adjustments in the cost estimates. Our work will include sufficient evaluation of the issues described above to confirm that all "hidden" costs have been uncovered and adequately addressed. Advance Planning Studies: Advance Planning Studies will be prepared for each affected bridge for the preferred alternative, in accordance with the requirements in Caltrans' Bridge Memo to Designers 1-8. The goal of this effort will be to confirrn that viable structure solutions and accurate construction cost estimates have been prepared for each bridge. As -built drawings, bridge maintenance records, and other record data for the existing structures will be gathered and analyzed. The latest geometric design files will be obtained and used as the basis for the studies. For each APS, evaluation will be made of such issues as: ✓ Span lengths ✓ Structure depth ✓ Skew ✓ Falsework requirements ✓ Column locations ✓ Horizontal and vertical clearance ✓ Stage construction ✓ Sight constraints ✓ Foundation conditions ✓ Utility Requirements ✓ Construction time Effort will be made to identify and prevent potential structural conflicts at each bridge, and to ensure use of cost- effective, constructible solutions. Wherever possible, recommendations will be made for geometric adjustments that would reduce or simplify structures work. Utilizing Caltrans' Bridge Advance Planning Studies Guide, square foot cost factors will be used to confirm and/or update the cost estimates for each structure. The updated APS drawings and cost estimates will be submitted for review and concurrence by the Caltrans Structures Liaison. Upon approval, they will be incorporated into the PR document. Preliminary Geotechnical: Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (GDC) will make a review of the existing plans and soil data for the project. On the basis of a review of the existing data, geologic, and seismic data applicable for the project, we will provide preliminary geotechnical and seismic information. This will be adequate for Project Report level study and will be based on the review of existing data. We anticipate that design level geotechnical investigations providing formal Geotechnical Design Report and Structural Foundation Report will be performed during the PS&E level work after the scope of the improvements is finalized. In our preliminary geotechnical report (one report for all the structures, pavements, retaining walls and sound walls) we will provide the geotechnical input for the Project Report, which includes: ✓ General subsurface conditions; 1 Existing structure and foundation data; 1 Maximum credible rock acceleration 1 Magnitude of the maximum credible event; 1 Name of the causative fault and distance from the site; ✓ Depth to rock or rock -like material; ✓ Liquefaction potential; ✓ Types of foundations for new structure; and 1 Comments on grading, pavement design, slope stability, retaining and sound wall foundations. Preliminary Drainage Analysis: Preliminary On -Site and Off -Site drainage will be analyzed utilizing all relevant Riverside County Flood Control and Caltrans criteria. Recommendations will be made for the maintenance and/or upgrading of existing facilities to convey all design year floodwaters. A preliminary Hydrology analysis containing recommendations shall be submitted to the City and Caltrans for review. The analysis shall be compatible with all alternatives presented in the Project Report and will be the basis for all detailed project drainage design required for further studies. 000085 Scope of Work_Route 91 12 June 2001 ero,tect Npproacniscope or Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street Traffic Management Plan: The first order of work on these types of projects is to implement a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP will minimize disruption of traffic through the work zones. The TMP Elements should include: • Public Awareness measures such as news bulletins, cable TV and project briefing to public officials and local organizations, such as school bus districts, and emergency operations (Fire, Police, Paramedics etc). • Consideration of Detours to avoid the construction area • Use of Highway Advisory Radio • Increased presence of California Highway Patrol (CHP)—COZEEP (Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Patrol) —Requires executed agreement between Caltrans and the CHP • Use of Changeable Message Signs • Use of effective signing notifying the public of upcoming ramp closures, including dates and times that closures would be in effect. Water Quality Assessment: The proposed improvements are not expected to impact any impaired water bodies identified by the State Water Quality Board. However, impacts are expected from storm water runoff related to construction activities. To reduce potential impacts to water quality, a SWPPP would be implemented by RCTC, after a Notice of Intent has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Caltrans has also established new guidelines for Best Management Practices (BMP's) dated May 2000. The amount of area disturbed by this project is expected to be greater than 2 hectares, which distinguishes the two methods used to prepare and implement the construction SWPPP. The contract special provisions and Engineer's estimate will provide for preparation and implementation of various construction storm water pollution measures by the contractor. The SWPPP will address reduction of excessive erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities; prevention of off -site contamination from construction materials and equipment; and also provide appropriate measures to reduce impacts to waterways resulting from the finished project. MILESTONE 4 — FINAL GEOMETRIC APPROVAL DRAWINGS Final Geometric Approval Drawings: SC Engineering will resolve all comments from Caltrans, the City of Riverside and RCTC. The final Geometric Approval Drawings will be submitted to Caltrans for final approval. Design Exceptions: SC Engineering will prepare design exceptions fact sheet for Advisory and Mandatory Design Exceptions. Design Exceptions will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans standards. The design exceptions will be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Caltrans individuals. Construction Cost Estimate: The SC Team will prepare a preliminary construction project cost estimate for each alternative identifying the major cost components of the project utilizing the Caltrans Preliminary Construction Project Cost Estimate Summary, as follows: Roadway Items Structure Items Right -of -Way (Current Value) Items TOTAL PROJECT COST $ The preliminary construction project cost estimate, including backup, for each alternative will be included in the Project Report as an attachment. MILESTONE 5 — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDES/DRAFT IS/EA & ENGINEERING REPORTS Final Environmental Reports and Draft IS/EA: The draft reports prepared in the previous milestones will be reviewed and revised in accordance with client comments in this task. Final reports will be prepared in a consistent format and will constitute the technical support for the environmental document. Both Caltrans and FHWA approval will be required, and typically local Caltrans District approval would first be obtained, followed by approval from FHWA. 000090 Scope of Work_Route 91 13 June 2001 Project Hpproachlscope of Work Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street The results of the technical studies will be presented in a Draft IS/EA. We will prepare an administrative Draft IS/EA incorporating the findings of the technical studies for submittal to the RCTC, the City, and Caltrans for review (10 copies). Prepare Second Administrative Draft IS/EA: We will revise the Draft IS/EA based on comments received from the RCTC, the City, and Caltrans and will submit the revised Draft IS/EA to RCTC, the City, Caltrans, and FHWA (via Caltrans) for review (15 copies). Prepare IS/EA For Approval To Circulate (One Copy For Signature): We will revise the Draft IS/EA per comments received from FHWA and will prepare one copy of the IS/EA for Caltrans and FHWA signature for approval to circulate the document for public review. Public Review: We will prepare a draft public distribution list per input from the RCTC, the City, Caltrans, and FHWA. The IS/EA will be circulated for public review (up to 50 copies) per the distribution list, once the list has been approved by RCTC, the City, Caltrans, and FHWA. We will prepare and publish a Notice of Availability and Opportunity for public hearing. Our level of effort includes attending one public hearing during the public review period for the Draft IS/EA. Prepare Draft Response To Comments: The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, the City, Caltrans, and FHWA via Caltrans (ten copies). We will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility, and will coordinate with RCTC, the City, and Caltrans to prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. Draft ND/FONSI: We will prepare a Draft ND/FONSI, including revisions based on responses to comments received during the public review period, for submittal to RCTC, the City, Caltrans, and FHWA (via Caltrans) for review (10 copies). MILESTONE 6 — DRAFT PROJECT REPORT/DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finalize & Circulate ND/FONSI: The Draft Environmental Document will be reviewed and revised in accordance with Caltrans comments and subsequently reviewed and revised in accordance with FHWA comments. The document will then be approved for circulation, including Caltrans District 8 approval as a proposed Negative Declaration and FHWA approval as a proposed FONSI, subject to completion of the public review process. The environmental document will be circulated to a distribution list provided by Caltrans, either by Caltrans staff using copies provided by the consultant, or directly from the consultant, as appropriate. Caltrans will assume responsibility for placing a newspaper advertisement announcing the availability of the environmental document. The circulation period for the environmental document will be a minimum of 30 days. Draft Project Report: Upon completion of Milestone 1 through 5 activities, The SC Engineering Team will prepare the Draft Project Report summarizing the findings of the initial engineering studies. A "Screen Check" Draft Project Report will be submitted to the Caltrans Project Manager and RCTC Project Coordinator for initial format review. After the "screen check" review, the Draft Project Report that includes detailed discussions on each alternative evaluated, including compliance with regional plans, will be prepared. The Geometric Approval Drawings, Advance Planning Studies, Initial Site Assessment (ISA), traffic studies, preliminary environmental significance checklist, right of way data sheet, and itemized cost estimates will be included as attachments to this report. This draft document will be presented to the Caltrans, FHWA, RCTC, and the City of Riverside. MILESTONE 7 — FINAL PROJECT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Public Hearing: We will attend a public hearing for the proposed project environmental document, assuming such public hearing is granted, and will be prepared to make a presentation of environmental impacts presented in the environmental document. Most recently, the adopted format for such proceedings has been the "open house" style in which tables are arranged according to stations, by topic or issue. Prepare Record of Public Hearing: We will assemble information collected from the public at the public hearing, including written comments and oral testimony which would have been given to a court reporter, and document such information for use in preparing the final environmental document. Also to be included in the public hearing record will be a summary of the hearing notification process, public hearing attendance, and the arrangements and conduct Scope of Work_Route 91 000091 14 June 2001 Nroject Npproacnlscope aT VvorK Route 91, Mary Street to 7`h Street of the hearing. Significant public comments will be identified for distribution to appropriate members of the project team, for purposes of preparing responses. Process Final ND/FONSI: Once the final environmental document is deemed acceptable at the local level, Caltrans Distract staff will submit it to FHWA for approval, together with a request for issuance of a FONSI in satisfaction of NEPA. The SC team will assist Caltrans staff in responding to questions or making revisions as part of this process. Prepare/File Notice of Determination: Caltrans District staff will file a Notice of Determination, identifying its Negative Declaration finding. The SC team will assist Caltrans staff in preparing any complementary documentation, which may be needed. Final Project Report: The Final Project Report will incorporate comments from prior reviews and additional information developed. Additionally, since SC Engineering will secure Geometric Approval Drawings in PS&E format, and much of the data in the Project Report can also be used for the Final Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E). This will enable a timely start up of PS&E preparation. Final ND/FONSI: A Final ND/FONSI will be prepared for submittal to FHWA (via Caltrans) for review and approval. As part of the process for the Final ND/FONSI, we will prepare response letters to agencies that submitted comments on the Draft IS/EA, prepare and file a Notice of Determination (NOD), and prepare and publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final ND/FONSI. We will provide 50 copies of the approved ND/FONSI. 000092 Scope of Work_Route 91 15 June 2001 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME OF CONSULTANT SC Engineering TITLE OF PROJECT Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street Detail Description Estimated Hours (Average) Rate/Hour Total Estimated Cost (5) 1. DIRECT LABOR (Specify) PROJECT MANAGER 1,083 544 38 48 063 54 _ PROJECT ENGINEER 1.444 $38 25 55.233 00 SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER 1.300 532 00 41 600 00 DESIGN ENGINEER 1.444 526 50 36.266 00 CADD TECHNICIAN 1 806 $20 00 36 120 00 CLERICAL 145 $16 50 2 39_ 50 TOTAL 7,222 5221 675 04 2 INDIRECT COSTS (Overhead. G8A-specify) Burden Rate X Base = Burden (S) Overhead 145 00% $221.675.04 $321.428 81 5321 428 81 Payroll Adds and Fringes 45% $221.675.04 $99,753 77 G&A 100% $221,675 04 5221.675 04 3. TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 and 2) 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify. applies to line 3 only) TOTAL 5. OTHER DIRECT COSTS Percent r 10.00% X Base = 5543,103.85 Fee (5) $54,310 39 $543,103.85 $54.310.39 SUBCONSULTANTS ADMINISTRATION PRINTING TRAVEL (Specify local vs. out of state) OVERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY MISC (CADD CHARGES. COMPUTER USAGE. ETC ) $3 120 $3.120.00 SUBCONSULTANTS LSA ASSOICATES TYLIN INTERNATIONAL GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS AEI-CASC 6. TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) $158.980 $154.560 $57,201 570,950 $19,800 $1,062.025.24 0000 OVERHEAD RATE Route 91 Mary Street to 7r'' Street FEE PROPOSAL COMPANY: SC Engineering PROJECT: Route 91, Mary Street to 7th Street DIRECT LABOR S Chavez C Sosa/Staff D Jenkins/Staff J Davis/Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff SCOPE OF WORK Project Report/Environmental Document Project Manager Senior Civil Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Civil Engineer CADD Operator Technician Bridge Engineer Landscape Architect Administrative/Project Control TOTAL HOURS 7,222 April 12, 2001 REVISION Revised May 30, 2001 MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Milestone Summary 1 to 7 1083 $44.38 $48,064 1444 $38.25 $55,233 1300 $32.00 $41,600 1444 $26.50 $38,266 1806 $20.00 $36,120 0 $30.00 $0 0 $27.50 $0 145 $16.50 $2,393 ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAL/ADMINISTRATIVE c PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ TOTAL MULTIPLIERS 100% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) 45% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $221,675.04 $99,753.77 15 0% 20.0% 18.0% 20.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 100.0% $221,675.04 OTHER DIRECT COST rrEM Blue Line Printing Reproduction (8.5'x11") 7,200 Sq. Ft $0.10 $720 60,000 Each $0.04 $2,400 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SUBCONSULTANTS COST bh P# fdY ; # A OFi''L1E L1 LSA ASSOCIATES TYLIN INTERNATIONAL GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS ASSOICATED ENGINEERS AEI-CASC 1688 1120 675 820 240 $158,980 $154,560 $57,201 $70,950 $19,800 FEES $321,428.81 $3,120.00 15.0% 14.6% 5.4% 6.7% 1.9% TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $461,491.00 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $54,310.38 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS TOTAL COST 4,310.38 L $1,062,025.23 000091 Route 91 Mary Street to 7th Street FEE PROPOSAL TASK MILESTONE 1 -Project Initiation/Data Collection Detail Work Plan Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan Establish Project Development Team As -Built Plans/Right of Way Maps Aerial Topographic Mapping Updates Utility Research Right of Way Research Subtotal stimated N of Sheets Estimated Hours/Sheet' 0 0 0 6 240 180 160 Estimated Hours 0 0 0 6 240 180 160 586 Firm SC SC SC SC AE AE AE SC + SUBS MILESTONE 2 -Draft Environmental Technical Studies Au Quality Analysis Noise Impact Study Natural Environmental Study Initial Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste) Cultural Resource Assessment Visual Impact Assessment Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Bat Survey Traffic Analysis/Forecasting Environmental PM/Meetings Water Quality Study -Post Construction SMPs (If Required) Preliminary Site Assessment (Hazardous Waste} Subtotal MILESTONE 3 -Draft Geometric Approval Drawings and Engineering Studies Draft Geometric Approval Drawings {Horizontal/Vertical) Concept Stage Construction/Traffic. Handline DratilFnal Advance Planning Study (,Fridge) Preliminary Gentecnnrcal Des3on Report Preliminary Structure Foundation Reports Preliminary Drainage Analysis Preliminary Right of Way Requirements Alternative Analysis Subtotal 1 1 1 1 12 60 90 74 54 222 136 70 120 222 92 240 185 60 90 74 54 222 136 70 120 222 92 240 185 1,565 LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA AEI GD SC + SUBS MILESTONE 1 -Protect 10111 trop/Data Collection C K SC LS' LIN GD AEt 0 6 586 6 0 0 0 0 CHECK MILESTONE 2 -Draft Env' C LSA 6c. 90 74 54 136 70 2 ronmentat Technical Study TYLIN GD Ati 22� 92 240 185 1,565 0 1 140 0 185 240 22 24 14 1 11 1 24 5 118 62 62 80 160 30 240 24 32 1,364 1,488 1,120 160 330 240 576 160 5,438 SC SC TYLIN GD GD AE SC SC SC+SUBS MILESTONE 4 -Geometric Approval Drawings Geometric Approval Drawings (Horizontal/Vertical/Superelevation) Mandatory Design Exceptions Advisory Design Exceptions Construction Cost Estimate/Schedule Subtotal 52 1 1 1 55 44 120 120 60 2,288 120 120 60 2 588 SC SC SC SC SC MILESTONE 5 -Final Environmental Technical Reports and Engineering Reports Final Environmental Technical Studies Draft Environmental Document (ND/FONSI) Subtotal 1 52 168 52 168 220 LSA LSA SC MILESTONE 6 -Draft Project Report/Draft Environmental Document Finalize & Circulate ND/FONSI Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing Draft Project Report and/or Modified Access Report Subtotal 1 1 MILESTONE 7 -Final Project Report/Environmental Document Public Hearing/Presentation/Exhibits/Graphics Prepare Record of Public Heating Final Project Report Final ND/FONSI Subtotal 10 1 1 1 142 8 300 142 8 300 450 LSA LSA SC SC+SUBS 10 24 10 120 168 240 10 120 168 538 SC/LSA LSA SC LSA SC+SUBS MILESTONE 8 -Project Management/Administration Project Management/Administration/Project Meetings Subtotal TOTAL 380 380 380 SC SC 11,765 SC+SUBS 000095 MILESTONE 3 -Draft Geometric Approval Drawings and Engineenna Stud CHECK SC LSA ITLIN GD AEI 1364 _ 1485 1120 160 330 576 160 5,438 r 3,588 0 1120 490 0 MILESTONE 4-Geometric Approval TYLIN Drawings GD AEI CHECK SC LSA 2288 120 120 60 2,588 2,588 0 0 0 0 MILESTONE 5 -Final Environmental Technics Rannrrc and E nlneeri CHECK -C LSA TYLIN GD AEI 168 220 0 220 0 0 0 MILESTONE 6 -Draft Project Report/ l raft Environmental Docu� CI-IECn. SC LSA TYLIN GD AEI 142_ 8 300 450 300 150 0 0 0 MILESTONE 7 -Final Pro ect ReporUEnvironmentaI Docume CHE K TYLIN Gb AEI 538 360 178 0 0 0 MILESTONE 4-•ro ect Management/Admtn stration CHECK TYLIN GG AE 380 380 380 0 0 0 0 11,765 7,222 1,688 1,120 675 240 SC Engineering $600,534 LSA Associates $158,980 TYLIN International $154,560 Group Delta Consulta $57,201 Associated Engineers $70,950 AEI-CASC Engineerin $19,800 TOTAL $1,062,025 STATE ROUTE 91, I..r1RY STREET TO %r" STREET STUDY SC HEDULE NTP Ta sk De scriptio n M ilesto ne C Completion CD Months after NTP C) Aerial Mapping Updates O btain As-Bullts Draft Geometric Plane HI . Traffic:. Interchange/ Ferac k:'; , ' Traffic ) .. _;: 1. Anatyeia ' Utility Draft Water/ Preliminary Final Research Air Duality Drainage Ge orn trlc" Study Analysis [ Piattui Right of Way I Draft Cultural Right of Way (Owne r List) Study Requireme nts I Design • Research Resource -ExeeptIon$ - Cost Estimate Establish Draft Preliminary PDT ',Natural Geotechnical Environmental Study$tilttY _- - -- ---- Pro ject Initiation & Data Collection r_� 1 No ise j Study Preliminary site As sessment (Haz Waste) Draft I Environmental Studies 3 Bridge Advance Planning Studies `Modified 1.4 Access Report (MAR) ',Draft ►;Pr oject ;Report Draft GADs 8 En gine erin g Studies 3 CaltranslCity Review 5 Final GADS E En gineering Studies Final Environmental Studies Finalize & Circulate ISJEA (30 days) Screen Check , Notice of Initial Study/ r Opp ort unity Environmental i For Public Assessment ' Hearing Final Envir onme ntal St udies & D raft PR 6 CalleansiCity Review WORK PLAN/STUDY SCHEDULE Circulate IS/EA i Final 'Project Report Public Hearing -► NDIFONSI Final PR/ED LEGEND: Roadway Structures General Environmental A GEND4 ITEfrI 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise Construction Package for Sound Wall No. 36 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Advertise for construction bids for Sound Walls No. 36 on Route 91 from Myers Street to Harrison Street in the City of Riverside; and 2) Bring back the results for further Commission action; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April and May of 1996, both the City of Riverside and RCTC agreed on the location of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Sound Walls on State Route 91 between Magnolia and Mary streets based on a Noise Barrier Analysis performed by Greiner in March 1992. The Phase I Sound Walls completed construction in May of 1999 while the Phase II Sound Walls were just completed in May 2001. Greiner's March 1992 Noise Barrier Analysis for the SR91, identified four(4) other possible locations for sound walls. General Location - for Specific Location see exhibit contained in March 1992 Greiner report. Proposed Construction Height S Side of 91 - Myers St. to Harrison St. 10' S Side — Jefferson St. to Madison St. to 16' S Side -- Madison St. to Hoover St. 12' S Side — Mary St. to Washington St. 14' 000097 These walls were previously excluded from the April/May 1996 agreements since the City of Riverside had determined that the walls were located in areas designated as future commercial development and would not require sound attenuation. During the update of the Noise Study for the Route 91, Magnolia to Mary, Auxiliary Lane Project, the City of Riverside was requested by Caltrans to again review the future land use projections for the above listed sound walls. The City of Riverside Land Use Committee reviewed the proposed sound wall locations and again determined that three of the four walls would be located in residential areas that are expected to convert to nonresidential use within 15 years or less and the walls would not be desirable. However, at one location (between Myers Street and Harrison Street) is currently designated as residential with existing homes which are expected to remain in place for at least 15 years and therefore, construction of a sound wall would be warranted. The City of Riverside requested that a sound wall from Myers Street to Harrison Street (Sound Wall #36) be constructed and the remaining three locations remain deleted from further consideration. At the May 10, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission allocated $800,000 of Measure "A" funds for the design and construction of Sound Wall #36, from Myers Street to Harrison Street, in the City of Riverside. At the December 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized URS Greiner to develop the final design Plans, Specifications and cost Estimate (PS&E) package for Sound Wall No. 36. Temporary Construction Easements(TCEs) are required for the construction of Sound Wall No. 36. The TCEs have been identified, appraised and the Commission approved the appraisals at the June 13, 2001 Commission meeting. The County of Riverside, acting as acquisition agent for the Commission is currently in the process of delivering offers to the property owners and negotiating the final details for the required parcels. Staff will be presenting an agenda item at the July 11, 2001 .Commission meeting for the Resolution of Necessity to acquire any remaining Temporary Construction Easements that have not been settled. Pending receipt of the required encroachment permit from Caltrans and the final review of the bid documents, staff is now seeking the authorization to advertise Sound Wall No. 36 for construction during the month of July 2001. This project will take approximately 3 months to construct after notice to proceed. Staff will bring back the results of the bids for the Commission to award the project to the lowest responsive bidder. The construction cost for Sound Walls No. 36 is estimated to be between $400,000 to $420,000. SCHEDULE The schedule for the bid process is as follows: 000098 Calendar of Events Advertise Request for Bids July 1 6, 2001 Pre -Bid Meeting August 2, 2001 Bid Submittal Deadline August 13, 2001 Evaluate the Bids and make Recommendation to the Budget and Implementation Committee August 20, 2001 000099 NOTICE REQUESTING BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY BLOCK SOUND WALL (SOUND WALL NO. 36) LOCATED ALONG ROUTE 91 BETWEEN TYLER STREET AND VAN BUREN BLVD. IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids will be received by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at its office at 3560 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, by 2:00 p.m. on or before August 13, 2001 for construction of a new masonry block sound wall along Route 91, between Tyler Street and Van Buren Blvd., in the City of Riverside, in Riverside County. Contract documents are available for purchase ($75.00 per set mailed, $50.00 per set picked up; check only) on or after July 16, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. at the RCTC Office. A prebid meeting will be held on August 2, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. at the RCTC Office. The successful bidder must pay State prevailing wages and is required to have a Class "A" license or class sufficient to accomplish the work at the time of project award. The estimated construction cost is between $400,000 to $420,000. RCTC reserves the right to reject any or all bids received. Award is anticipated on September 12, 2001 Contract Manager: Erik Galloway (909) 787-7903. By: Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board June 18. 2001 F:\FII.ES\Current Design Projects\Ro-9R-6I Sound Wall No 36\soundwall no36 advert. WI'D 000100 AGEND4 ITEfrI 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-2042 to Holmes & Narver for the Preparation of Project Study Reports of Bridge Overcrossings for Measure "A" HOV Widening Project in the City of Moreno Valley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-2042 to Holmes & Narver for: A) Delete the remaining scope of work in Amendment #1 related to the preparation of the Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimates for the bridge replacement of Indian Avenue overcrossing in the amount of $31 1,370; B) Preparation of Project Study Reports for bridge replacements at Indian Avenue, Nason Street and Moreno Beach Drive; C) Move $311,370 from Amendment #1 to help fund Amendment #2; D) Approve new authorization in the amount of $44,290. This additional authorization will bring the contract value not to exceed from $2,830,860 to $2,875,150; and E► Maintain the existing extra work authorized in Amendment #1 of $40,000. 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #2 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 000101 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved the State Route 60 HOV median widening project. This Measure "A" and CMAQ funded widening project is located between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley. At the February 9, 2000, RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded a final design contract for the subject project to Holmes and Narver Infrastructure. The Commission directed that the Perris Boulevard ramp improvements were to be included in the design of the SR 60 HOV lane project. At the March 14, 2001, RCTC meeting, staff presented to the Commission the scoping issues which currently prevent staff from making progress on project delivery. The first scoping issue was the inclusion of the Perris Boulevard ramp improvements. The second problem related to scoping was the fact that several of the bridges, according to Caltrans, have vertical clearance problems. Vertical clearance is the smallest distance between the structure and highway and determines the largest vehicle that can safely pass under the structure. Caltrans uses the smallest point of vertical clearance regardless of what lane or portion of the shoulder on the highway that it occurs. At the March 2001 meeting, the Commission directed staff to obtain a resolution of the bridge replacement issues with a minimal impact to the project budget. Caltrans staff, understanding the funding limitations by which the project is constrained, suggested that the State would pay for the Indian Avenue bridge replacement if RCTC would fund the bridge design. RCTC would also fund the Perris Boulevard under - crossing design and replacement as suggested in the March 14, 2001 agenda Item. In addition to the above, it will be necessary to seismically retrofit the under crossing bridge at Heacock Avenue. The Perris Boulevard bridge improvements will accommodate both the HOV project as well as the future improvements of the Perris Boulevard Interchange. At the April 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #1 for the preparation of the Plans, Specifications and cost Estimate (PS&E) for the Indian Avenue bridge replacement with the understanding that the State would pay to Advertise, Administer and Award (AAA) the construction of the bridge. The value of Amendment #1 was for $331,870. To date $20,500 has been spent on gathering survey information requested to complete the scope of work included in Amendment #1. The State was not able to procure the funds to AAA, the Indian Avenue bridge, and has now requested that RCTC fund the preparation of Project Study Reports (PSRs) for the three bridges with vertical clearance problems within the limits of the SR -60 HOV Project. The funding of the PSRs will be in -lieu of the PS&E design for the Indian Avenue bridge replacement. Holmes & Narver has estimated that the cost to prepare PSRs for the Indian Avenue, Nason Street and Moreno Beach Drive bridges is a base amount of $355,660. By not having to continue with the PS&E design for the Indian Avenue bridge replacement the SR60 HOV Project cost will be reduced by $31 1,370 ($331,870-$20,500). This will reduce the additional funding that will be required for this Amendment #2 to $44,290. 000102 This will bring the total authorized not to exceed contract value from $2,830,860 to $2,875,150. The existing $40,000 of extra work authorized in Amendment #1 will still be available. Attachment: Amendment #2 Scope and Cost. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: CMAQ /Measure A GLA 222 31 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $44,290 Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 6/19/01 000103 Wilms & Narver June 15, 2001 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator RCTC 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: PROJECT STUDY REPORTS FOR: OMAN AVENUE OVERCROSSING NASON STREET OVERCROSSING MORENO BEACH DRIVE OVERCROSSING Dear Mr. Quintero: Holmes & Narver (HN) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare Project Study Reports (PSRs) to analyze alternatives to achieve the Caltrans standard vertical clearance at the Indian Avenue Overcrossing (OC), Nason Street OC and Moreno Beach Drive OC. A detailed scope of work (SOW) and proposed fee to prepare these three (3) PSRs is included below. Background 1-12s1 is currently under contract by RCTC to prepare a Supplemental Project Report (SPR) and PS&E for the construction of two HON/ lanes within the existing median on State Route 60 (SR6O) from the East Junction I-215/SR60 interchange to Redlands Boulevard (KP R19.63 to 32.83). There are three existing overcrossings within the project limits that have vertical clearances less than the current Caltrans standard of 5.1 meters. HN is processing Fact Sheets for Exceptions to Mandatory Standards to obtain Caltrans approval to maintain these nonstandard vertical clearances. As a condition of the Fact Sheet approvals, Caltrans has requested that PSRs be prepared to address alternatives to achieve the Caltrans standard vertical clearance at each overcrossing. General Assumptions and Exclusions • Each PSR will analyze a no -build alternative and one build alternative. It is anticipated that the build alternative will generally include the following: 1. Raise the local roadway profile and replace the overcrossing structure along the existing horizontal alignment to achieve the standard vertical clearance. • Caltrans will prepare the Right -of -Way Data Sheets. HN will prepare the Right -of -Way Exhibits, if necessary, and provide other pertinent information for Caltrans to utilize in the preparation of the Data Sheets. Foe: Oft'oa Box 62LC, Or2ng4, CA 02E182.6240 999 Town & Country Road. Orange. CA 92868-478E Fax (714) 543-0955 (714) 567-2400 000104 • The available aerial mapping and field surveys that are being used to develop the HOV project plans will be utilized for developing the PSRs. No additional aerial mapping or field surveys are included in this SOW, • This SOW includes the development of preliminary plans, profiles and typical sections for ramp improvements at the Moreno Beach Drive interchange, based on one interchange configuration. It is assumed that the proposed interchange will include a half -diamond configuration for the eastbound ramps and a partial cloverleaf configuration for the westbound ramps, similar to the proposed interchange configuration at Nason Street, • Geometric Approval Drawings (GADs) will not be prepared and processed for approval. • The PSR for the Nason Street OC will consider the proposed improvements that are currently being developed for the Nason Street Interchange; however it is assumed that the ramp improvements being developed as part of the interchange improvement project have been approved by Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley. Additional ramp improvements are not included as part of the Nason Street OC PSR. • Unless otherwise noted, this SOW will apply to each of the three proposed PSRs. Project Management Meetings This SOW includes participation by the Project Manager, Project Engineer, and other consultant team members as necessary in four (4) additional, unscheduled meetings to resolve issues specific to the PSRs as they arise. This task includes the preparation of meeting agendas and meeting minutes. It is assumed that no additional monthly PDT Meetings will be required for the PSRs and the general discussions and issues relating to these PSRs will be incorporated into the monthly PDT Meetings for the HOV Project. General Management/Administration This task includes general project management and administration such as monthly invoicing, project controls, project piing and maintenance, preparation of progress reports, preparation of project schedules and coordination with RCTC, Caltrans, City of Moreno Valley, the consultant team and other agencies as necessary. Traffic Analysis Study Orientation and Scope Refinement HN's traffic engineering subconsultant, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, will prepare the traffic analysis. KOA will discuss the normal and unique traffic aspects of the project with RCTC, Caltrans, and the City of Moreno Valley representatives. KOA will also discuss the issues and study requirements with HN. Page 2 00010.7 Field Review The overcrossing locations and intersections will be reviewed in the field to observe and inventory roadway geometrics. existing traffic operations, and relevant information during peak hours. Excessive queuing or unbalanced lane usage can result in inaccurate analysis and results; therefore, the data collection must fully assess operational conditions at the interchange and adjacent intersections to insure that traffic simulations are realistic and properly show all constraints of existing conditions or proposed alternatives. Data Collection Peak period intersection turning movement counts will be collected for two intersections at each overcrossing location during the AM and PM peak hours. These intersections are: Indian Avenue OC • Indian Avenue at Hemlock Avenue • Indian Avenue at Sunnytnead Boulevard Nason Street OC • SR 60 Westbound Ramps at Nason Street • SR 60 Eastbound Ramps at Nason Street Moreno Beach Drive OC • SR 60 Westbound Ramps at Moreno Beach Drive • SR 60 Eastbound Ramps at Moreno Beach Drive Twenty-four hour traffic counts will be obtained for the mid -block segments between the study intersections along the local roadway for each overcrossing location. Counts Unlimited of Moreno Valley will perform the traffic counts. Traffic Analysts & Report A Traffic Analysis Report will be prepared for inclusion in the PSR that will (at a minimum) incorporate the following: • Present existing conditions, including spacing, configuration and weaving, traffic volume data, levels of service; and accident data for the local roadway, according to Caltrans PSR requirements. • Forecast year 2025 traffic volumes for the overcrossing, using the RCTC-approved traffic model for each alternative, to be furnished by the City of Moreno Valley. • Calculate year 2025 levels of service for the no -build alternative and each build alternative. • Evaluate the adequacy of the proposed geometrics along the local roadway. Page 3 00010G • Evaluate the adequacy of the proposed geometries at the interchange (Nason Street OC and Moreno Beach Drive OC only). • Evaluate the adequacy of mainline and ramp capacity in regards to weaving under year 2025 conditions (Nason Street OC and Moreno Beach Drive OC only). All analysis for this proiect will be conducted in a manner similar to a traffic signal timing and optimization project. All project alternatives will be simulated under expected traffic conditions to insure that traffic control strategies required are viable and to not deteriorate interchange or intersection performance. The SYNCHRO software program will be used for development of signal timing plans and for analysis of complex signal networks. SYNCHRO allows for evaluation of Level of Service and/or optimization of traffic signal timing. This section of the PSR will present the study approach, results of the intersection analysis, recommended signal changes, and system wide improvements. Also, this section of the PSR will include key summary statistics that may be required to evaluate improvements and assist in identifying future timing needs. This section will be incorporated into the overall PSR. A report of the results of the field surveys, alternative refinement, and analysis will be prepared for review by RCTC, Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley. This report will include all updated data and analysis of the traffic operations of the subject area. The report shall also clearly document the basis or justifications/tattle benefits of each proposed alternative. Submittal and Review of Report A draft copy of the traffic analysis will be submitted to RCTC, Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley for initial review prior to inclusion in the PSR. Upon agency approval, the traffic study will be incorporated into the PSR Revisions within the scope of work will be incorporated into the final traffic study. The final traffic study will be submitted for agency approval. Traffic Analysis Assumptions and Exclusions • The proposed scope of work and fee does not include attendance at any public hearings or public workshop meetings. • The proposed fee does not include any costs or fees charged by any public agency for its review or traffic modeling services. • Traffic models for the three locations will be provided by Caltrans and/or the City of Moreno Valley. Page 4 000107 Project Study Report Geometric Drawings Preliminary plans, profiles and typical sections will be prepared for the build alternative and will be included as attachments to the PSR. The level of detail provided on the plans. profiles and typical sections will be consistent with Caltrans requirements for PSR approval. Cost Estimates A Preliminary cost estimate will be prepared for the build alternative in accordance with Caltrans PDPM guidelines. The preliminary PSR cost estimate will be included as an attachment to the PSR. Right of Way Right of Way Exhibits for the build alternative will be prepared, if necessary, and provided to Caltrans for their use in developing the Right of Way Data Sheets. Excel spreadsheets will be prepared to summarize the proposed right of way acquisition and/or easement requirements for each affected property. Advance Planning Study An Advance Planning Study (APS) and Planning Study Cost Estimate will be prepared in conformance with Caltrans Memos to Designers 1-8 and Bridge Design Aids Chapter 11, respectively. A brief summary of findings will be prepared for the planning study. The estimated fee to prepare the Advance Planning Study is based on the following assumption: • One (1) APS and one (1) Planning Study Cost Estimate will be prepared for each PSR. Draft PSR Prepare a Draft PSR to conform to the guidelines specified in the latest Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). Submit the Draft PSR to RCTC, Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley for the first formal review. It is assumed that a maximum of thirty (30) copies will be required for the Draft PSR submittal. Final PSR Revise the Draft PSR to address comments from the initial agency review. This task includes preparation of written responses to comments. Submit the Draft Final PSR to reviewing agencies for the second formal review. It is assumed that a maximum of thirty (30) copies will be required for the second Draft Final PSR submittal, Page 5 000108 Final PSR Revisions Revise the Draft Final PSR to address comments from the second agency review. This task includes preparation of written responses to comments. Submit the revised Final PSR to Caltrans for signatures and approval. It is assumed that a maximum of fifteen (15) copies will be required for the Final PSR submittal. PSR Approval This task includes coordination with Caltrans and responding to miscellaneous comments and questions during the Caltrans approval process. Once the PSR is finalized for signatures, HN will submit one original, unbound copy of the Final PSR for approval and signatures. Fact Sheets Exceptions to Mandatory Standards One (1) Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Mandatory Standards will be prepared in conformance with the latest Caltrans PDPM guidelines. If more than one mandatory design exception is required, the Fact Sheet will include multiple nonstandard design features. A potential nonstandard mandatory design feature that could be encountered during the development of this project is as follows: Nonstandard shoulder widths on the SR60 mainline - The existing inside shoulder widths on SR60 are currently nonstandard and a fact sheet has been approved for this design exception. However. if the replacement of the overcrossings results in larger columns, a further reduction in shoulder widths could result and another fact sheet approval would be required. Exceptions to Advisory Standards One (1) Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Advisory Standards will be prepared in conformance with the latest Caltrans PDPM guidelines. If more than one advisory design exception is required, the Fact Sheet will include multiple nonstandard design features. A list of potential nonstandard advisory design features that could be encountered during the development of this project is as follows: 1. Nonstandard falsework openings — The reconstruction or widening of the overcrossing structures will likely require falsework over SR60 and there may be insufficient space to accommodate the standard falsework opening widths. 2. Nonstandard superelevation runoff and transition lengths for the curves near the ramp termini of the Moreno Beach Drive interchange 3. Reduction of design speed along the local roadway — Raising the local roadway profiles may result in the reduction of design speeds below the Caltrans advisory standard. Page 6 000105 The estimated fee and SOW to prepare the Fact Sheets are based on the following assumptions! • In the development of the project build alternative, every effort will be made to minimize or eliminate design exceptions. Therefore, this task may not be required. • It is assumed that nonstandard features for the Nason Street ramps have already been addressed and approved during the development of the Nason Street Interchange Improvements project. Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report HN's environmental subconsultant, CH2M HILL, will prepare Preliminary Environmental Assessment Reports (PEARs) for the proposed improvements at each overcrossing locations. Each PEAR will use the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Environmental Significance Checklist to establish the existing conditions within the project area, identify potential impacts and, if necessary, identify required mitigation measures. Each PEAR will evaluate the impacts of two alternatives, including one build alternative and one no -build alternative. The lead State and Federal agencies will be identified. Each PEAR will also summarize the findings of the Initial Site Assessment (ISA). A qualified biologist will conduct a site visit of the project site, and will conduct a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A cultural resource records search of the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside will be conducted to identify any known cultural resource sites in the vicinity of the project area. Where appropriate, coordination with the L'.S. Department of Agriculture will be done to confirm the presence/absence of prime, unique, or important farmland within the project area. A Draft PEAR will be prepared and submitted to RCTC, Caltrans and the City of Moreno Valley for review. Comments will be reviewed, addressed, and incorporated into the Final PEAR. Up to four CH2M HILL staff persons will attend up to 2 meetings to discuss this project. A discussion of the environmental evaluation and any environmental issues will be included in the Project Study Report (PSR), The expected type of NEPAICEQA environmental approval document will be identified. A list of environmental permits required for the project will also be included in the PSR. Assumptions • It is assumed that no initial or focused biological, wetland, cultural resource, noise, air, or traffic studies, assessments, or surveys will be required. It is also assumed that a Section 4(f) Evaluation will not be required. Deliverables • Draft PEAR, 5 copies • Final PEAR, 5 copies Page 7 000110 Initial Site Assessment 1 -Ilk's environmental subconsultant, CH2M HILL, will perform an ISA in accordance with the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 18 and Appendix DD, Hazardous Waste for each overcrossing location. The purpose of an ISA is to screen and assess project site and surrounding properties for potential hazardous waste involvement. Data gathering and analysis will generally follow the guidelines provided in ASTM Standard E 1527-00, the standard practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. The scope of work will include the following activities: • Database Search and Review. Obtain and review a search of federal, state, and local environmental databases using the VISTA info database search service. The search will cover an area approximately 1,000 feet east and west of the overcrossing and will extend north and south approximately to the nearest local cross -street. • Topographic Map Review. Review current and readily available past USGS topographic maps to identify the setting and potential pathways of contaminant migration. A USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map will be used to identify the setting of each overcrossing. • Historic Aerial Photo Review, Review readily available historic aerial photographs dating back to approximately 1940. The review will note developments in the area of each overcrossing over time. • Agencti File Review. Review regional agency files associated with any significant sites identified in the database search or the historic aerial photo review, Agency file contents will be summarized in the context of potential impacts of any significant sites to the overcrossing improvements. • Site Reconnaissance. Visit the overcrossings and vicinities and observe the current conditions, in light of the documentary and photo research. • Interviews with Site Ckvners/Occupants. Interview one or two key owners or occupants of the sites to identify issues that may not be described in documents reviewed. • Preparation of ISA Report and Checklist, Prepare an ISA report documenting the work undertaken and the findings of the ISA. In addition, an ISA checklist will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans PDP Manual. Assumptions This ISA scope of work is based on the following limitations and exclusions: It is beyond this scope of work to review or examine: (1) materials containing asbestos; (2) the presence of radon; (3) the presence of lead -based paint; (4) lead in drinking water; (5) identification or delineation of jurisdictional wetlands; (6) issues associated with worker health and safety; (7) issues pertaining to compliance with environmental regulations; or (8) liabilities associated with the offsite management of solid or hazardous wastes. Page 8 000111 • Cost estimates for cleanup and identification of parties potentially responsible for the cleanup of hazardous substance releases are not included, ♦ Any surface or subsurface sampling will not be performed and therefore cannot any assurance as to the absence or presence of surface or subsurface contamination cannot be given. Deliverables • Draft ISA report and checklist, 5 copies • Final ISA report and checklist, 5 copies Geotechnical A Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) will be prepared for each overcrossing in accordance with the latest Caltrans Guidelines for Foundation Investigations and Reports. According to Caltrans' guidelines, a PFR is required during the early stages of a structure project. The PFR is used to document existing foundation conditions, make preliminary foundation recommendations and identify the need for additional investigations and studies. The PFR will be included as an attachment the PSR. Cost Estimate The estimated fee for preparing Project Study Reports for each overcrossing location is summarized below. A detailed breakdown of the following costs is attached hereto. Project Management: =5 11,360 Indian Avenue OC PSR: = 5106,630 Nason Street OC PSR: = S110,080 Moreno Beach Drive OC PSR: = S127,590 Total Estimate for Preparing PSRs = S355,660 Please call me at (714) 567-2617 if you have any questions or need additional information, Respectfully submitted, Holmes & Narver, Inc. Victor J. Martinez, P.E. Project Manager Page 9 000112 PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR PSR PREPARATION HN LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE TASK Protect Principal Senior E Manager, Engineer I Engineers senior CADD TOTAL Protect Management r Meetiras 16 16 32 General Management 20 20 40 QA/OC 9 8 16 0 fAL H'URS 44 j 44 0 0 ee 000113 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS NAME OF CONSULTANT Holmes & Narver, Inc. Deta:l D,zxctiptiur 1 UIRECI LABOR ISsec:fy) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET PROTECT MANAGER PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR DESIGN ENGINE .R. DESIGN ENGINEER CARD TECHNICIAN CLERICAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV - Project Management Estimated Hours IAYcnage) Rate/Hour Taal Estimated Cosi (5) 44 44 554.00 2.3'600 542.00 1.848 CO 0 0 537 C 00 53 .00 C.CO 0 526.0 0 00 519.00 000 2 INDIRECT COSTS tOvtrtu:ad.G&A-soccif; ) TOTAL a Borden Rate X Base Burden (S) 144.45% $4,224 00 $4,«24 OC 56.101 57 St, I0l 57 J TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND D D CT COSTS (Surf. oil Ines 1 arid 21 a FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Spemti'• 1 es to 1me 3 only) Percent X3 Fe a i5) 510,125 5' 10 SIC. 2, 57 5 OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL TOTAL 51.03 56 $1.032.56 4J 032.56 CNIERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY M1SC ICADD CI IARGE.S. COMPUTER USAGE, ETC a 5 U 3CON S(.3.TANTS CII2MHILL (PEAR and ISA) Earth Mechanics, Inc (?FR) ASSUCiatcd Engraves Lynn Capouya, Inc Katz Okiisu & Associates (TraFfc Anal The Culver Otaup Saf.R-D:g (Potivolinsu 6 TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum of lines 3, 4 and 5) 511.360 00 6/15/2001 2:07 PM 000114 PSR FOR INDIAN AVENUE OC HN LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE TASK i Project Manager r Prinapal Senior Engineer i Engineer Senior CADD TOTAL PSR for Indian Avenue 00 Prof eCt Study Report Geometric Drawings 2 4C 112 32 '186 Cost Estimates 2 8 32 42 Right of Way 2 8 32 16 58 Advance Planning Studies 20 58 20 dD 138 Drat PSR 4 40 16 60 Final PSR 2 24 8 34 Final PSR Revisions r 2 18 8 26 PSR Approval 1 2 8 1D Fact Sheets (Optional) 4 50 24_ 88 1 . I OTAL HOURS i 40 262 06 i44 612 000115 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS NAME OF CONSULTANT Holmes & Narver, Inc. De l Des:anptton 1 T]TRECT LABOR (Spec.fy) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR DESIGN ENGINE DESIGN ENG[NEER C' D'D TEc[e11cIAN 1_ CLERICAL INDIRECT COSTS (Csverncsd 0 Aspect. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV - Indian Ave OC PSR Estimated Hours 40 262 196 0 ,44 0 TOTAL (Average) Total l stirnatcd Rate/dour Cowl (51 55460 S42 00 S37.00 531 00 52.6 OC $19 00 Burden Rate X Base = Buzlen (3) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND DIDIRECT COSTS (Sum of lines 1 end 2) 4 FIXED FEE OR PROFIT r Sptwiry. 9 y.lies to line 3 anl)r) MISC ICALDD CHARGES, COMPUTE USAGE. ETC SUBCO1'SLZT.ANTS , CH2Mi ILL (PEAR and ISAl trth Mcesurnes. Inc (.'FR), A S5OCiatCt+ Engineer: 44.45% 524,160 00 $34.899 1: Percent XBasc= S55.059 1: '® 2,16C CO 1 1,004 CO 7:5200 0 00 3 74 00 0 10 $24.160 Ot 534.899 I: S5. 03.9 i 332.41500 52,OOO.CO Lynn CaPGU' Ye. t114. Katz Okitsu & Assoc:ales IT'ac Anil"s:sr 'The Culver Group Sar R-D.I; (Pctho tr a1 6. TOTAL CONTRACT COST (5urn of tires 3.4 and 31 $6.500.[01 111$106 630.00 9/15/2001 2;06 PM 000116 PSR FOR NASON STREET OC HSI LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE (TASK Project Manager ' Principal Senior T Engineer I Engineer Senior CADD TOTAL PSR for Nation Street OC -- Project Study Report 7 Geometric Drawings 2 40 120 40 202 Cost Estrnatee _ 2 6 30 40 Right of Way 2 8 40 16 66 Advance Planning Studies 2C 56 20 40 _ 138 Drat PSR 4 40 16 60 Final PSR 2 24 8 34 Final PSR Revisions 2 16 6 _ 26 PSR Approval 2 6 10 Fact Sheets 4 60 24 88 TOTAlntCURS 40 262 210 162 664 000117 PSR FOR NASON STREET OC H!N LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE TASK Project Manager Principal Senior Engineer Engineer Senior CAD PSR for hEason 55root OC TOTAL Project Study Report Geometric Drawings Cost ESturnales 2 Right ofWay _ 2 8 Advance Planning Studies 2C 5!t Dray PSR = � 4 40 2 24 2 40 Final PSR Final PSR Revisions PSR A.porovat 2 Fact Sheets B 120 30 40 2 40 202 40 18 66 40 138 16 60 8 16 8 26 10 0 24 TUTALPUR5 1 40 242 210 152 664 000118 PSR FOR NASON STREET OC HU LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE TASK ' Project Manager Prinppal ' Senior Senior Engineer Engineer' CADD TOTAL PSR for !Jason Street DC _ Pro ect Study Report - Geometric Drawings 2 40 120 - 40 202 Cost Estimates 2 6 30 40 Right 0f Way 2 8 -?• 40 16 66 Advance PlanningStudles 20 65 T 20 40 138 Draft PSR 4 40 16 60 Final PSR 2 24 6 34 Friel PSR Revrsicn6 2 16_ a 26 PSR Approval l 2 6 10 Fact Sneets 1 4 80 24 88 TTAL HOURS !' 40 262 Zi0 i62 664 00011 i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS NAME OF CONSULTANT Holmes & Narver, Inc. Detail Dcscrip'.:ar TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV - Nason Street OC PSR Esumstcd Flows (Avenge) Rate/How 1 DIRECT LABOR 15accail l SEE CONTINUATION S13EE 1 PROJECT MANAGER I, PROJECT ENGiNEEI( SENOR DESIGN ENGINEER DESIGN ENGINEER CADD TECHNICIAN CLERICAL 40 262 210 5 To Esumated Cost (S) S54.00 2,16000 542.00 11.00400 537 00 7,770 00 S31 (10 C CC 152 S26 00 3.952,[0 0 51900 0 00 TOTAL 664 524.886 00 2 INDIRECT COSTS (ON -hea G&A-speciff'1 Burden Rate 144.45% X eine 524,886 00 Burden 535,437.83 $15.947 83 3 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS 4. FIXED FEE OR PROFIT (Specify. npphos to line 3'only) of lines I and 21 Percent 10.07% X Banc' 560,833.83 Fos ($i 56(1.833 83 S6.083,38 56.083.38 TOTAL k. .083 38 5 O'i•i— R DIRECT COSTS PRINTING 1'RAVE OVERNOHT MAIIr1DELIVERY 1SC (CADD CHARGES. COMPUTES. USAGE. ETC.' S1J3C1'1NSLLTANTS Cii2MHTLL (PEAR and 15.4) Earth Meansal:s,lnc (PR) Associated Engineers Lynn Copeuya. Inc. 550000 S100 03 515000 32,415.00 52,000.00 Katz Okttsu & As:ociarr5 (Traria Analvs19) The Culver GTAYC 1 -R -1),E (Potholing) 58.000.00 h TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Supt of lines 3, 4 and 3) 5110,080.00 6/15/2001 2:06 PM 0001.'0 PSR FOR MORENO BEACH DRIVE 00 HN LABOR HOUR ESTIMATE TASK 1 Propict I Principal Manager l Engineer Senior Engineer Senior CAM TOTAL PSR for Moreno Beach Drive OC - Project Stuin Report _ Geometric Drawings 4 80 240 48 372 Cost Estimates 2 8 40 50 Right of Way 2 8 32 16 58 Advance Planning Studios 20 58 20 40 138 Draft PSR 4 40 16 60 Final PSR 2 24 8 34 Final PSR Revisions 2 16 _ 8 25 PSR Approval 2 8 10 Fact Sheets _ 4 60 24 88 OTAL HOURS 42 302 332 160 838 000121 COST AND PRICE ANALYSIS NAME OF CONSULTANT Holmes & Narver, Inc. Detail D soription 1 DIRECT LABOR (Specify) SEE CONTJNU ATION SHEET PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT F.NO1NEER SENIOR OESLOW LI`1GI"NEER DESIGN ENGINEER CADD TECHNICIAN CLERICAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TITLE OF PROJECT SR 60 HOV - Moreno Beach Dr OC PSR Estimated (Average) Total Ejtirsted Hours RateJI-tots - Cost (5) --- 42 302 332 S54 0J 537 +)C 2,208 00 12.684 00 1?.244 00 0 160 0 TOTAL tND:RECT COSTS (OvcnccadG&A-specify) Burden Rate 531.00 000 526.70 4,160 00 519 00, 000 XBase� 836 1.44.4545 3 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR AND INDIRECT COSTS (Suer oflines1 and 2) 4 FD7 D FEE OR PROFIT (Specify, eppi+es :o Zino 3 only) 5 OTHER DIRECT COSTS PRINTING TRAVEL 531,396.00 S31,396.0), Buren 545,35l 52 $45.351 52 Percent x Base 576.747,52 Fee +5) 57,674.75 $76.747.52 57,674 75 TOTAL 57.634 754 L V ERNGHT MAIL/DELIVERY MISC (CAD') CHARGES, COMPUTER USAGE, ETC SUk3CONSLZTANTS CH2M1-1ILL (PEAR and IS.A) 3560.00 Earth Mccfwmcs. i>,:, (PFR) Associated Engineors Lynn Caooulm, Toe Katz OKttsu $ Associates (TParTc Analysis) The Culver Group Saf-F-Dsg (PotholingI 510000 rni 515000 532.415 00 52.000.00 r TOTAL CONTRACT COST (Sum or lints 3, 4 and 5) $127.590,00 6I15rz001 2:07 PM TOTAL P.13 000122 AGENDA ITEfrI 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Brian Cundelan, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Draft State Route 74 Utility and Agency Agreements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Enter into agreements with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Southern California Edison, Verizon, and California Department of Fish and Game defining the respective responsibilities related to the RCTC Measure "A" widening of State Route 74 between Lake Elsinore and the City of Perris; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to RCTC Legal Counsel review, to execute the final agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to Route 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will widen the existing 2 lane roadway to 4 lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The realignment and widening of Route 74 requires the relocation of existing utilities to accommodate the improvements. Relocation of the utilities is required prior to, or in conjunction with, the physical construction. The realignment project also requires that RCTC coordinate the project activities and enter into required agreements with Resource Agencies such as the California Department of Fish and game (CDFG). The agreements between each utility and RCTC defines the responsibilities of each party in regards to the relocation of the utilities. The utility agreements are required in the right-of-way certification process to ensure that all utility work associated with the project will be completed prior to construction or provisions made for completion 000123 during construction. Right-of-way certification is required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to document that the project is ready for advertising and states that 1) real property interests have been, or are being secured, 2) physical obstructions including utilities and railroads have been or will be removed, relocated, or protected as required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project, and 3) right-of-way acquisition and relocation assistance program requirements were conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and procedures. The agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) defines the responsibilities of the lead agency to protect various environmental resources during construction. The agreement with CDFG is required prior to CDFG issuance of the 1601 permit that the project must have in order to proceed. Staff is currently working with RCTC Legal Counsel and each utility and CDFG to resolve the final language of the subject agreements and determining the value of any compensation that may be required to each of the above named entities. The language contained in each of the agreements is modeled after the Caltrans and CDFG boiler plate language for similar agreements on comparable projects. This agenda item is being' brought forward at this time in order to keep the project on schedule to start utility relocations in August 2001. It should be noted that the utility agreement with Southern California Edison may be hampered by the current statewide electricity problems, and the agreement with Verizon will be based on having an agreement already in place for Edison. Staff and RCTC Legal Counsel are requesting latitude in order to resolve these critical open issues so that the early utility relocations can start in August of this year. 00012`1. AGENDA ITEfrI 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. RO-2128 to STV Incorporated for Development of Advance Project Planning and Completion of STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Award Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide additional Advance Project Planning and Completion of New Starts Application for a total amount of $157,730 to STV Incorporated to support the potential development of passenger service on the San Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between the Cities of Riverside and Perris; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #3 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action, BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO-2128 with STV Incorporated for a base contract amount of $166,187 with an extra work amount of $16,613 for a total amount of $182,800. The scope of work for this contract is to perform preliminary engineering that will result in improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line that will result in a new commuter connection between Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris. At the February 13, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #1 to STV to provide complete mapping of the San Jacinto Branchline to support ongoing property management issues that effect the entire length of the San Jacinto Branch Line. Staff was of the opinion that it would be more cost effective to have the entire length of the line flown and mapped at the same time. The photography and mapping are significant management aids for staff while working through issues related to the rail line. STV's cost of flying and mapping the segment of the line between Perris and 0001.2 San Jacinto was for $40,636 with an extra work amount of $5,000 established to address any unforseen issues that must be addressed to complete the task. Amendment #1 to the STV contract brought STV's total authorized contract value to $206,823. At the April 11, 2001 meeting, the Commission Approve Amendment #2 to STV to provide alternatives analysis for using the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Riverside Branch Line to provide a more direct connection to the Riverside Downtown Station from the San Jacinto Branchline for a base amount of $104,170, with additional extra work of $10,500. This additional cost brought STV's total authorized contract value to $310,993 and total extra work value to $32,113 for a total not to exceed value of $343,106; and During the initial phase of the San Jacinto Branchline Project, as approved by the Commission during its January 10, 2001 meeting, STV gathered applicable data from existing information provided by RCTC's earlier project studies, made initial introductions of the project to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (March 28, 2001) and prepared and submitted a Project Description report for FTA's review. FTA provided favorable comments and encouraged RCTC to complete the New Starts Application in order for FTA to be able to compare this project with the other pending New Start Programs. The negotiated cost proposal, scope of work and schedule for STV Incorporated to complete this phase of the project is attached. STV has estimated that the cost to provide the advanced Project Planning and to complete the New Starts Application is for a base amount of $157,730. This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract value to $468,723. The extra work will remain at $32,1 13 for a total not to exceed value of $500,836. The extra work will be authorized by the Executive Director. A standard RCTC amendment is proposed to be used if this item is approved. Attachment: Amendment #3 Scope and Cost Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2001-02 Amount: $157.730 Source of Funds: Congestion Management Air Quality / LTF Budget Adjustment: N Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/19/01 0001213 STV Incorporated 1055 West Seventn Stree:, Sale 3'.50 LOS Angeles, Caliior1ia 90017-2S77 (213) 462-94a' 1ax:i2131 492•527E June 18, 2001 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group 3560 University Ave-, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: RCTC - San Jacinto Branchline STV Job No.: 06-10533 PHASE I AMENDMENT Dear Gustavo: STV is requesting an amendment to our December 18, 2000 proposal, which provided our plan to complete RCTC's FTA Application during Phase I of our contract. As proposed in Phase I key STV personnel was to evaluate all available information, research materials, and collect and incorporate project specific data for FTA review and submittal. We have now completed the planned evaluation of existing materials and have determined that additional information will be required for the completion of the FTA Application as we continue to work on aspects of Phase I. In lieu of this, STV needs to perform work not anticipated during our project development or prior to the Phase I submittal. Please find a detailed explanation of this work below. All work items as outlined prevent STV from effectively completing the FTA application and are items that we were unaware of until such a time as Key Personnel could invest necessary evacuation time after work was authorized by RCTC. Please be advised that the items below are not the only tasks that we must accomplish and that work must also be completed on additional such items as outlined in our original Phase I proposal. • Response to Changed FTA Requirement for Baseline Alternative: At the time of our proposal, FTA required that a New Start project be compared to a No -Build alternative and a Transportation System. Management (TSM) alternative to measure its mobility, environmental, cost -efficiency and cost-effectiveness benefits. Our Phase I review of the previous planning efforts for the San Jacinto Branch Line indicated that neither of these alternatives had been developed as part of the alternative analysis completed to date. In addition, FTA recently issued new rules and regulations (Oec. 7, 2000) that require the development of a Baseline Alternative in place of both the No -Build and TSM alternatives. TheBaseline Alternative is required to encompass transit improvements lower in cost than the New Start, which result in a better ratio of performance than the No -Build alternative, and at a minimum, must include in the project corridor all reasonable cost-effective transit improvements short of the New Start investment. 1caGfiNeRALVW.1DATA%1W?]RIMDONMMINgeT,fAndc ld41.Eoc E n g i n e e r S r A r c h i t 0 c t s' P' .9 n n e r S; C o n$ 1 r u c t i O n M a n a g e r s Over 65 Years in C. Ii?ornia 000127 111 STV Incorporated Mr. Gustavo Quintero June 18, 2001 Page 2 As a result, we must now develop the Baseline Alternative as required by FTA to be submitted as an integral component of the New Start Application. The development of a Baseline Alternative must meet the needs of the study corridor and must also be approved by FTA. Developing an acceptable alternative will require the analysis of potential transit markets, existing bus system and routes, roadway congestion (e.g. levels of service), ridership potential and planned transportation investments (both highway and transit) from the Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan. • Perform an Updated Travel Demand Analysis to Support Newly Required Baseline Alternative: Our review of the travel demand analysis completed to date determined additional data would be necessary to support the needs of the New Start Application. This is an issue for both the Baseline Alternative and Commuter Rail Alternative. Since the Baseline Alternative was not developed as part of the previous planning efforts, travel demand analysis was not completed for this alternative. As a result, SCAG's regional travel demand model must be coded and run to produce the necessary ridership statistics for this alternative. Travel demand analysis previously completed on the commuter rail alternative ("Perris Commuter Rail Extension Patronage Estimate", Schiermeyer Consulting Services, February 2000) is based only on the homebased-work trip tables from SCAG's regional travel demand model. The trip tables were analyzed to estimate a reasonable number of people that travel from home to work in a way that they could be served by the commuter rail service and would choose to use the service. The analysis did not integrally model the alternative. As a result, only one data item - commuter rail boardings — was generated, among the many required for the New Start application. While the assumptions made in generating an estimate of commuter rail riders appear reasonable, the method used to generate this figure is likely to be questioned from a Federal perspective because it was not derived using the federally approved and calibrated MPO model. As mentioned, the previous analysis also did not generate several key travel demand statistics that will be necessary for the New Start application. These include regionwide annual vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), transit travel timesavings, auto travel timesavings, regionwide transit passenger miles (requires station to station hoardings), and regional transit ridership to estimate net new transit riders. YIGENEJALVROIDATA1143)11Wit\OCKV.IENTOQ PhAME 61341.Oee 000125 x STV Incorporated Mr. Gustavo Quintero June 18, 2001 Page 3 For completion of the new start application, these measures need to be obtained from the federally approved SCAG model. While SCAG has included the commuter rail project in its Long Range Transportation Plan, and thereby also in the most recent update to its model, the definition and coding (access points. service frequencies and service periods) in the model must be verified to ensure they match those most recently proposed. Once the model has been verified andior updated the ridership related New Start measures would be calculated from the model outputs. Thus additional ridership estimation effort for both the baseline alternative, which must be newly deEn d, and the commuter rail alternative, will be required beyond what was anticipated at the outset of the project. Prepare a Verifiable and Updated Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates: A review of the previous operating and maintenance cost estimates in the San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Rail study indicates that "they are based or. 1995 cost to provide like services in the industry." We believe that the assumptions in preparing these estimates must be verified based on current cost data available from the existing Metrolink commuter rail operation using FTA approval methodology Based on our experience in preparing operating and maintenance cost estimates for major transportation investments nationwide, FTA typically requires a resource build-up approach that considers levels of transit service and tae manpower. materials and supplies to operate, maintain and manage the proposed New Start investment. However. when the New Start investment is an extension of an existing transit mode that has been in existence for a reasonable time period similar to Mctrolink, FTA does allow the use of existing operating cost data and trends to estimate new service extensions. As a result, we included resources within our Amended Phase i cost estimate to review and analyze Metrolink operating cost data to verify or improve existing operating and maintenance cost estimates. Our approach will be based on the development of cost drivers calculated from Metrolink service levels and operating costs by type (e.g vehicle maintenance, non -vehicle maintenance, vehicle operations and general & administrative). Prepare Formal Comprehensive Financial Plan: A review of available financial documentation indicates that a formal financial plan as required by FTA within a New Start application has not been completed to date. Based on our experience in prepa.rirtg and rating new start applications and discussions with FTA new start rating staff, a clearly written and complete financial plan as stipulated in FTA's Guidance for Transit Financial Plans is the most important component of the New Start application (other components include a , quantitative evaluation measures, project management plan and land use assessment). We will prepare a financial plan that meets FTA requirements including a capital plan, operating plan, 20 -year cash flow model, regional economic conditions, and fleet management summary. KibemriALTR010ATA110f1110/MXCUKENTIGQ MA•JLIX41.4oc 000129 STV Incorporated Mr. Gustavo Quintero June 18.2001 Page 4 Preparation of the Project Description, FTA Special Request: The development of the project description as requested by FTA required analysis to develop specific assumptions not normally required for this portion of a New Start Application. For example, because the travel demand analysis for the commuter rail alternative did not consider the needs of a New Start application, STV estimated these figures using assumptions based on our industry that provided factors for peak time periods (e.g. a.m. vs. p.m.), rider destination points and annualization factors. In addition, under Section 4 of the project description document. STV developed the text for the Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives, Intermodal Access Points and Impact on the Regional System. These items are typically the product of an alternatives analysis or Major Investment Study which have not been completed for this project as determined in our review of previous efforts. STV is requesting that Phase I be amended to include an additional $71,974.92 based on the information discussed above and as outlined on attached cost worksheet. 'Without the additional funds STV will not be able to complete the FTA application. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. STV looks forward to moving ahead quickly with the task of developing and incorporating the best available information in the completion of the FTA application. Sincerely, orated Richard D. Walker Project Manager Attachment; cost work sheet cc: D. Borger File: 10533-15.00 %?CENEL AUPROIDATGIIO.1„7iVRIDOCUMJTT00 P%IAnd ROI doc 000130 C ost E stimate - W ork Sheet - Pha se 1 Amendm ent STV Staff STV Sub Co nsultant s Descriptio n R. Walk er B. Clarke J. Craft D. Baer B. Currier 1 C.. Orford 1 M .AIMashat R. Amodei M. Semmler Ty ping G. F efty 1 Myra Frank 1 KalsKlts u 1 TOL Hrs . Develop new Baseline Alternative per FTA Dec 2000 R ule Change 16 1 0 0 32 0 0 0 32 1 60 8 0 0 0 1 148 Develop new Travel Demand nalysis to Support new Baseline Alternative 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 42 80 i 8 0 0 L0 146 Improvement to Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates 8 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 24 i 80 8 0 0 0 128 Prepare a formal Financial Plan (no formal financial plan for RCTC exists) 8 g 0 0 16 0 0 0 120 9 80 16 _ 0 0 1 0 240 Preparation of Project Descripton (FTA request) j 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 32 56 8 B 0 0 120 S ub Total Hours; 1 48 0 0 72 0 0 0 250 356 48 0 0 0 782 Avg. LaborRatelHr .: $160 $160 $122 5160 I $159 , $65 $68 $102 561 I 846 $150 $109 $109 Sub Total Lab or Cost: $7,695 $0 $0 $11,543 $0 $0 1 $0 $25,575 I 521.599 $2,206 t $0 50 $0 156.8.620 1 To tal Direct Labor: $ 68,619 92 Travel/Lodging: $ 2,660.00 Repro duction: $ - Mileage: $ 195 00 3% subs $ Postage: $ SF Travel: $ Other: $ 500 00 To tal Phase I A men dment: $ 71,974.92 CD O CU W RT-Air Fare Trvl. calc DB 0 0 to LA BC 0 0 RA 2 1400 BLC 0 9 51,400 Nights Ldg&MI DB 0 0 BC 0 0 RA 6 960 BLC 0 9 $960 Days Car Rent DB 0 0 BC 0 0 RA 6 300 BLC 0 9 $300 Mileage RDW 600 195 CO 0 0 JC 0 9 $195 R1 Trvl calc. RDW 0 to SF DB 0 0 4 $0 Amend Phase lbyrma.xlsphase I amendment 6/18/012.37 PM R 0 W alla., 111 STV Incorporated 1055 West Seventh Stress SLite 3450 Los Anyeles. G3..,torr.a 90017.2577 1213) 482-9.144 tax (213) 452-5278 June 18, 2001 Mr. Gustavo Quintero Project Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: RCTC — San Jacinto Branchline STV Job No.: 06-10533 PHASE II, ADVANCED PROJECT PLANNING Dear Gustavo: The STV Team is submitting for your approval a proposal for work associated with Phase II, for Advanced Project Development. Phase II when fully executed will allow STV to complete Preliminary Engineering following approval of the FTA application. We understand that FTA approval procedures will not allow RCTC to authorize this work at this time. However, this advanced Project Development request will allow for the basic development of existing right-of- way information and the preparation of base maps from photogrametric survey that will assist RCTC in the management of the San Jacinto Branchline. In addition, we are also requesting funds to support RCTC staff in addressing requests from third parties to obtain access to BNSF service from the Branchline. These funds will allow RCTC to meet and/or manage unexpected railroad engineering requirements due to project related, but unplanned events, some incidents having already occurred with cities, customers on line, and present rail operator as they develop. The aerial photography is completed and STV's sub -consultant PSOMAS is now working to complete control mapping and implement the LIDAR process to complete aerial mapping. We hope to receive mapping detail soon and as mention above schedule resources to begin the development of DTM data and the layout of project right-of-way drawings. To support our mapping efforts we also need to make a physical inventory of the current rail right-of-way verifying physical characteristics. Once inventory is complete we will be able to validate right-of-way maps in preparation for the start of preliminary engineering. With the news traveling of RCTC's Commuter Rail Project many issues continue to arise with the BNSF, on-line customers, and local communities. STV has already been requested to meet on rail engineering issues with the BNSF, the GM Crroup, and the City of Perris. To support this continuing effort we have included a line item to be utilized at the direction of RCTC and for the purpose accommodating these related requests. XAGENUCUNM0IDATA, tes»RVRVOCVMEN^otf Sow-Raattmet wtwt ms E n g i n e e r s! A I C h i t e C t 8 r? I a n n o r s! C o n 5 1 r .J C i o n tit a n a 9g r 5 OVer 65 Years in C,lllo,nia 000132 X STV Incorporated Mr. Gustavo Quintero June 18, 2001. Page STV has attached a cost worksheet outlining all of these items the total of which comes to $85,754.72. It should also be understood that these funds do not address the Phase II Preliminary Engineering of the track improvements required to support the New Start analysis. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. STV looks forward to moving ahead with the task of assisting RCTC in successfully completing this project. Sincerely, Richard D. Walker Project Manager Attachments: Phase II, Cost Proposal cc: D. Borger File: 10533-15.00 X ‘Gocxx.V,v'%OM.ATA110.31TVR1000IMEMTVI19OWRedircl 6.IMI16a 000133 Cost Estimate - Work Sheet - Phase I I - RCTC Adva nced Pr oje ct Devel opme nt STV Slaft Tv c Description R. Walker B. Clarke J. Craft D. Baer I B. Currier I C. Oxford I M.AIM ashal I R. Amodei I M. Semmler I C. Twomey I Typi ng 1 G. Folly Myra Myra Frank II rKatzKitsu l T ot Hrs. Right -of -Way Mapping Refinement 16 32 64 1 0 , 0 16 156 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 8 0 292 Field Reconnisance and Right -of -Way Inventroy 16 a 40 0 0 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 1 8 12B Support RCTC - Out -of -Scope Items 80 40 80 0 I 0 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 8 40 16 f 16 296 Total H ours: 112 80 184 0 0 72 156 0 1 0 0 ' 8 iii, 40 40 24 716 Avg. Lab or Rate / Hr.: $160 $160 $122 $160 $159 ! $65 I 868 $102 $61 861 $46 $150 $109 $109 Total Labor Cost: $17.956 $12,825 $22,503 ! $0 1 80 1 $4,680 1 $10,577 $0 1 $0 $0 $368 1 $6,000 1, $4,360 $2,616 $81,885 CD CD CA) Total Direct Lab or: $ 81,885 44 Travel/Lodging: $ 1,590 00 Reproducti on: $ 500 00 Mileage: $ 390.00 3% subs $ 389 28 Postage: $ 500.00 SF Travel: $ - Other: $ 500 00 To tal Phase ll: $ 85,754.72 RT-Air Far e Trvl. calc DB 0 0 to LA BC 1 700 RA 0 0 BLC 0 $700 Nights Ldg&M I DB 0 0 BC 4 640 RA 0 0 BLC 0 $640 RT Trvl calc RDW 0 0 to SF DB 0 0 $0 Days Car Rent DB 0 0 BC 5 250 RA 0 0 BLC 0 $250 Mileage RDW 500 162 5 CO 500 162 5 JC 200 45 $390 Phaselladv. pjt. est..xlsphase. 11.advanced. est. 6/18/012:36 PM R 0 W.,5,,r AGENDA /TE1►1 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-2027 for additional Final PS&E Design Services for the proposed new Metrolink Commuter Rail Station in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Recommend the approval of Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) to provide additional final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Design Services for the proposed new Corona Main Metrolink Commuter Rail Station, for an additional base amount of $298,426, with an additional extra work contingency of $51,574. The new total Contract value shall not exceed $1,295,000. (note: If negotiations result in a reduced cost for these services, the lower number will be used for award.); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract Amendment #3 on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the November 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) for Phase I Conceptual Studies for the proposed new Metrolink Station to be located in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91. The scope of the Phase I Studies was to encompass all the preliminary activities to develop a master plan for development of the station, including environmental clearance, and obtain the required approvals for the proposed station site from the City of Corona, the BNSF Railroad, and all other affected agencies. The Contract for these Phase 1 services was for a base amount of $217,909, with an extra work contingency of $27,091, for a total not to exceed value of $245,000. 000135 At the December 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) for final Plans, Specification & Estimate (PS&E) Design Services for the proposed new Metrolink Station to be located in Downtown Corona near Main Street and Route 91. The proposed Contract for these final PS&E Design Services was for a base amount of $625,000, with an extra work contingency of $75,000. The new amended Contract total has been increased to a not to exceed value of $945,000. For the past 1 1/2 years, DMJM has been working cooperatively with RCTC, Caltrans, BN&SF, SCRRA, and the City of Corona, in the development of a master plan for the new station. The initial concept for the Corona Main Metrolink Station followed the recommendations given in the "Tier II Study" prepared for and approved by the Commission in April of 1999. That concept proposed to have the Station generally located between Main St. on the West, Joy St. on the East, Grand Ave. on the South, and Blaine St. on the North. The proposed site was split into two segments by the existing BN&SF tracks, with the Southerly segment consisting of approximately 2 acres and the Northerly segment consisting of approximately 4.50 acres. It was assumed that the initial concept would accommodate approximately 425 cars on the north and approximately 175 cars on the south. The station would have a loading platform on each side and a pedestrian overcrossing for safe access to each side. At the time of the "Tier II Study" both parcels were privately owned but the City of Corona was actively pursuing acquisition of the property for redevelopment. Subsequent to the "Tier II Study," a "Phase I Commuter Rail Parking Study" was started and is currently in the process of development. Staff has reviewed a draft of that study. This new "Parking Study" has projected a need for approximately 550 parking spaces at the proposed new Corona Main Station at start-up. The study also projected that approximately 750 to 950 parking spaces will be required at the Corona Main Station by 2010. Most of this projected demand is attributed to riders preference in the use of the Corona Main Station in lieu of the La Sierra or West Corona Stations. Because of this projected need for additional parking and after early discussions with BN&SF, it became apparent that the initial station concept would have to be modified, for the following reasons: 1. The size and geometry of the South parcel limited the amount of useful parking that could be made available. 2. The potential for confusion associated with split parking areas, with the north parking area separated from the south parking area by the BN&SF tracks. Currently, all existing stations in Riverside County have parking located on one side of the railroad tracks. 3. The overall cost for this initial concept plus the costs associated with providing access to two parking areas and the required BN&SF rework of track to accommodate the station turned out to be far in excess of what was originally budgeted for the project. 000136 4. The City of Corona has purchased the northern segment at the proposed station site, which totals approximately 6.72 acres. The City initially indicated that it would provide RCTC 5.22 acres of the 6.72 acres for the proposed Corona Main Station site, but planned on retaining 1.5 acres, of the 6.72 acres purchased, as a site for a future restaurant. Subsequently, the City has proposed to sell the remaining 1 .5 acres to RCTC for additional station parking. This additional 1.5 acres will increase the available parking from approximately 475 to 650 parking spaces. RCTC is currently in the process of purchasing the additional 1.5 acres for the proposed station from the City of Corona. Subsequently, staff requested that DMJM provide a scope of work and a cost of services for the additional final PS&E design services required to expand the station parking lot area to include the additional 1.5 acres. Also, during RCTC's coordination with BNSF, to obtain their approval of the proposed Corona Main Station Location, BNSF informed RCTC that it would be RCTC's responsibility to provide a final Track PS&E Design Package to BNSF for any track improvements required for the proposed station. These final Track PS&E Design Services were not included in DMJM's scope of work. Staff subsequently requested that DMJM provide a scope of work and cost of services for the additional final Track PS&E Design Services. DMJM has responded with a proposal of $298,426 to provide these additional services and staff is in the process of finalizing the negotiations with DMJM. Staff is also requesting that the extra work contingency be increased by an additional $51,574. With the Commission's approval for DMJM to provide these additional design services, the new total Contract value shall not exceed $1,295,000. Staff will continue to negotiate with DMJM to determine if these costs can be reduced any further. If further reductions can be obtained, the awarded amount will be reduced to the lower agreed upon number. The current schedule to start operation of a new Metrolink service from Riverside through Fullerton to Los Angeles is set for August 2002. The Corona Main Metrolink Station must be substantially completed by that date to accommodate the projected service start-up. The RCTC model consultant amendment agreement will be used. Attachment: Amendment #3 Scope and Cost. 000137 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2001-02 Amount: 5350,000 Source of Funds: Sec 5307 Budget Adjustment: Y GLA 222 33 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/19/01 000135 EXHIBIT "A -2 - ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 ADDITIONAL WORK: Revise Precise Plan to reflect changes required by the City of Corona. Changes include parking layout, site lighting layout, drainage plan (change required the extension of the storm drain and the addition of new catch basins with attendant study/calculations), and grading, and water/fire line layout and the preparation of a new Traffic Study 1 2 Revise Track Alignment to reflect latest BNSF requirements 1.3 Prepare additional PS&E necessitated by the addition of the third parcel to the project site. 2.0 FINAL TRACK PLANS FOR BNSF 2.1 Prepare Final Track Plans for the track work related to the commuter station. The following list of plans is based upon example drawings received from BNSF: List of Drawings Number of Sheets Typical Sections 2 Plan and Profile (1 100'/sht) 5 Earthwork Sections (Every 200') 3 Misc Details/Drainage Etc 2 Construction/Staging Plan 3 PUC Crossing Plan 1 Traffic Control Plan 3 Shoo -fly with Temp. Crossovers 6 Total Number of Drawings 25 2.2 Submit Final Track Plans to BNSF and RCTC for review and comment. 2.3 Revise plans as necessary to address BNSF and RCTC comments. 000139 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Cor ona Metrolink Station CD cD i . 91.1 94 5 Tas k 1.0 1.1 Additional W ork Revise Pr ecise Plan Ou tside Direct Charges Subconsullanls Lynn Capouya - Landscaping ERSC - Drainage 1.2 Re vise Trac k Alignment 13 Task 2.0 Additional PS&E (3rd Parcel) Civil Engin eering Archite cture (se e Subs below) Outside Direct Charge s Subco nsu llan ls Architecture (Mech-Elec ) Final Track Plans for BNSF Otawings Typical Sections (2 Slits) Plan & Profiles 15 shls Earthwork Seclions (3 shts1 Misc De tails (2 511151 Co nsl Staging Plan (3 shls) PUC Crossin g Plan (1 sht) Traffic Control Plan (3 shlsl Sho o Fly w/ Temp X-overs (6 slits) Tolal Shee ts = 25 ODC Subtotal Task 1.1 S ublolal Task 1 2 Subtotal Subtotal ODC Subtotal Task 1.3 Subto tal Task 1 Total Hours Subtotal Task 3 0 Subtotal Tas k 3 Total 15 AMENDMENT 3 Exhibit "C-2" DP I Sr TIc E ng, Sr Rail E ngr Sr C,, E ngr Ciro' E ngr CA00 1 14 1 1 5 124 54 0 97 11 5 93 60 5 84 47 S 61 4 1 128 5I '387 16 S2.119 16 52 119 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 53 179 Amen dmen t 3 with rail_FEE-298, Fe e Bre akdown 6/19/01 'M 514 607 24 52 739 110 512,553 8 12 12 8 2 8 20 78 58,901 46 55 729 SO 50 0 SO SO S0 50 60 60 60 40 40 16 40 160 476 546 .224 58 S5 429 24 52 246 144 513.478 60 100 80 60 60 100 460 543.056 SO 50 186 515,712 60 100 80 40 24 68 140 532 544 940 24 51 474 50 216 513 265 20 20 40 34 40 154 59 457 PROJECT COST SUMMARY TASK 1. 1 TASK 1.2 TASK 1.3 TASK 2.0 1 OF 1 Precise Pl an Revis e Track Alignment Additional PS$E Final Track Plans Adnnn 274:) 30 51 125 S 5300 28 51.05 0 S0 $3600 $4000 57.600 HOURS TASK COSTS TOTAIS 301 700 $39 112 539,112 163 256 252 172 186 46 180 464 1724 5155 75.K 532 35 537,950 57 404 57.404 958,177 397,289 5155 .759 $37,950 57,404 $97,289 $155,758 [ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $298,400 5142,643 $298,400 AGENDA ITEfrI 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amend Contract with PB Farradyne Inc. (Contract No. RO-9952) for the Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The Phase I Communication Study for the Proposed Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Staff's recommendation to employ one of the four DSL/T-1 transmission options from the Phase 1 Communications Study to Connect the Pedley Station to the centralized monitoring location at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station; 3) Approve Amendment #2 to Contract No. RO-9952 for PB Farradyne Inc. to begin Phase II Final Plans, Specifications, and cost Estimate (PS&E) for the Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for $44,084 plus a contingency amount of $5,916 (13% - to cover potential changes encountered during design) for a total contract amount not to exceed $50,000; 4) Authorize the use of Fed Aid funds for the Phase II work; 5) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Amendment #2 on behalf of the Commission; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RCTC's existing Metrolink stations: Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra and West Corona, have been or are being modified with the installation of a Closed Circuit Television System(CCTV). This system will monitor the stations and transmit the video images to a main terminal in the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. By 000141 centralizing the system, RCTC will be able to reduce the time spent by uniformed security at the various Metrolink Stations. The Pedley Metrolink Station is the only remaining Riverside County station that does not have a CCTV system design. In December of 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9952 to PB Farradyne, Inc., to perform a Phase I Communications Study. The purpose of this Phase I Study, was to develop the most cost effective means to provide a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station and propose the means to connect the Pedley CCTV Security System to the Main Security System located at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station The Phase I Communications Study has been completed and is attached. The Communications Study presented seven(7) transmission options, which are summarized below: No. Option Initial Equipment Costs & Installation Monthly Recurring Cost Five Year Cost Comparison ($K) Ten Year Cost Comparison (SKI 1 Fiber Optics $934,000 Nominal $934 $934 2 Leased T-1/ 1Seven Lines $80,000 $7,700 $459 $715 3 Leased T-1/Two Lines $100,000 $2,200 $208 $281 4 Microwave/One Repeater $165,000 $1,000 $214 $247 5 Nine Full Speed DSL Connections $80,000 $1,800 $168 $228 6 Leased T-1/One Line $100,000 $1,100 $154 $191 7 Seven Reduced Speed DSL Connections $80,000 $800 $119 $146 Because of their high costs, both Option 1 using Fiber Optics, and Option 2 using seven leased T-1 lines were not deemed viable for further consideration. Option 4, the Microwave transmission option with one repeater station, seems to have a lower ten year cost than option 3, the Leased T-1 with two(2) lines; but, the microwave option would require the purchase/lease and maintenance of a repeater station. The administration costs(staff and legal) to procure the site are not included in the costs above and the lease cost is estimated, this could result in the option having a higher cost than listed in the report. Staff feels that there are better options to pursue at this time given the high cost of these options With the proposed elimination of options 1,2, and 4, the equipment and installation costs of the remaining alternatives (3,5,6 and 7) are similar. The main difference between the four alternatives is the image quality that is received at the Riverside 000142 Downtown Station. Staff is currently in consultation with the Security Company who will be monitoring the CCTV System to determine what level of image quality is adequate to monitor station activity. No. Option Image Quality Initial Equipment Costs Monthly Recurring Cost 3 Leased T-1/Two Lines Up to 24 Frames per Second $100,000 $2,200 5 Nine Full Speed DSL Connections Up to 24 Frames per Second $80,000 $1,800 6 Leased T-1/One Line 6 Frames per Second $100,000 $1,100 7 Seven Reduced Speed DSL Connections 3-6 Frames per Second $80,000 $800 Staff requested that PB Farradyne Inc. provide a scope of work and cost estimate to complete the Final Engineering Plans, Specifications and cost Estimates (PS&E) Design for Phase II of the Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Station based on employing one of the four DSL/T-1 options summarized in the table above (options 3,5,6,7),. The Scope -of -Work, Schedule and proposed budget are attached. Staff recommends that the Commission Amend Contract No. RO-9952 to PB Farradyne, Inc., for the Phase II Final Engineering Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Design for the Development of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System for the Pedley Metrolink Station, for an amount not to exceed $44,084 for base work with an extra work contingency of $5,916 for a total not to exceed contract amount of $50,000. It is estimated that it will take PB Farradyne Inc. approximately five (5) months to complete the above referenced Phase II PS&E Design. Attachment: Amendment #2 Scope and Cost. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Congestion Management Air Quality GLA No. 222 33 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $50,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 06/19/01 000143 PB Farradyne Inc. A Parsons Brinckerhoff Company May 23, 2001 Mr. Erik Galloway Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 RE: Preparation of PS&E For Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV System Dear Erik: 505 South Main Street Suite 900 Orange, CA 92868 714-973-4880 Fax: 714-973-0358 RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2001 BECHTEL CORP Riverside Office Please find attached the Scope of Work, Form 60 Cost Proposal, and Work Schedule for the preparation of the PS&E for the Pedley Metrolink CCTV and associated communications system. It you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (213) 426-3834. Very truly yours, PB FARRADYNE Jarr es P. Curry, P.E. Area Manager, Southern California Attachments cc: Kim Evans Over a Cant vnr of Engineering Excellence 00014=1 SCOPE OF WORK PEDLEY METROLINK STATION CCTV SYSTEM ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES (05-17-01) Task 0: Project Management PBF will provide project management for the engineering design services, including the preparation of monthly progress reports, participation in coordination and design review meetings, and related activities. It is assumed that the PS&E will be completed in four months from receipt of the Notice To Proceed. Deliverables Monthly Progress Reports (5) Estimated Level of Effort Project Manager: 4 hours per month for five months plus 16 hours, 36 hours Project Administrator: 2 hours per month for five months, 10 hours Task 1: Finalize Communications System Approach Upon direction from the RCTC regarding the desired level of video quality, PBF will investigate the details of T-1 and DSL services for the Pedley Metrolink station area with T-1 and DSL service providers, and based on the investigations, make a recommendation to the RCTC regarding the preferred approach. Estimated Level of Effort Project Engineer: 16 hours Task 2: Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates Upon RCTC concurrence with the communications system approach, PBF will develop the PS&E for the design of the CCTV and communications systems. The basis of design will be as specified in the Communications Study Report, except that the use of leased T-1 lines or DSL services will be determined under Work Task 1. Under this task, PBF will perform the following: • Prepare the PS&E that contains the installation drawings and details for the CCTV camera and associated equipment. • Prepare the PS&E that contains the installation drawings and details for the communications system, utilized either leased T-1 or DSL services, and associated equipment. 000145 The PS&E will be developed per RCTC CAD and specifications standards, including the use of existing or baselined technical specifications for CCTV and related communications equipment. Where possible, the RCTC will provide existing station area drawings and technical specifications in a suitable electronic format. It is assumed that the RCTC will be responsible for the preparation of design review plan sets from reproducible plan sets provided by PBF; for the distribution of design review plan sets; for the receipt of marked up design review plan sets or design review comments within ten working days of their distribution; and for the reconciliation of conflicting design review comments, if any. Optionally, PBF will conduct a bucket truck survey for proposed camera locations to confirm camera positioning and coverage. Drawing Estimated Number of Engineering and CAD Hours Cover sheet including vicinity map. 8 Legend, index of drawings, and construction notes. 16 Platform and parking lot plan showing camera locations and conduit runs, including new conduit runs where required. 90 Camera installation details, new conduit installation details 48 Equipment installation details at Pedley Station Communications House 40 Equipment Installation Details at Downtown Riverside Station 40 Block diagram showing wiring end -to -end connections for CCTV cameras with PTZ 40 Block diagram showing wiring end -to -end connections for fixed view CCTV cameras 20 Technical Specifications 80 TOTAL 382 Deliverables 60% Draft Plans & Specifications 90% Draft PS&E 100% Draft PS&E 100% Final PS&E Estimated Level of Effort Senior Communications Engineer: 15% of estimated hours, 57 hours Project Engineer: 60% of estimated hours, 229 hours Drafter: 25% of estimated hours, 96 hours 00014E CONTRACT PRICING PROPOSAL (Services Page _I_ of 2 Name of Proposer PB Farradyne Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Home Office Address 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DIVISION(S)/LOCATION(S) WHERE SERVICES ARE TO BE PERFORMED Los Angeles Services to be Performed Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV Engineering Design Services . Direct Labor (Specify) CONTRACT NO. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF COST ELEMENTS Estimated Hours Project Manager 36 Senior Communications Engineer 57 Project Engineer Drafter Project Administrator 2. Labor Overhea 3. Travel 245 96 10 418 Total Direct Labor O.H Rate Total Labor Overhead a. Transportation Local Travel 6 RTs @ 150 miles: $310 b. Per Diem or Subsistence TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSAL $ 44,084 Rate/Hour Est. Cost ($) 54.95 1, 978 41.66 2,375 31.73 7,773 23.70 2,275 25.00 250 X Base = Est. Cost 14,651 22,416 Est. Cost Total Est. Cost 14,651 22,416 37,067 Total Travel r ' 310 4. Subcontractors/Suppliers Est. Cost Moore Electric: bucket truck survey to verify camera coverage (optional) 2,500 Total Subcontractors/Suppliers 5. Other Direct Costs* Long distance telephone and deliveries@ $20 per month: $100; check prints and final plan sets: $400 6. General & Admin. Expense 7. Fee (10 % of Item No. 1 and 2 only) $35,017 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST AND FEE 1 000147 500 -0- 3,707 $ 44,084 KAt. 1 YKIL1N1 PROPOSAL Page 2_ of SUPPORTING SCHEDULE ITEM DESCRIPTION EST. COST ($) TYPE NAME AND TITLE James P. Curry Area Manager, Southern California NAME OF FIRM PB Farradyne Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff SIGNATURE —DATE OF SUBMISSION May 17, 2001 2 000143 PROJECT SCHEDULE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION CCTV SYSTEM PS&E Task Task Name Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Task 0 Task 1 Task 2 Project Management Monthly Status Reports , Finalize Communicatio n System Appr oach Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates 60% Draft PS&E 90% Draft PS&E 100% Draft PS&E 100% Final PS&E 1 `► • -- Pedley Metro l i n k Station CCTV System Communications Study Report Submitted to: Riverside County Transportation Commission Submitted by: PB Farradyne Inc. May 7, 2001 0001-50 Table of Contents PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BASIS OF DESIGN 1 3.0 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 3 3.1 Fiber Optics 3 3.2 Microwave 4 3.3 Leased T-1 Telephone Lines 6 3.4 Digital Subscriber Lines 8 3.5 Wireless Network Services 10 4.0 RECOMMENDED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM 10 Tables and Figures PAGE Table 1: Camera Summary 1 Table 2: Video Data Transmission System Comparison 11 Table 3: Broadcast/Near Broadcast Video Data Transmission System Cost Comparison 12 Table 4: Reduced Quality Video Data Transmission System Cost Comparison 12 Figure 1: Metrolink Stations in Riverside County 2 Figure 2: Fiber Optic Block Diagram 3 Figure 3: 3-D View of Possible Microwave Path 5 Figure 4: Microwave/One Repeater Block Diagram 6 Figure 5: Seven Leased T-1 Lines Block Diagram 7 Figure 6: Two Leased T-1 Lines Block Diagram 7 Figure 7: Block Diagram For DSL Alternative Using Nine Connections For Near Broadcast Quality Video 8 Figure 8: Block Diagram For Lower Cost DSL Alternative 9 000151 PB Farradyne Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of technical studies by PB Farradyne regarding an assessment of alternatives to provide a communications link between the Pedley Metrolink Station and the downtown Riverside Metrolink Station to enable Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera images to be viewed at the downtown location and the CCTV cameras with pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ) to be controlled from the downtown location. This report provides the basis of design and analysis of selected alternatives for communications between the Pedley Metrolink Station and Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. 2.0 BASIS OF DESIGN There are four Metrolink train stations in Riverside County. The Metrolink trains operate over both a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railroad line and a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BN&SF) Railroad line within Riverside County. Figure 1 shows the location of the Metrolink train stations in Riverside County, including the Pedley Station and Downtown Riverside Station The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) currently employs security guards to ensure passenger safety at these train stations. However, the RCTC has implemented a plan to improve security at the train stations by deploying a comprehensive CCTV camera system. The CCTV system is intended to enhance the current overall station area security. As one phase of the RCTC Metrolink CCTV system, the RCTC has initiated an effort to implement a CCTV system at the Pedley Metrolink station, the one Metrolink station along the UPRR Railroad line in Riverside County. The Pedley Metrolink station CCTV system will consist of seven CCTV cameras located to provide surveillance of the parking lot, the platform and the ticket vending machine. The CCTV system includes a communication system between the Pedley Metrolink station and the Downtown Metrolink station. The communication system will support the transmission of video and camera control signals. The proposed CCTV system will consist of seven cameras located to provide comprehensive coverage of the train station parking lot, platform, and ticket vending machines. The seven proposed CCTV camera installations are summarized below. Table 1: Camera Summary Camera Number Description 1-2 Pan/tilt/zoom camera placed at each end of the parking lot. 3-4 Pan/tilt/zoom camera placed at each end of the loading platform furthest from the station. PB Farradyne 1 000152 Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study 3.0 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES There are a number of communications system alternatives. The alternatives addressed in this report are as follows: • Fiber optics • Microwave • Leased T1 Lines • Digital Subscriber Lines • Wireless Network Services Technical requirements and costs were considered for each of the alternatives. The following paragraphs describe the analysis completed for each of the alternatives. 3.1 Fiber Optics A fiber optics link would provide real-time, broadcast quality, video data at 30 frames per second. Figure 1 shows a conceptual block for this option. '1W-\.1"! _ 113W-wAh PUN wth PTZ Pedley Station Riverside Station CCTV Camerae riner 001c Mn - Fiber Optic We weh imeg NMI sided weh Yeegreted video encoders, transmitter, and decoders, trensndtter, end receiver receiver Existing Pelco Matrix Switch Figure 2: Fiber Optic Block Diagram There are two different approaches that could be employed to utilize fiber optics. One possible approach would be to utilize existing fiber optics communications lines. There is an MCI fiber optic line running along the Metrolink right-of-way from the Pedley Metrolink Station to the downtown Riverside Metrolink Station that might be used. PBF contacted both MCI and Metrolink concerning the use of one or more fibers in this line and, from those contacts, it was determined that this approach is not a feasible one. A second option for the use of existing fiber optics would involve establishing communications from the Pedley Metrolink Station to the 1-91 corridor and, at some point, to splice into the Caltrans fiber optics and employ one or more strands for video data and camera control purposes. Caltrans has agreed to the sharing of its fiber optics with the RCTC for communications to and from other Metrolink stations. Paths for the use of microwave communications from the Pedley Metrolink Station to three interchanges on the 1-91 were investigated as part of this study, using the Delorme 3D Topo Quads. From these studies, it was determined that there is a workable path from the Pedley Metrolink Station in a generally southerly direction to the interchange at Van PB Farradyne 3 0U0153 Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study Figure 3: 3-D View of Possible Microwave Path To implement a microwave system, it is assumed that one passive repeater site would be required. Figure 4 shows a block diagram for the proposed microwave system utilizing one repeater. It is also possible that this alternative could be implemented with multiplexing equipment located at the repeater site, with video and camera control signals transmitted between each camera directly and a hub at the repeater site. Assuming that frequencies can be obtained, most likely in the 23-30 GHz band, and that the required passive repeater location is available, it is estimated that the microwave system costs would be approximately $165,000 for equipment and related installation costs. Monthly costs for power, maintenance, and repeater site space lease are estimated to be approximately $1,000 per month. PB Farradyne 5 000154 Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study Pedley t.� Leasea T1 T1 UrseS T1 CCTV Cameras Le.,eo T1 E caass PTZ Control Lar T.1 Ceased 71 CCTV Cameras Leased Tl L4. _-.s E cedes terin IIRMIr WNW,. emmt Riwrvde Exhrieg Peke Matrix SWirrh Commend &Control Carder I �a MOI Two T1 Circuits 15da Mops ... .. .. Figure 5: Seven Leased T-1 Lines Block Diagram Figure 6: Two Leased T-1 Lines Block Diagram There are two options where only one leased T-1 telephone line would be required. With one T-1 line and remote switching equipment at the Pedley Metrolink Station, it would be possible to deliver video data, at about 24 frames per second, for up to four of the seven Pedley Station cameras at the same time. The camera data could be viewed by automatically switching views from camera to camera so that four cameras were being viewed at any one time. The estimated cost for this option would be $120,000 plus a recurring monthly leased line cost of approximately $1,100 per month. Under this option, only four camera views would be available at any one time. This option, although feasible using only one leased T-1 line, is not recommended for further consideration because it would not allow for the continuous recording of video data from the seven station area cameras. 000155 PB Farradyne 7 Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study There are several variations of the DSL alternative that could reduce costs; however, cost savings will translate into a reduction in video broadcast quality. Most potential DSL alternatives would have similar equipment requirements as the DSL alternative defined above, and the initial capital costs would be similar across the range of options. Cost savings would be achieved by entering into less expensive DSL service contracts with the local provider. Most DSL providers offer enhanced DSL service packages, which provide downstream data transfer rates from 384 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps and upstream data transfer rates up to 128 Kbps for less than half the costs of their fastest service. The use of this type of DSL service for video data transmission could provide video with refresh rates approximately 3-6 frames per second. One such DSL alternative, a block diagram for which is presented in Figure 8, would utilize seven 128 Kbps DSL to transmit video data from Pedley Station to the DSL service provider. This data would be routed by the DSL service provider to the Downtown Riverside Command and Control Center for viewing through a single 1.5-6.0 Mbps DSL. It is estimated that a codec based DSL communication system employing these eight connections would have an initial cost of $80,000 plus a recurring monthly DSL service cost of approximately $800 per month. Pedley Station Kim P•,.... — Heir Ili MN. Downtown Riverside Command and Control Center COI/vw..C��r.c 1.1.1.11 Figure 8: Block Diagram For Lower Cost DSL Alternative The feasibility of implementing any DSL based communications system for the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV System is contingent upon several factors. DSL services and costs are dependent upon local DSL availability. DSL service providers must have the routing capabilities to handle the data transmission requirements of the proposed system. In addition, DSL access speeds are impacted by the quality of the existing infrastructure and distance. It is not anticipated that any of these factors would impact the ability to deploy such a system. Prior to determining the optimum DSL communications configuration for the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV System, further analysis will need to be conducted to determine the functional capabilities of the local DSL providers servicing the area. PB Farradyne 9 000156 Pedley Metrolink Station Communications Study Table 2: Video Data Transmission System Comparison Option Image Quality Initial Equipment Costs Monthly Recurring Cost Considerations Fiber Optics Broadcast $934,000 Nominal Highest Capital Cost Microwave/One Repeater Broadcast $165,000 $1,000 Frequency Availability; Repeater Site Availability; Possible Second Repeater Needed Leased T-1/ Seven Lines Broadcast $80,000 $7,700 Highest Monthly Cost Leased T-1/Two Lines Up To 24 Frames Per Second $100,000 $2,200 Reduced Image Quality; Possible Future Upgrade To Wireless Nine Full Speed DSL Connections Up To 24 Frames Per Second $80,000 1 $1,800 Reduced Image Quality; Lower Initial Equipment and Monthly Costs Than Leased T-1 Lines Leased T-1/One Line 6 Frames Per Second $100,000 $1,100 Significantly Reduced Image Quality; Lower Monthly Costs Seven Reduced Speed DSL Connections 3-6 Frames Per Second $80,000 $800 Significantly Reduced Image Quality; Lowest Monthly Cost Generally, the equipment requirements for the T-1 and DSL alternatives are similar. The initial equipment costs and monthly recurring costs are somewhat lower for the DSL alternative in comparison to the use of leased T-1 lines. However, the feasibility of implementing any DSL based communications system for the Pedley Metrolink Station CCTV System is contingent upon local DSL availability, including the routing capabilities to handle the data transmission requirements of the proposed system as well as the ability of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the required DSL access speeds. Both recommended alternatives offer tradeoffs between video data quality and system costs, particularly the monthly recurring costs. Both alternatives can be developed to provide near broadcast quality video with transmission speeds at up to about 24 frames per second, subject to the availability of the required DSL infrastructure as already noted above. As shown in Table 3, the total costs of the DSL alternative, considered over either a five-year period or a longer ten-year period, are about 19 percent lower than for the alternative employing two leased T-1 lines. 000157 PB Farradyne 11 AGENDA ITEfrI 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION 1 DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads 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 25, 2001, 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 15 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 26, 2001 meeting and to the Commission on July 11, 2001. To date, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the following local agencies in the county: 000155 Western Banning Calimesa Corona Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrieta County Norco Perris Riverside Riverside County San Jacinto Temecula Coachella Valley Desert Hot Springs Blythe Indian Wells Palm Desert Palm Springs Palo Verde Valley The six (6) cities that have not submitted all of the required documents include: Beaumont, Hemet, Cathedral City, Coachella, Indio, and Rancho Mirage. We have informed city staff that no disbursement of Measure "A" funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents are received and approved by the Commission. Canyon Lake is not required to submit a Five Year Plan because of a prior loan agreement with the Commission. The City of La Quinta does not receive Measure "A" funds because they do not participate in CVAG's TUMF program. 000155 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 000160 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Agency: Prepared By: Phone No. Date: City of Banning Ann Marie Loconte (909) 922-3130 June 4, 2001 Citywide Street Overlay Program ITEM NO. STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST ($1,000) MEASURE "A" FUND ($1.000) YEAR 2002 1. Cottonwood St. — East of 8' Street 9 9 2. Wesley St. - San Gorgonio Ave. to Hargrave St. 66 66 3. 1 Westward Ave. — 22"d St. to 4' St. 121 121 4. Cherokee Circle — North ofJefferson St. 4 6 6 5. Sioux Circle — North ofJefferson St. 6 6 6. Soboba Dr. — Mohawk St. to Jefferson St. 6 6 7. Jefferson St. — Sunset Ave. to Navajo Dr. ' 20 20 8. Cheyenne Dr. — North of Jefferson St. 5 5 9. Navajo Dr. — Lincoln St. to Jefferson St. 6 6 10. 22"d St. — RR Crossing to Westward Ave. 32 32 11. King St. — 8" St. to 4' St. 25 25 12. George St. — 16' St. to 12' St. 30 30 13. Durward St. — Indian School Ln. to Santa Rita P1. 25 25 14. _ 4' St. — George St. to Wilson St. 15 15 15. Charles St. — San Gorgonio Ave. to Hargrave St. 40 40 16. Barbour St. — Hargrave St. to Hathaway St. 50 50 17. Alessandro Rd. — Williams St to Hoffer St. 45 45 18. Jacinto View — West of 8' St. 12 12 19. 1 Jacinto View — 10' St. to 12' St. 1 7 7 TOTAL 526 1 526 000161 YEAR 2003-2006 1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. 33. STREET LOCATION - FROM / TO TOTAL COST (51,000) Victory Ave. — 22" St. to Lovell St. (dirt road) Lovell St. — Victory Ave. to Westward Ave. (dirt road) Sun Lakes Blvd. — Highland Springs Ave. to Highland Home Road Westward Ave. — Sunset Ave. to Highland Home Rd. Brinton St. — Gilman St. to Hoffer St. Williams St. — 16th St. to Sunset Ave. Nicolet St. — 211d St. to 8"' St. Nicolet St. — 12' St. to Sims St. 4'I' St. — 4"1P1. to Indian School Ln. George St. — 6th St. to San Gorgonio Ave. George St. — Blanchard St. to Hathaway St. Cherry St. — Nicolet St. to George St. 21st St. — Roberge Ave. to Ramsey St. Geneva St. — 21" St. to Nicolet St. 4"" St. — Williams St. to George St. 5' .;t. — Williams St. to George St. Altura St. — North of George St. Jefferson St. — East of 22' St. to dead end Monroe St. — 2214° St. to Jefferson St. San Andreas Rd. — Durward St. to Florida St. King St. — West of Kingswell Ave. Omar St. — Ramsey St. to Wilson St. Wilson St. — Highland Spgs. Ave. to Dysart Dr... Hoffer St. — ls' St. to Phillips Ave. Nicolet St. — McGovern Ave. to Sims St., 1211' St. to 811 St., 2nd St. to San Gorgonio Ave. Murray St. — Wilson St. to Hoffer St. Murray St. — Gilman St. to Theodore St. 12' St. — Williams St. to George St. 14"' St. — Williams St. to George St. George St. — Woodland Ave. to Morongo Ave. Hargrave St. — Charles St. to Porter St. (Riv. Co.) 4' St. — Williams St. to George St. 5th St. — Williams St. to George St. 7' St. — South of Williams St. 34. 35. 36. 37. Blanchard St. — Hoffer St. to George St. 10' St — George St. to Wilson St. Dorothy Anna Dr. — Wilson St. to north dead end 000162 38 MEASURE "A" FUND (51,000) 38 27 27 40 40 250 17 130 50 45 37 50 29 15 3 13 40 250 17 130 50 45 37 50 29 15 3 13 40 19 8 19 8 11 11 12 12 15 4 94 286 70 161 10 11 20 20 32 36 40 19 5 6 10 23 15 4 94 286 70 161 10 11 20 20 32 36 40 19 5 6 10 23 YEAR 2003-2006 ITEM NO. STREET LOCATIONS - FROM/TO TOTAL COST (S1,000) MEASURE "A" FUND (51,000) 38. _ Gilman St. - Highland Home Rd. to Dysart Dr. 9 9 39. Dysart Dr. - Wilson St. to north dead end 23 23 40. Elsie Lee Cr. - West of Dorothy Anna Dr. 6 6 41. Hoffer St. - Highland Home Rd. to east dead end 21 21 42. _ Sunset Ave. - RR crossing to Lincoln St. _ 30 30 43. Morongo Ave. - Ramsey St. to George St. 47 47 44. 12"' St. - Barbour St. to Lincoln St. 5 5 45. 23rd St. - North of Lincoln St. 46. Wesley St. - Hargrave St. to east of Hathaway St. 47. Adams St. - North of Lincoln St. 48. Hermosa St. - Wesley St. to Victory St. 8 66 8 66 2 10 10 49. Florida St. - Wesley St. to Victory St. 8 8 50. Victory St. - East of Hermosa St. to west of Florida St. 10 10 51. 52. Florida St. - San Andreas to north of Lombardy 16 Sunset - RR crossing to Wilson St. 80 16 80 53. Hargrave St. - Ramsey St. to RR crossing 54. Oregon Trail - Wilson St. to Red Bluff Ln. 5 5 32 32 55. Red Bluff Ln. - Oregon Trail to Aspen Ln. 15 Aspen Ln. - Red Bluff Ln. to 200' north of White Oak Dr. 28 15 56. 28 57. White Oak Dr. - Oregon Trail to Aspen Ln. 58. Holly Court - White Oak Dr. to dead end 59. Sugar Pine - Oregon Trail to Aspen Ln. 60. Juniper Pl. - Sugar Pine to north of dead end 15 8 12 10 15 8 12 10 61. "G" Court - Red Bluff Ln. to dead end 4 4 62. Stargaze Wy. - Wilson St. to Moonbeam 3 3 63. Starlight Court - Moonbeam Dr. to north dead end 8 8 64. Harvest Moon Ln. - Moonbeam Dr. to Silver Star Dr 65. Silver Star Dr. - Harvest Moon Ln. to north dead end 66. Moonbeam Dr. - Stargaze Wy. to Harvest Moon Ln. 67. Sunrise Ave. - Wilson St. to Lunar Ln. 68. Highland Home Rd. - Ramsey St. to Wilson St. 18 12 12 9 45 18 12 12 9 45 69. _ Gilman St. - Linda Vista Dr. to Hibiscus Ct. 33 33 70. Ramsey St. - Drainage Improvements 400 400 TOTAL 2,706 2, 706 NOTE: Priority of Street locations to be paved will be determined by the City Council at the award of the construction contract. 000163 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001 - 2002 PAGE 1 OF 5 AG ENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 20, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 112 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 112 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 27 27 Total Measure "A" Funds $139,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATI ON C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2002 - 2003 PA GE 2 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No. : 909-795-9801 Date: May 20, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) 114 Measure A Funds (000's) 114 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slung Seal, Overlay as needed 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 28 28 Total Measure "A" Funds $142,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 PAGE 3 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: May 20, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 116 116 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 29 29 Total Measure "A" Funds $145,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 O AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 20, 2001 Item No. 1 2 Project Name/Location Various Streets City Wide Administrative Charge Project type Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed Overhead Total Cost (000's) Total Measure "A" Funds $148,000 118 30 PAGE 4 OF 5 Measure A Funds (000's) 118 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 PAGE 5 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 20, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed _ 121 121 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 30 30 Total Measure "A " Funds $151,000 Agency: Prepared By: Phone No.: Dale: ITEM N O. Cii1 of Coro na Reza Zolghadr (909) 739-2441 Ju ne 14, 2001 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRAiv.,PORTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A" L OCAL FU NDS PROGRAM FY 2001/02 - 2005/06 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PROJECT TYP E FY 2001-2002 NE{V APPR OPRIATIONS T OTAL COST Page 1 of 5 Fis cal Year 2001-2002 MEASURE A ENTITL EMENTS Est . FY2001-2002 Magnolia Avenue Railroad Crossing Resurfacing and Pavement Maintenance M iscellaneous Street Drainage System M ajor Pavement Rehabilitation Magnolia/1-I5 Interchange Improvements Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitatio n Root Pruning, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement No . M ain St. Rehabilitation Modifications at SR 91 Advance Traffic Management System M ain Street Landscape at SR 91 Bedford Canyo n Realignment Lincoln Avenue Traffic Congestion Relief Pavemen t Rehabilitatio n fo r Local Streets - AB2928 Rimpau/Magnolia Intersection Upgrade Tcmescal Canyon Third Street Improvement and ROW Acquisitions City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Drainage Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Signals and Lighting Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Ro ads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget 50,000 80,000 200,000 690,000 200,000 532,648 50,000 10,000 500,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 1,337,608 876,641 95,000 25,000 227,569 70,885 50,000 80,000 200,000 200,000 532,648 50,000 10,000 500,000 100,000 200,000 50,000 666,608 95,000 25,000 227,569 70,885 Total 5,295,351 $ 3,057,710 Annual Measure A Disbursement Pr ojections: $ 2,920,000 Use of prior Fund Bala nce RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001/02 - 2005/06 Agen cy: City of Cor ona Prepared By: Reza Zolghadr Phon e No.: (909) 739-2441 D ale: Ju ne 14, 1001 P age 2 of 5 Fiscal Y ear 2002-2003 ITE M NO. PRO JE CT NAME /LIMITS PR OJECT TYP E FY 1001-2003 NEW APPROPRIATIO NS TOTAL COST MEASURE A ENTITLEMENTS Est FY 1001-1003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I Resurfacing and Pavement Maintenance Miscellaneous Street Drainage System Pavement Rehabilitatio n for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitation Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitation Root Pruning, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Lincoln Avenue Traffic Congestion Relief Temescal Canyon City's Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Drainage Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 411,700 25,000 100,000 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 4I 1,700 25,000 100,000 Total Annu al Measure ,4 Disbursemen t Projections. 2,794,348 $ 2,794,348 2,979,000 RIVERSI DE COUNTY TRAIVsPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY2001/02 - 2005/06 Agency: Prepared By: Phon e No. : D ale: City of Coron a Reza Zolghadr (909) 739-2441 Jun e 14, 2001 P age 3 of 5 Fiscal Year 2003-2004 ITEM NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PR OJE CT NAME / LIMITS PR OJ ECT TY PE FY 2003-2004 NEW APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL C OST MEASURE A ENTITLEME NTS Est FY 2003-2004 Resu rfacing and Pavement Maintenance Miscellaneous Street Drainage System Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitatio n Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitation Root Pruning, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Temescal Canyon City's Cost Allocatio n Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Drainage Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 125,000 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 125,000 Total Annua l Measure A D isbursement Projectio ns 2,407,648 $ 2,407,648 $ 3,038,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL F UNDS PROGRAM FY 2001/02 - 2005/6 0 r Agency: Prepared By: Phone No .: Da le: City of Cor ona Reza Z olgh adr (909) 739-2441 June 14, 2001 ITEM NO . PRO JECT NAME /LIMITS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Resurfacing and Pav ement Maintenance Miscellaneous Street Drainage System Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitation Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Aven ue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitation Root Pruning, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Temescal Canyon City's Co st Allocation Plan (Overhead) Page 4 of 5 Fiscal Year 2004-2005 PROJECT TYP E FY 2004-2005 NEW APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL COST MEASURE A ENTITLEMENTS Est . FY 2004-2005 Roads, Bridges and Freeways Drainage Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 150,000 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 150,000 Total An nual Measure A D isbursement Projections 2,432,648 $ 2,432,648 3,099,000 Agency: City of -Coro na Prepared By: Reza Zolghadr Phone No.: (909) 739-2441 D ate: J une 14, 2001 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TRAivoPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A"LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAMS FY 2001/02 - 2005/06 P age 5 of 5 Fiscal Year 2005-2006 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAM E / LIMITS PROJECT TYP E FY 2005-2006 NEW APPROPRIATIONS T OTAL COST 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 U W Resurfacing and Pavement Maintenance Miscellaneous Street Drainage System Pavement Rehabilitation for Local Streets Major Pavement Rehabilitation Arterial Widening Freeway Bridges/Smith Avenue Storm Drain Striping Rehabilitation Root Pruning, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Replacement Temescal Canyon City's Co st Allocation Plan (Overhead) Roads, Bridges and Freeways Drainage Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Roads, Bridges and Freeways Operational Budget 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 150,000 MEASUR E A ENTITLEMENTS Est FY 2005-2006 80,000 25,000 870,000 500,000 100,000 532,648 90,000 60,000 25,000 150,000 Total Annual Me asure A Disbursement Pr ojecti ons 2,432,648 $ 2,432,648 3,161,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY NSP ORTATI ON C OMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2006 Agency : City of Lake Elsin or e Prepared by : Ray O'Donnell Phone N o.: (909) 674-3124 x 242 No te: All figures In thou sa nds ($000' s) Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PR OJECT TYPE 01/02 TOTAL MEAS A COST FUNDS 02/03 TOTAL MEAS . A C OST FUNDS 03/04 TOTAL MEAS A COST FUNDS 04/05 T OTAL MEAS A C OST FUNDS 05/06 T OTAL MEAS A C OST FUNDS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 80 80 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 M ISCELLANEOUS STREET RESTOR ATI ON: VARIOUS LOCATIONS STREET RESTORATION SLURRY SEAL 135 135 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 CURB,GUTTER AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT VARIOUS LO CATIONS CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 135 135 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 SAN JACINTO RIVER MITIGATION FOR LAKESHORE DR BRIDGE ENVIR ONMENTAL MONITORING 15 5 15 5 15 5 M AIN ST/SULPHUR ST DECONTAMINATION REMOVE CONTAMINATION 300 5 1-15 / RAILRO AD CANYO N ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT STUDY REPORT,DESIG N, CONSTRIUCT 1-15 INTERCHAN GE IMPROVEMENTS 2.000 20 2.000 20 10,000 10 10,000 10 FIRE STATION MCVICKER PARK NEW BUILDING & ACCESS ROAD 1.870 500 CO LLIER AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (OPA) BETWEEN CENTRAL AVE. & ENTERPRISE WAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS PAVEMENT. CURB & GUTTER 32 5 OUTFLOW CHANNEL - PHASE 1 FROM LAKE TO G RAHAM AVE. PEDISTRIAN WALKWAY 150 5 MISSION TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS M ALAG A RD. TO CORYDON RD. STREET IMPRO VEMENTS PAVEMENT, CURB & GUTTER 205 205 FRANKLIN ST. - CYN. ESTATES DR CONNECTION STREET CO NNECTION 380 5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS - COLLIER AVE AT CENTRAL AVE & RIVERSIDE DR. $710 TRAFFIC SIG NALS 650 5 LAKE STREET: 1-15 TO LAKESHORE DRIVE PAVEMENT REHABILITATIO N/O VERLAY PAVEMENT REHABILITA TION 1 1.200 1,200 OUTLET CHANNEL PHASE 11 IMPROVEMENTS GRAHAM AVE. TO HEALD AVE. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY 482 5 SUMMERHILL DR. BRIDGE AT SAN JACINTO RIVER REPAIR APPROACHES BRIDG E APPROACH REPAIR 60 60 175 5 N ote: All fig ur es In tho usands ($000's) Page 2 of 2 1 1 19 ITEM NO. 16 17 PROJECT NA ME/LIMITS COLLIER AVE. - WASSON CRK TO CENTRAL AVE. STREET REHABILITATI ON STRICKLAND AVE . OVERLAY 18 LINCOLN ST. - STREET REHABILITATION MACHADO ST. TO TERRA COTTA PROJECT TYPE STREET REHABILITATION PAVEMENT OVERLAY STREET REHABILITATION 01/02 TOTAL MEAS.A COST FUNDS 400 5 100 5 400 5 02/03 TOTAL MEAS A COST FUNDS 03/04 TOTAL MEAS .A COST FUNDS 04/05 i 05/06 TOTAL MEAS A T OTAL MEAS A C OST FUNDS C OST FUNDS GRAND AVE. - STREET REHABILITATION LINCO LN ST. TO LAKESHORE DR. 20 ' DIAM OND DR. @ CASINO DR. REPLACE DETECTOR LO OPS 21 CO RYDON ST. - UNION ST. TO MISSION TRAIL 22 MACHADO ST. - STREET REHABILITATION LINCO LN ST. TO ALVARADO ST. 23 LAKESHORE DR. - STREET REHABILITATION LAKE ST. TO M ACHADO ST. STREET REHABILITATI ON L OOP DETECTORS STREET REHABILITATION 100 5 220 20 7 5 250 5 STREET REHABILITATI ON STREET REHABILITATION 300 410 20 24 LAKESHORE DR. - STREET REHABILITATION MACHADO ST. TO WISCONSIN ST STREET REHABILIT ATI ON 190 20 25 GUNNERSO N ST. - LAKESHORE DR. TO RIVERSIDE DRIV E 26 LAKESHORE DR. TERRA COTTA TO DRYDEN ST. STREET WIDENING 27 LAKESHORE DR: JERNIGAN ST TO 200' EAST OF MACHADO ST - STREET WIDENING 28 SUMNER AVE: MAIN ST TO CHANEY ST PAVEMENT REHABILITATIONIOVERLAY TOTALS: STREET REHABILITATION PAVEM ENT WIDENING STREET WIDENING STREET REHABILITATION 6,394 2,365 3,407 335 325 20 75 20 3,375 340 450 30 480 30 400 30 600 30 11,180 320 11,250 320 M EASURE A CURRENT YEAR ALLO CATION 345 350 355 365 370 MEASURE A PRIOR YEAR CARRY-OVER 2,020 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSF ',TATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 City of Moreno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Item No. Project Fu nding Year(s) Project Name/Limits Pr oject Type Status Total Cost Page 1 of 10 Measure "A" Funding 1 2 3 4 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 Iris Avenue/Indian - Emma Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Annual Pavement Resurfacing Slurry Seal Program Infill Missing Improvements Interchange Imp. Lanes East and West Bound Rehabilitation/ Overlay Resurface Application to Caltrans for Pedestrian Safety Program (PSP) May 2001. Consultant retained May 1997 for design. Requires revised proj ect report, design, Caltrans & FHWA approval, utility relocation and RNV. Env. study in process. Estimated completion date is June 2004, On -going annual program. On -going annual program. $380,000 $405,500 $2,910,6001 $2,453,800 $80,000' $46,5002- $2,910,600 $2,453,800 5 2001/02 Surface Recycling Rehabilitation On -going annual program. $120,000 $120,000 6 2001/02 Cross Gutter Elimination Reconstruction Project dropped because HES Grant funding not received. $0 $0 1 Pedestrian Safety Program funding - $300,000 2 TEA 21 CMAQ (@ 88. 53%) - $359,000 Includes car- ever funding CD City of M oreno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 M ay 10, 2001 Item No. 7 8 9 10 11 Project Funding Year(s) 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 12 2001/02 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Project Name/Limits Bicycle Lane Ironwood Ave Rehabilitation/Day St -Pigeon Pass Rd San Michele Road/Indian-Perris Eucalyptus Ave./Wichita-660' East CETAP - Co mmunity and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process. Nason/Alessandro to Fir Street Improvements 3 AB 1020 - $156,000, SCAQMD AB275 - $13,000 " TEA21 STP funding - $1,270,700 5 TEA21 CMAQ - $487,900 * Includes carryover funding Pr oject Type Construction Class I & II Bike Lanes Reconstruction Street Constr./ R/W Acquisition Sidewalk Study of Transportation Corridors Rehabilitation/ Traffic Signals Status Construction contract awarded by City C ouncil in April 2001. Expected completion date is September 2001. Design in process. Expected completion date is August 2002. Design in process. Expected completi on date is January 2002. Application to Caltrans for Safe Route to Scho ol (SR2S). Ongoing studies by RCTC. Total Cost $336,300 $1,370,600 $1,390,000 $0 $70,700 Release of 10% retention . Advertise and install traffic signals (August 2001 -January 2002) . Page 2 of 10 Measure "A" Funding $167,300 $245,600° $1,390,000 $0 $70,700 $984,600 $496,700' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP TATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 City of Moreno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 M ay 10, 2001 Item No . Pro ject Funding Year(s) Project NamelLimits Project Type Status T otal Cost Measure "A" Funding 13 2001/02 Redlands Blvd. Storm Drain F Street Drainage Improvement RCFC & WCD joint ventured with the City by designing the reinforced box structure. Estimated start of construction December 2001 . Expect completion date is April 2002 . $486,200 $186,2006 14 2001/02 Frederick/Alessandro Intersection Improvements & S.D. Elimination of Cross Gutter & Construction of Storm Drain Design and complete construction June 2002 . $428,100 $213,100' 15 2001/02 Intersection Cross Gutter M odifications — Ironwood/Pigeon Pass Elimination of Cross Gutter & Construction of Storm Drain Design and complete construction June 2002 . $331,400 $36,4008' 16 2001/02 Iris Ave./Indian St. — Traffic Signals/Street Improvements Traffic Signal, Street Improvements Design and complete construction Ju ne 2002 . $300,000 $300,000 17 2001/02 Perris Blvd./Sunnymead Ranch Pkwy Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and complete construction June 2002 . $165,000 $165,000 18 2001/02 Krameria Ave/Kitching Street Traffic Signal Traffic Signal Design and complete construction June 2002 . $165,000 $165,000 Page 3 of 10 6 ISTEA lov+ dater crossing - $300,000 HES funding - $215,000 6 HES funding - $295,000 Includes ca —over funding CD 0 >-` City of Mono Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Item No . 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pro ject Funding Year(s) 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 2001/02 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Project Name/Limits Pigeon Pass/Ironwood-Old Lake Street Improvements Pavement Management (Paver Geographic Information System (GIS) Preliminary Street Engineering Newhope/Calle San Juan D L Lagos -Alessandro Improvements Reche Vista/Reche Canyon Rte Concept Rept/PSR 2001/02 +route 60 Interchange Study/Project Study Report 9 AB2928 - $506,973 * Includes carn'over funding Project Type Street Improvements Rating of Street Pavement Creating Street Data Layers Project Study Report Street Improvements Project Study Reports Project Study Report Status Award design contract July 2001. Expected completion date is June 2002. Annual ratings for the condition of street pavement . Annual data input into various street data. Preparing RFPs to hire consultants. Construction completion date is February 2003. Preparing RFP to hire consultant. Preparing RFP to hire consultant . Total Cost $1,250,000 $115,000 $150,000 $215,000 $865,000 $55,000 $65,000 Pag e 4 of 10 Measure "A" Funding $743,00 $115,000 $150,000 $215,000 $865,000 $55,000 $65,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP TATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 City of M oreno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Ite m No . Pro jec t Funding Year(s) Project Name/Limits Pr oj ect Type Status T otal Cost Meas ure "A" Funding 26 2001/02 Street Improvement Inventory for GASB 34 Requirements Evaluate Public Infrastructure Preparing RFP to hire consultant. $50,0001 $50,000 27 2001/02 Cactus Ave/Sunnymead Blvd/Pigeon Pass Interconnect Traffic Signal Communication Project is currently being advertised for construction bids . $65,000 $65,000 28 2001/02 Sidewalks Sidewalks On -going annual program . $265,000 $200,0001° Page 5 of 10 2001-2002 SUBTOTAL $15,392,800* $11,519,900* 29 2002/03 Route 60/Nason Street Interchange Interchange Imp. Lanes East and West Bound Consultant retained May 1997 for design . Requires revised project report, design, Caltrans & FHWA approval, utility relocation and RIW. Env . study in process. Estimated completion date is June 2004. $935,000 $475,000 30 2002/03 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ On -going annual program. $1,510,000 $1,510,000 Overlay OOOt3(1 10 SB 821 estimated funding $65,000 * Includes ca ever funding 000.'81 City of Mo reno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 M ay 10, 2001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Page 6 of 10 Item No . Project Funding Year(s) Project Name/Limits Project Type Status T otal C ost Measure "A" Funding 31 32 33 34 35 36 2002/03 2002/03 2002/03 2002/03 2002/03 2002/03 37 2002/03 Slurry Seal Program Surface Recycling Newho pe Street Bicycle Lanes Various Project Locations Perris/Heacock-North City Limits GIS — Graphic Information System New Unsignalized Intersection (TBD) * Includes carryover funding Resurface Rehabilitation Street Improvements Bike Lane Project Street Improvements Creating Street Data Layers On -going annual program . On -going annual program. Construction completion date is February 2003. On -going program pending receipt of Grant funding. Pending receipt of Grant funding. Add public infrastructure information onto City-wide mapping system for tracking, query, and efficient maintenance. Traffic Signal Pending studies identifying specific improvements. $1,450,000 $120,000 $225,000 $150,000 $3,400,000 $100,000 $175,000 $1,450,000 $120,000 $225,000 $75,000 $1,225,000 $100,000 $175,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP .TATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 City of Mo reno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Item No. Project Fundin g Year(s) Project NamelLimits Project Type Status T otal C ost Measure " A" Funding 38 2002/03 Pavement Management Street Pavement Condition Update Ongoing annual program to update condition of street pavement. $15,000 $15,000 39 2002/03 Street Improvement Inventory for GASB 34 Requirements Evaluate Public Infrastructure Review and evaluate public infrastructure. $50,000 $50,000 40 2002/03 Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral "B" Bridge Planning stag e, project report j oint project with City and RCFC & WCD. $2,745,000 $978,000 Page 7 of 10 2002-2003 SUBTOTAL $10,875,000* $6,398,000* 41 2003/04 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ Overlay On -going annual program. $1,500,000 $1,500,000 42 2003/04 Slurry Seal Program Resurface On -going annual program . $1,000,000 $1,000,000 43 2003/04 Surface Recycling Rehabilitation On -going annual program. $120,000 $120,000 000182 * Includes c over funding r 0001_83 City of Moreno Vall ey Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Item No. 44 45 46 47 48 2003-2004 SUBTOTAL 49 Pro ject Fundin g Year(s) 2003/04 2003/04 2003/04 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPO KTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Project Name/Limits Route 60/Nason Interchange Locust East of Re dlands Interconnects/HES (TBD) 2003/04 Newhope/Alessandro 2004/05 2004/05 Annual Pavement Resurfacing Slurry Seal Program * Includes carryover funding Project Type Interchange Imp. Lanes East and West Bound Street Improvements Traffic Signal Status Consultant retained May 1997 for design. Requires revised project report, design, Caltrans & FHWA approval, utility relocation and RNV. Envir onmental study in process. Estimated completion date is June 2004 . P ending studies identifying n ec essary improvements. Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s) . Install two (2) miles of interconnect . Traffic Signal Pending design of project. Rehabilitation/ Overlay Resurface On -going annual program. On -going annual program, raN Total C ost $2,790,000 $60,000 $440,000 $175,000 Page 8 of 10 Measure " A" Funding $321,000 $60,000 $440,000 $175,000 $6,085,000 * $3,616,000 * $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP' TATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 City of Mo reno Valley Prem Kumar (909) 413-3108 May 10, 2001 Item No. Pro ject Funding Year(s) Project Name/Limits Project Type Status Total Cost Measure "A" Fundi ng 50 2004/05 Surface Recycling Rehabilitation On -going annual program. $120,000 $120,000 51 2004/05 Route 60/Nason, Interchange Interchange Imp . Lanes East and West Bound Consultant retained May 1997 for design . Requires r evised project report, design, Caltrans & FHWA approval, utility relocation and R NV. Env. study in process. Estimated completion date is June 2004. $1,100,000 $220,000 52 2004/05 Krameria Avenue @ Lasselle Street Traffic Signals Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s). $175,000 $175,000 53 2004/05 Heacock Street @ Parkland Avenue Traffic Signals Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s) . $175,000 $175,000 54 2004/05 Interconnects/HES (TDB) Traffic Signals Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s) . $280,000 $280,000 Page 9 of 10 55 2004-2005 SUBTOTAL 2005/06 Oa. lvement Resurfacing Rehabilitation/ Overlay On -going annual program. $4,350,000* $3,470,000 * $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Includes c over funding C 000185 ity of Moreno Valley rem Kumar (909) 413-3108 ay 10, 2001 item Project No. Funding Year s 56 57 58 59 2005/06 2005/06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPOrcTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) MEASURE "A" STREETS AND ROADS FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006 Project NamelLimits 2005/06 2005/06 Slurry Sea l Program Surface Recycling Project Type New Unsignalized Intersection (TBD) Unsignalized Intersections (TBD) 2005-2006 SUBTOTAL Resurface Rehabilitation Status Traffic Signals Traffic Signals On -going annual program. On -going annual program . Total Cost Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s) . Pending studies identifying specific improvement(s) . Page 10 of 10 Measure "A" F unding $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $120,000 $175,000 $120,000 $175,000 $350,000 $350,000 $3,145,000 * $3,145,000 * $39,847,800 $28,148,90 J;ICAPPROJ\Measure A15YEAR12001-061ANALYSIS1Projections - Short.doc Includes car ryover funding RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY: 2,3e)/ -- OZ Agenc y: City of Murri eta Prepared by: Dan Cl ark Pho ne No.: (909) 461-6075 Da te: May 1, 2001 Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. PR OJE CT NAME/LIMITS PR OJ ECT TY PE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEAS URE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1 Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 9 3 9 2 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 66,6) p J C:/Excell/MeasA5yr O O 00 RIVERSID E CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASUR E "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROGRAM FY: 2 c OZ - 03 Page2of5 PRO JE CT NAME /LIMITS P ROJECT TY PE _ TOTAL C OST ($000'S) MEASURE A F UNDS ($000'S) M urrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements '] 9(n 3 3 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct R oad Impr ovements 7 / / CL RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A"LOCAL F UNDS PROGRAM FY: 2 3 - o 4 - Page 3 of 5 PROJECT NAME /LIMITS P ROJECT TYP E TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEAS URE A FUNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements %, Ca G� 3 5 J Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements 1 S7 50 / O U 1—+ 00 ;y7 RIVERSI DE COUNTY T RANSPO RTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROG RAM FY: 2e4 — OS Page 4 of 5 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS P ROJECT TYP E TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASUR E A FUNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from So uth City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 and 1-215 Inte rchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements -7 9 6 33 J Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide L Construct Road Improvements go 4, S3 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY: 2op.5 p‘, P age 5 of 5 PROJECT NAME /LIMITS PR OJ ECT TYP E T OTAL COST ($000'S) MEAS URE A FUNDS ($000'S) Murrieta Hot Springs Road from South City Limits to 1-15, and 1-15 a nd 1-215 Interchanges Design and Construct Road Improvements 1 `J Co 339 Pavement Rehabilitation Citywide Construct Road Improvements c3 S' 570 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000 - 2001 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Sche nk Date: May 2, 2001 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE 1 2 Carryover Projects (Previous Years) California Avenue - East to Sixth Streets Kips Korner Ro ad/Western Avenue - Second to Parkridge and Top 0 the Walk Overlay - Coordinating with Storm Drain Installation Reconstruction - After Water Line Installation Total C ost ($000's) $ 43,000 $ 142,000 Measure "A" F unds ($000's) 43,000 142,000 /31486 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPOh.,4TION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2000 - 2001 Agency: City of N orco Prepared by: J. Sche nk Date: May 2, 2001 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS Yuma Interch ange Payback Broken Arrow Street - Corydon Av enue to Bluff Str eet River Drive - Center to Hillside Avenues Chestnut Drive - Bluff Street to Corydon Ave nue Buckskin Lane - California to Crestview Avenues Street Striping River Drive - Coron a to Valley View Misc. Seal Coating Hamner Avenue - 1st to 3rd Street (match) M arket Street Signa l @ Hamner Avenue (match) 'ISTEA projects (match) Hamner Avenue - 3rd Street to Santa Ana River 5th Street - Norco Drive to California Avenue 7th Street - Valley View to California Avenue Parkridge Avenue - Cota to 2nd Street 2nd Street - River to Hamner Avenue PROJECT TYPE Reconstruction/ Overlay Reconstruction/Overlay Overlay Overlay Street Striping Widening Seal Coating Overlay - Completed Street Improvement - Contract Awarded Overlay $ 310,000 $ $ 145,000 $ $ 1,100,000 $ Total Cost ($000's) Measure "A" Funds ($000's) $ 266,200 $ 266,200 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 41,600 $ 41,600 $ 34,000 $ 34,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 71,000 9,000 130,000 /31486 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001 - 2002 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: May 2, 2001 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS Bluff Street - River Road to Stagecoach Drive Roundup Road - Corral to Trail Alhambra Street - Norco Drive to River Ridge Cedar - Norco Drive to n/o Pali 6th Street - Cedar to River Ridge Riding Ring Road - Western to Pacific Caballeros, Indian Horse, Roan Paddock Lane - E/O Mountain Valley View Ave - 6th Street to Detroit Reservoir - Corona to Temescal Street Striping (Augmentation) M isc. Pavement Repair PROJECT TYPE Reconstruction / Overlay Overlay Overlay / Reconstruction Overlay Overlay / Reconstruction Overlay / Reconstruction Overlay Overlay Overlay / Reconstruction Striping Pavement Repair Page: 1 of 1 Total Cost Measure "A" ($000's) F unds ($000's) $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 74,000 $ 74,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 62,000 $ 62,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 74,000 $ 74,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000 $ 27,000 $ 27,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 /31486 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2002 - 2003 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Da te : May 2, 2001 Page: 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME / LIMITS PROJECT TYPE _ T otal C ost ($000's) Measure "A" Fu nds ($000's)_1 1 Pikes Peak Drive - Sixth to Mount Shasta Reconstruction $ 17,500 $ 17,500 2 Mount Shasta Drive - Crestview to Mount Rushmore Overlay $ 38,250 $ 38,250 3 Mount Verde Drive - Entire Length Overlay $ 17,200 $ 17,200 4 M ount Blanc Court Overlay $ 6,500 $ 6,500 5 Mo unt Baldy Court Overlay $ 4,600 $ 4,600 6 Mount Rushmore Drive - Crestview to Mount Shasta Overlay $ 43,700 $ 43,700 7 Crestview Drive - Seventh to Eighth Overlay $ 29,000 $ 29,000 8 Sixth Street - Crestview to Animal Control Overlay $ 21,500 $ 21,500 9 La Quinta Way - Garden Grove to Huerta Overlay $ 22,300 $ 22,300 10 Garden Gro ve Avenue - Reservoir to Hillside Overlay $ 23,900 $ 23,900 11 Sunny Hills Drive - Vine to Corydon Overlay $ 30,1001 $ 30,100 12 Sage Tree Lane Overlay $ 11,800 $ 11,800 13 I Lasso Lane Overlay $ 9,900 $ 9,900 14 Street Striping Striping $ 20,000 $ 20,000 15 M isc. Pavement Repair Pavement Repair $ 30,000 $ 30,000 '1486 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2006 Agency: City of Norco Prepared by: J. Schenk Date: May 2, 2001 ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROJECT NAME / LIMITS Street Reconstruction M iscellaneous Pavement Street Striping Miscellaneous Seal Coats Misc. Pavement Repair Traffic Signal Improve ments Yuma Interchange Payback PROJECT TYPE Total Cost ($000's) $ 490,000 $ 90,000 $ 60,000 $ 120,000 $ 90,000 $ 40,000 $ 760,000 Page: 1 of 1 Measure "A" Fu nds ($000's) $ 490,000 $ 90,000 $ 60,000 $ 120,000 $ 90,000 $ 40,000 $ 760,000 /31486 June 12, 2001 CITY OF PERRIS DEPARTIdIJT OF =Gm=Roo 170 w1t�R:S 9O9) 943-604 FITE AQ (9009)943-8416 CA TQ 2200 SAMS tiOTs„ AOS, CITY 11:2rGTIME3i Mr. Jerry Rivera, Program Manager RCTC 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: City of Perris 5 -Year Plan The following projects are to be included in City of Perris's 5 year plan utilizing Measure "A", Gas Tax, Federal and other local funds: Project Fiscal Year Type Total Cost ($1&000's) 300 ' Measure "A" (S1,000' s) Orange Ave. & Indian Ave. 01-02 Pavement Rehab & Widening 150 Ramona Exp. 01-02 Pavement Rehab 900 _ 200 "G" Street 01-02 Pavement Rehab. 400 200 Enchanted Heights 01-02 1 Pavement Rehab. 250 0 Webster Avenue 01-02 New Pavement 300 300 Misc. Pavement Projects, i Intersection Imp. & Signals 01-05 Signals & Widening 1,000 300 Diana & San Jacinto Imp. 02-03 Pavement Rehab 500 400 "D" Street _ 02-03 Pavement Rehab 200 200 Miscellaneous Dirt Road Imp. 02-03 _ New Pavement 300 300 Case Road 02-03 Pavement Rehab 600 0 Ethanac Road Improvements 03-04 Pavement Rehab 300 300 Copper Creek Subdivision 03-04 ^Pavement Rehab. J 150 150 Ramona Expressway (Phase IV) _ 04-05 Pavement Rehab 1.000 759 Redlands Ave. 04-05 Pavement Rehab 300 300 Enclosed is the M.O.E. certification and the supporting documents. The priority and timing of the above projects may be subject to change. Please call if you have any questions or need any further information. S incerel M City Engineer 000196 RIV ERSI DE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A" LOCAL F UN DS P ROGRAM FY 2001- 2002 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Rick McGrath Phone No.: (909) 826-55¢0 Date: June 11, 2001 ITEM NO . PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJ ECT TYPE Page 1 of 7 TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A F UN DS ($000'S) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Major Street Rehabilitation Central Ave. Widening, Van Buren Blvd. to Adams St . Union Pacific at Palmyrita Ave. Union Pacific at Columbia Ave. Van Buren Blvd. - City Limits to Dufferin Ave. Jurupa Ave. Underpass La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction University Ave. - Ottawa Ave. to Eucalyptus St. 9 Mitchell Ave. - Wells Ave. to Arlington Ave. 10 Van Buren Blvd. Widening - Magnolia to 91 Fwy. 11 Jurupa Ave. - Van Buren Blvd. to Crest Ave. 12 Tyler St. - Wells to Eureka * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. Street Resurfacing Street Widening Street Widening, Crossing Improve. Street Widening, Crossing Improve . Street Widening Street Underpass Interchange Improvements M edians Street Widening Street Widening Street Extension Street Widening 2,000 1,500 130 200 1,100 14,000 16,800 2,100 800 5,000 2,200 4,750 1,000 1,000 *450 *130 *200 *1,100 3,000 *4,000 *200 *2,100 *800 *3,000 *2,200 *4,500 RIVE RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEAS URE "A"LOCAL F UNDS PROGRAM FY 2001- 2002 Agency: City of Riverside Prepa red by: Rick Mc Gra'Ih Phone No.: (909) 826-5560 Da te: June 11, 2001 ITE M NO . PROJ ECT NAME/LIMITS Page 2 of 7 PR OJ ECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000' S) MEASURE A F UN DS ($000'S) 13 Indiana Avenue - Monroe to Doyle 14.91 FreewayNan Buren Boulevard 15 Tyler @ Campbell 16 Tyler @ Gramercy 17 Spruce @ Atlanta 18 La Sierra Ave. - Gramercy to Arlington 19 Computers/Office Furniture 20 CADME Street Plan 21 General Plan Update 22 County Integrated Plan 23' Alessandro/Canyon Crest/Overlook Parkway 24 Arlington Ave. at Phoenix Ave. Street Widening Interchange Traffic Signal Installation Traffic Signal Installation Traffic Signal Installation Street Widening Engineering Workstations Data Updates Update General Plan City's Contribution to County Traffic Signal Traffic Signal 300 14,600 100 100 120 3,800 10 1,600 100 255 90 90 *300 *2,600 *100 *100 *120 *3,400 10 40 100 255 90 90 * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. RIV ERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION M EASURE "A" LOCAL FUN DS PROGRAM FY 2001- 2002 Agency: City of Riverside Prepa red by: Rick McGrath Pho ne No.: (909) 826-55¢0 Da te: June 11, 2001 Page 3 of 7 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJE CT TYP E TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUN DS ($000'S) 25 Brockton Ave. at Nelson St . Traffic Signal 120 120 26 Chicago Ave. at Ranson Rd. Traffic Signal 70 70 Subtotal Project Costs 71,935 Subto tal FY2002 Meas. A Fundi ng 5,775 Subto tal Prior Meas. A Funding 25,300 naIca tes Measure A tunamg in prio r thscal years. g: lcommon Imeasacip2001 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Rick McGrath Phon e No.: (909) 826-5.560 D ale: Jun e 11, 2001 ITEM1 NO. RIV ERSI DE C OUNTY T RANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON M EASUR E "A" LOCAL F UN DS PROG RAM FY 2002- 2003 Page 4 of 7 PROJECT NAM E/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE T OTAL COST ($000'S) 1 Campbell Ave. - Mitchell Ave. to Jones Ave. 2 Traffic Signal Improvements 3rAlessandro Blvd. /Canyon Crest Dr. Intersection 4 Major Street Rehabilitation 5 Victoria Ave. M edians - La Sierra to Boundary Ln. 6 BNSF Railroad Crossing at Spruce St. 7 Computers/Office Furniture 8 CADME Street Plan * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g: lcommon lmeasacip2001 Street Widening Traffic Signals Medians Street Resurfacing Medians Street Widening, Crossing Improve. Engineering Workstations Data Updates Subtotal Project Costs Subtotal FY2003 Meas. A Funding Subtotal Prio r Meas. A Funding 800 200 850 2,000 1,550 150 10 1,600 7,160 MEASURE A FUN DS ($000'S) 800 200 850 2,000 1,100 150 10 55 5,165 RIV ERSI DE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION M EASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003- 2004 Agency: City of Riverside Prepa red by: Rick McGrath Pho ne No.: (909) 826-5500 D ate: June 11, 2001 Page 5 of 7 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUN DS ($000'S) 1 Traffic Signal Improvements Traffic Signals 200 200 2 Gramercy Pl. - La Sierra Ave. to Bushnell Ave . Street Widening 850 850 3 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,000 2,000 4 Alessandro Blvd. /Canyon Crest Dr. Intersection Medians 850 850 5 La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction Interchange Improvements 16,800 2,700 *200 6 Central Ave. - Lochmoor Dr. to City Limits Medians 350 350 7 Overlook Parkway Arroyo Crossing Street Extension 2,000 200 8 CADME Street Plan Data Updates 1,600 55 9 Computers/Office Furniture Engineering Workstations 10 10 Subtotal Pr oject C osts 24,660 Subtotal FY2004 Meas. A Funding 7,215 Subto tal Prio r Meas. A Funding 200 naIca tes Measure A tundmg in prior fiscal years. g: lcommonlmeasacip 2001 RI VERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004- 2005 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Rick Mc Grath Phon e No.: (909) 826-5500 Date: June 11, 2001 Page 6 of 7 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAM E/L!M!TS PROJECT TY PE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUN DS ($000'S) 1 2 La Sierra Ave. /M agnolia Ave. Intersection La Sierra/91 Fwy. Reconstruction 3 Traffic Signal Improvements 4 Major Street Rehabilitation 5 La Sierra Widening - Indiana Ave. to Cleveland Ave. 6 Union Pacific Crossing at M arlborough Ave. 7 Union Pacific Crossing at Rustin Ave. 7 Overlook Parkway Arroyo Crossing 8 Computers/Office Furniture 9 CADM E Street Plan * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. Medians Interchange Improvements Traffic Signals Street Resurfacing Street Widening Street Widening, Crossing Improve . Street Widening, Crossing Improve. Street Extension Engineering Workstations Data Updates Subtotal Project C osts Subtotal FY2005 Meas. A Funding Subtotal Prior Meas. A Funding 400 16,800 200 2,100 800 200 150 2,000 10 1,600 24,260 400 2,700 *200 200 2,100 800 200 150 500 *200 10 55 7,115 400 RIVERSIDE CO UNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME AS UR E "A" LO CAL FUN DS PRO GRAM FY 2005- 2006 Agency: City of Riverside Prepared by: Rick McGrath Phone No.: (909) 826-55¢0 Da te: June 11, 2001 ITE M NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS Traffic Signal Improvements Major Street Rehabilitation Minor Street Rehabilitation Overlook Parkway Arroyo Crossing Computers/Office Furniture CADME Street Plan T PROJECT TYPE Traffic Signals Street Resurfacing Street Resurfacing Street Extension Engineering Workstations Data Updates Subtotal Pr oj ect Costs $ Subtotal FY2006 Meas . A Funding Subto tal Prior Meas. A Funding tal FY2002-2006 Meas. A Funding TOTAL C OST ($000'S) 200 2,200 3,600 2,000 10 1,600 9,610 $ Page 7 of 7 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 200 2,200 1,800 1,300 *700 10 55 5,565 700 30,835 * Indicates Measure A funding in prior fiscal years. g: l commonlmeasacip2001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist 03rd St Hammond Rd .28 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Dale Kiler Rd 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 4 07th St Date Palm St .25 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Dale Kiler Rd 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) 4 10th Ave C 8 D Blvd Intake Blvd (Rte 95) 1.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst and widen road Coordinate with the City of Blythe for paving the south 1/2 of the road. 4 16th Ave Atlantic Ave Ply to end .23 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road 3 48th St Troth St Bain St .62 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 16 (ft) Pulverize and Resurf RMS paved road 2 64th St Downey St Archer St .55 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf AC paved road as part of a Flood Control storm drain project. 2 Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 301 other 40 D E R C Total Y 40 301 other 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 D E R C Total 1 25 2 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 98 D E R other 74 C Total 1 172 301 other 53 Total 1 53 300 other 3 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 12 0 C 0 0 0 38 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 86 D E C Total 1 86 3 1 0 82 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other 18 D E R C Total 1 18 73rd Ave 4 Windlass Dr Ely Windlass Dr .16 mi .16 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface Paved Road 301 other 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 D E R C Total 1 26 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 23 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000201 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 Academy Dr 3 300 University Ave Cornell St .20 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM other Alberta Ave Swingle Ave .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wly 0.15 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 38 Total 38 4i 301 48 Alviso Ave Ave Juan Diaz Ply 0.34 mi .34 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total 48 21 300 60 other Total 60 Angel Way 3 300 15 Malibar Ave S'ly 0.05 mi E .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) R Grind and Resurf with AHRM other C D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 38 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 10 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 37 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 6 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 53 300 Measure A/Western Total 15 Angela Ave 2 300 28 D 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi E .12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) R Grind and Resurf with AHRM other C Antelope Rd Scott Rd 1.53 (mi) Resurf with 0.17' AHRM Craig Ave 23 (ft)/ 23 (ft) Total 28 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 22 31 300 301 l D Arrowhead Blvd 18th Ave 1.00 (mi) Resurf 26',0.21'RMS 20th Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) E R other C Total 301 41 302 00020 other 2 0 299 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 D E R C Total 103 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Aruba Ct 4 Port Royal Ave Nly Port Royal 0.02 mi .02 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconstruct Surface Atlantic Ave Dillon Rd 16th Ave .50 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Total 301 other Total 31 301 Ave San Timoteo Orchard St .87 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Avenida Miravilia 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Bain St Union St _ San Sevaine Way .27 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Pulverize and Resurf RMS paved road 2 Baker St Kennedy St .42 (mi) Resurf 0.17' AC Limonite Ave 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 2 Bautista Rd NW'ly Bautista 4.95 mi 1.71 (mi) Grind and Resurf NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 3 Bautista Rd NW'ly Ranch Rd 1 mi 2.87 (mi) Reconst Fairview Ave 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 3 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 11 11 91 91 163 163 76 76 110 110 344 344 776 776 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 11 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 25 0 C 0 0 0 63 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 3 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 159 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 3 0 72 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 94 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 310 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 1 0 700 000206 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Beckman Dr Jackson St .12 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wily end 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) 4 Belmont Ct Piping Rock Rd S'ly Piping Rock .09mi .09 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Blue Hill Dr Griffith Dr Crews Hills Dr .17 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Bohlen Rd Mitchell Rd Nly .50 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Const 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/Berms 3 Bowden Dr Hopewell Ave .25 (mi) Recon AC surface Cambridge Ave 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Boyer Ave Yale St Katharin St .16 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Recon AC paved road surface 3 Bradley Rd Estate Dr Cherry Hills Blvd .51 (mi) 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 000207 Fund Source Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 23 23 10 10 28 28 103 103 50 50 59 59 201 201 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 D E R C 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 100 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 50 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 201 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.D Brookside Ave Nancy Ave .80 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Beaumont Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) ist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 31 300 Burgess Way Westover Wy Windsor Dr .08 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Butler Bay Nevis Pl .10 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Trinity Cir 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Butternut Ln Ridgeview Terrace N'ly 0.06 mi .06 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf 0.12' AC 2 Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 3.00 (mi) Recon AC paved road Lake Mathews Dr 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 1 Cajalco Rd Kirkpatrick Rd Lake Mathews Dr 2.70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst AC paved road, widen shoulders and Construct left turn pockets at Archer Rd, Kirkpatrick Rd and Lake Mathews Dr. 1 Cajalco Rd La Sierra Ave 2.70 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Temescal Canyon Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 other 117 Total I 117 300 other 19 Total 1 19 301 other Total 300 other 23 23 43 Total 1 43 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 103/04 1 04/05 05/06 0 0 8 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 108 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 19 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 23 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 6 1 0 36 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 1855 D E R other C Total 1 1855 300 other Total 420 1280 1700 300 1 1410 other Total 1 1410 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 150 10 0 3 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 1672 0 0 0 0 D E R C 140 20 0 2 0 0 0 258 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 180 20 0 0 0 0 1210 000203 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Calico Ave Chaparral Rd .21 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Cottonwood Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) 3 Calle De Las Flores Clearwater Wy .31 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Snow View Dr 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) 4 Camellia Dr Yale St Lois Ct .23 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC, 0.12' AHRM 3 Capilano Dr Piping Rock Rd Wentworth Dr .26 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Cedar St Tumbleweed St 52nd St .94 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Center St 6 various intersection .00 (mi) Const/Retrofit access ramps (ft)/ (ft) 5 Chabela Dr Soboba Rd .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf San Jose Dr 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 3 000209 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 124 124 55 55 44 44 51 51 159 159 13 16 29 23 23 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = EnviorrmentaL C = Construction 01/02 102/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 111 D 0 5 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 0 49 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 44 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 51 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 143 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 13 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 5 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 17 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount 'x $1000 Chambers Ave Murrieta Rd .95 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Bradley Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Total Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 31 300 1 301 Chaparral Rd Tamarack Rd .37 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) other Total 1 301 3 300 215 other Total 215 Cherry Cove Calle De Las Flores .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 301 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 21 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 193 300 Measure A/Western 41 301 1 49 Cherry Hills Blvd Valley Blvd 1.47 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Bradley Rd 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) other Total 1 49 31 300 1 257 Chickadee Way Robin Dr .05 (mi) Resurf AC paved road E'ly End 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Design for groundwater and drainage problems. other 1 256 Total 1 513 31 300 1 31 Clark St Martin St Markham St .50 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Pulverize, Resurf 0.30' AC other Total 1 31 D E R C 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 43 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 257 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western E R C 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 300 1 106 Clark St Cajalco Rd 1.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Martin St 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) other Total 1 106 11 300 1 252 other Total 1 252 D E R C 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 231 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000210 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Clearwater Way Calle De Las Flores .16 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Total 4 301 32 S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi 17 (ft)/ 17 (ft) other Total 1 32 Clinton Keith Rd Avenida La Cresta Murrieta City Limits 1.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst road Coordinate with the City of Murrieta for the west half of 0.3 miles of road. 11 300 1 605 Clinton St Fred Waring Dr S'ly to C.L. .75 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Resurf west 1/2 of AC paved road other Total 1 605 41 301 1 266 Coachella Valley Area various roads 6.00 (mi) Resurf (ft)/ (ft) other Total 1 266 41 301 I 1130 Colgate Ct Fulton Ave S'ly 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other 1 360 Total 1 1490 31 300 1 12 other Total 1 12 Collegian Way 31 300 43 Columbia St Major Dr .19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM other Total 1 43 Collegian Way 31 300 1 48 Cornell St Ply 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM other Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 5 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 26 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley r1M W d' U 60 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 540 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 130 0 0 0 850 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 48 000211 D E R C 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Contour Ave Hansen Ave Ely .66 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road Construct in summer when school is out. Water crosses over the road. Total 31 300 Coral St Calle De Las Flores .19 (mi) Resurf AC paved road S'ly Palm Oasis 0.05mi 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) other Total 41 301 Corral St Homestead St E'ly Homestead 0.19 mi .19 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Corydon St Grand Ave Mission Tr 1.56 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon AC paved road 1/2 in the City of Lake Elsinore. Pursue coop w/City. Funds represent half width improvements. 1 Cottonwood Rd Tamarack Rd .45 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) 3 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Crews Hill Dr Wily Griffith 0.03 mi Blue Hill Dr .16 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Crystal Springs Dr Calle De Las Flores .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 203 203 65 65 27 27 363 363 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 200 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 6 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 58 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 21 D E C 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 342 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 260 28 28 52 52 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 0 234 D E R C 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 46 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000212 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 De Portola Rd (2 segments) S'ly Monte De Oro .5mi Glen Oaks Rd 4.25 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC paved road Segment 2 is from Anza Rd to Pauba Rd Total 31 300 1 1702 Dillon Rd Worsley Diablo Rd 1.00 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road Coordinate with City of Palm Springs for 10% share of project other Total 1 1702 31 301 1 85 Dillon Rd Long Canyon Rd 2.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Bennett Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) other 1 10 Total 1 95 41 301 1 121 El Rancho Dr Bradley Rd Piping Rock Rd .48 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other 1 565 Total 1 686 31 300 1 116 Elaine Dr Sycamore Rd .44 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road 16th Ave 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) other Total 1 116 31 301 1 59 Elm Ave 14th St Beaumont C.L. .49 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of Beaumont for half of road width. other Total 1 59 31 300 1 103 other Total 1 103 Elsa Ct 3 300 1 13 Lois Ct Camellia Dr .05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM other 000213 Total 1 13 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 D 161 0 0 0 0 E 112 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 1 1428 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 82 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley Cl v m D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 56 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 92 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total Estate Dr Bradley Rd Piping Rock Rd .05 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 300 other Total Ethanac Rd Murrieta Rd Ply to Perris C.L. .75 (mi) 12 (ft)/ 12 (ft) Reconst South side of road Coordinate with City for north side of road. 3 Eucalyptus St Esperanza Ave .17 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ida Ave 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Fleetwood Dr Via Cerro Wilson St .70 (mi) 62 (ft)/ 62 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Fordham Dr Trenton Wy Windsor Dr .09 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Fremontia Rd Tamarack Rd .37 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Cottonwood Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) 3 Fulton Ave Dartmouth St Stanford St .27 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other 12 12 192 192 37 37 253 Total 1 253 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 19 19 215 215 62 62 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 35 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 157 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 228 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 193 D E R C 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000214 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Garbani Rd Murrieta Rd Evans Rd .43 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Recon 24'-53', AC paved road Width varies from 24' to 53'. 3 Gene St Whittier Ave .05 (mi) Resurf AC paved road N'ly end 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 3 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Jack Rabbit Tr NW'ly Bridge St 1.80 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconst and widen AC Paved Road Coordinate w/project A2-0433 in Supv. Dist. 3. 5 Gilman Springs Rd SE'ly Bridge St 1.50 (mi) Reconst AC Paved Rd SH 79 (Sanderson Rd) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 3 Gilman Springs Rd 2 locations NW'ly Jack Rabbit Tr SE'ly Bridge St .00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon, realign STP Funds App'd = $2,504k. See A7-0310 in Supv.Dist.5 for companion project Fund Fund Source Source Amount .x $1000 Total 300 other 262 Total 1 262 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other 12 12 250 906 1156 2120 Total 1 2120 31 300 Glenoaks Rd Rancho California Rd 2.76 (mi) Recon AC paved road E'ly 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) other 106 2117 Total d 2223 31 300 other 837 Total 1 837 Greenwald Ave SH 74 Canyon Lake City Limit 2.61 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Pulverize, Resurf 0.33' AC Project is 31% in SD #3, and 3% in SD #1 51 300 other 428 Total 1 428 00021:5 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 D E R C 9 0 0 253 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western E R C 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 140 0 0 Oi 0 E 30 0 0 0 0 R 30 0 0 0i 0 C 0 1920 0 0, 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 106 0 0' 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 110 5 0 722 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 50 2 0 376 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) Page 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Griffith Dr El Rancho Dr Crews Hills Dr .20 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Grosse Point Dr Cherry Hills Blvd Mc Call Blvd .24 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) Resurf AC paved road This project is to complete a portion of project A90560 which was delayed for proposed waterline 3 Hansen Ave 10th St Montgomery Ave 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS w/berms 3 Hattie Ave Elm St .14 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ply end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 Helen Ave Clinton Ave .40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wly 0.4 mi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 Helen Ave Elm St .07 (mi) Grind and Resurf Ply end 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) 3 Helm Cir Beacon Dr .30 (mi) Resurface Paved Road N'ly Beacon Dr 0.3 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 4 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 44 44 76 76 203 203 30 30 101 101 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 44 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 76 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 E 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 200 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 24 0 0 0 0 D 10 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 90 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 19 7 7 300 Measure A/Western 5 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 C 4 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 000216 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total Hempstead Ct 3 300 Ply Windsor 0.05 mi Wily Windsor 0.04 mi .09 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Hermitage Dr Nly 42nd Av 0.15 mi Nly 42nd Av 0.24 mi .09 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Remove and Replace AC Surface 4 Highgrove Area various streets .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road (ft)/ (ft) Homestead St Limonite Ave Stirrup St .31 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Hopewell Ave 42nd Ave .26 (mi) Recon AC surface N'ly end 25 (ft)/ 25 (ft) 4 18 Total 1 18 301 other Total 23 23 300 I 1100 other Total 1 1100 300 other Total 301 other Total Hudson St 2f 300 58th St N'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM Ironwood Ave Theodore Ave 1.37 (mi) Badlands Landfill (ft)/ (ft) Reimburse Waste Management for advanced funds on Project A2-0507. 5 other Total 300 other 44 44 46 46 56 56 70 Total 1 70 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 18 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 23 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 50 10 0 490 50 10 0 490 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 38 D E R C 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 50 E R C 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Jackie Dr Poppy Dr S'ly 0.22 mi .22 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Jamaica Sands Dr 42nd Ave N'Ly 42nd Ave 0.46 mi .46 (mi) 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) Resurface Paved Road w/Fabric 4 Jamestown Dr Windsor Dr Trenton Wy .08 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 300 other 43 Total 1 43 301 other 97 Total 1 97 300 other D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 43 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 97 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 19 D E R C Total L 19 John Muir Rd Fern Valley Rd .27 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Seneca Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Juniper Flats Rd Juniper Springs Sly 1.61 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon 26',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS W/Berms 3 Jurupa Rd Etiwanda Ave 2.90 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Poinsetta Pl 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 2 Katharin St Whittier Ave .15 (mi) Resurf AC paved road NE'ly end 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 3 300 other 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 48 D E R C Total L 48 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 43 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other 202 D E R C Total 1 202 300 other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 200 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 733 D E R C Total f 733 300 other 30 Total 1 30 60 3 0 0 0 0 0 670 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000218 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 King Ave Van Buren Blvd .16 (mi) Reconst AC paved road Krameria Ave 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Total 11 300 1 95 La Sierra Ave El Sobrante Rd Cleveland Ave 1.90 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 64 (ft) Widen to 4 lane Mtn. Arterial Hwy Agreement with Victoria Grove,LLC. other Total 1 95 11 300 I 524 La Vida Dr Calle De Las Flores .18 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) other 1 200 Total 1 724 41 301 1 61 Lake St Acacia Ave 1.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Stetson Ave 21 (ft)/ 26 (ft) other Total 1 61 31 300 I 149 Lakeview Ave Ramona Expressway Nuevo Rd 3.05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Recon 30', 0.25' AC Add turn lanes at Post Office. other Total 1 149 31 300 1 1051 Lakeview Ave 10th St 1.11 (mi) Reconst 12th St 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) other Total I 1051 31 300 1 359 Larksong St Plumrose St Whittier St .09 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total I 359 3 300 1 24 000219 other Total I 24 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 103/04 04/05 05/06 D 0 26 0 0 0 E 0i 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 68 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 125 15 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 384 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 6 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 54 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 149 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 15 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0' 0 C 1036 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western nX1mol 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 24 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 Lasso Ct Corral St S'ly Corral 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 Leon Rd Olive Ave N'ly 0.13 mi .13 (mi) (ft)/ 26 (ft) Const AC paved road This project will complete a segment deleted from project A7-0303. Environmental clearance 3 Leon Rd (3 segments) SH 79 (N) to Keller Rd Olive Rd to Simpson Rd 5.10 (mi) (ft)/ 26 (ft) Construct AC paved road Third segment Scott Rd to Holland Rd. 3 300 other 14 D E R C Total f 14 300 other 7 Total 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 8 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 7 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 300 other 3 D E R C Total 1 3 Limonite Ave Etiwanda Ave 1-15 1.50 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road Exist R/W is 85-160 ft. 2 Limonite Ave Etiwanda Ave Bain St 1.00 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 42 (ft) Const continuous left turn lane 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 391 D E R other 1196 C Total 1 1587 2 300 Lockhart Ln Jackie Dr E'ly 0.07 mi .07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Locovia Ct Port Royal Ave .02 (mi) Recon AC surface N'ly end 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 4 135 3 0 253 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183 D E R other 1 450 C Total 1 633 300 other 71 16 0 3 0 0 0 93 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 D E R C Total 1 13 301 other 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 D E R C Total I 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000220 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Lois Ct Elsa Ct Columbia St .20 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Lorimer St Grand Ave .30 (mi) Recon RMS paved road Sly 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 Los Caballos Pauba Ave SH79 1.34 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon RMS paved road 3 Major Dr Academy Dr Collegian Wy .04 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM 3 Malaga Rd Mission Tr Ely .35 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26',0.17'AC Coordinate with the City of Lake Elsinore for the north 1/2 of street. 1 Malibar Ave Yale St E'ly 0.12 mi .12 (mi) 27 (ft)/ 27 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Maple Rd Atlantic Ave .31 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 0002_ Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Fund Source Amount x $1000 36 36 102 102 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 36 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 1 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 100 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 252 252 10 Total 10 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 40 40 21 21 49 49 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 250 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 46 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Marian View Dr SH243 Wly .40 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Market St Bridge Santa Ana River .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Seismic retrofit of bridge and replace guardrail 2 Mauna Loa Dr Mojave Nly .31 (mi) Recon 32',0.5'DG,0.21'RMS 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) 3 Mayberry Ave Columbia St .50 (mi) Recon AC paved road Dartmouth St 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 3 Mc Call Blvd Valley Blvd 1.30 (mi) Resurface AC paved road I-215 72 (ft)/ 72 (ft) 3 McKinney Ln Canyon Dr Wily end .13 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Design for groundwater and drainage problems. 3 Mira Loma Area various roads 8.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road (ft)/ (ft) 2 Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 other 61 Total 1 61 300 181 other 1 1972 Total 1 2153 301 other Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 Di 3 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 57 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Total i 48 300 other 37 Total 1 37 300 1 other 1 1037 Total 1 1038 300 other D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 45 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 37 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 1 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 81 Total li 81 300 other D E R C 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 55 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2350 Total 1 2350 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 10 0 660 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 1080 50 0 0 350 000222 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source. Source Amount x $1000 Mission Blvd UP RR X-ing 3-51.34-C Ply of Valley Way .05 (mi) 48 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing Gates, resurf road & drainage Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total I 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 21 300 1 90 Mission Tr Corydon St Malaga Rd 1.50 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 48 (ft) Reconst and widen AC paved road Half in the City of Lake Elsinore The city will reimburse Measure A funds over 7 other 1 482 Total 1 572 11 300 1 343 Mojave Rd Carol Dr .10 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) other 1 446 Total 1 789 31 301 1 19 Monte Vista Dr Baxter Rd 1.23 (mi) Resurf 28',0.21'AC Bundy Canyon Rd 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) other Total 1 19 11 300 1 174 Monterey Ave Varner Rd .60 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Ramon Rd 50 (ft)/ 50 (ft) other Total 1 174 41 301 1 166 Murrieta Rd Corson Ave 1.25 (mi) Recon AC paved road Newport Rd 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) other 1 423 Total 1 589 31 300 1 718 Murrieta Rd Scott Rd 1.75 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Corson Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) other Total 1 718 31 300 1 218 000223 other Total J 218 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 90 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 18 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 325 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 16 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n az, m H 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western CI z m D 61 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 99 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley CI A m D 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0 713 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western n7amvl 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Nancy Dr Dillon Rd N'ly to end .33 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen, Resurf RMS paved road Total 31 301 Nandina Ave Barton St Clark St 1.52 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Pulverize, Resurf 0.30' AC 1 Neptune Dr 4 Flamingo Dr Nly Via CostaBrava.2mi .25 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface Paved Road Nevis Pl Butler Bay Pl .09 (mi) Reconstruct Surface Trinity Cir 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 New Bedford Rd Westover Wy Windsor Dr .09 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 New Chicago Ave Alto Dr Acacia Ave .13 (mi) 16 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Recon surface and widen road 3 North Shore Dr Flamingo Dr .27 (mi) Resurface Paved Road other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 4 301 Nly Via CostaBrava.lmi 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 64 64 196 196 44 44 23 23 23 23 205 105 47 47 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 2 0 E 0 0 0 1 0 R 0 0 0 13 0 C 0 0 0 48 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 196 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 2 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 41 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 21 2 0 182 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 44 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000224 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 22 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Source Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 Northwood Dr Cherry Hills Blvd .34 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Mc Call Blvd 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 3 Oakmont Dr Bradley Rd .50 (mi) Resurf 36',0.17' AC Thornhill Dr 36 (ft)/ 36 (ft) 3 Old Elsinore Rd S'ly Rider 0.85 mi 2.32 (mi) Resurf AC paved road San Jacinto Ave 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Opal St 45th St .25 (mi) Const sidewalk 43rd St (ft)/ (ft) 2 Orchard St Nancy Ave .71 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Beaumont Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 3 Oreana Way Calle De Las Flores .20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Palm Oasis Ave 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 Palm Oasis Ave Snow View Dr .36 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Clearwater Wy 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) 4 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 77 77 90 90 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 77 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 758 758 21 44 65 196 196 67 67 301 other Total 000225 121 121 D E R C 95 2 0 2 0 0 0 659 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 9 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 11 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 176 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 6 0 60 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 11 0 109 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 23 06/15/2001 Name Supv.Dtst Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Fund Source Fund Source Amount Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 Description x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition (Comments) E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Palo Verde Area 4 302 535 D 0 0 0 0 0 various roads E 0 0 0 0 0 .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf RMS paved road other 360 C 0 155 70 160 150 302 Measure A/Palo Verde Total 895 Palomar Rd 3 300 47 D 3 0 0 0 0 San Jacinto Rd Dickenson Rd E 1 0 0 0 0 .28 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Ri 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 0 43 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 47 Par Dr 3 300 38 D 0 0 1 0 0 Thornhill Dr Olympia Way E 0 0 1 0 0 .26 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) R 0i 0 0 0 0 Resurf 32',0.21' AC Petromat other C 0 0 36 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 38 Paseo Grande 2 300 157 D 20 0 0 0 0 Via Del Rio Hummingbird Ln E 1 0 0 0 0 .44 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Resurf AC paved road other C 136 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 157 Pauba Rd 3 300 508 D 0 0 5 0 0 SH79 De Portola Rd E 0 0 3 0 0 2.34 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Recon RMS paved road other C 0 0 500 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 508 Peach St 3 300 34 D 0 0 0 5 0 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave E 0 0 0 1 0 .17 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 22 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf other C 0 0 0 28 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 34 Pebble,Beach Dr 3 300 55 D 0 0 0 0 0 Cherry Hills Blvd McCall Blvd E 0 0 0 0 0 .37 (mi) 40 (ft)/ 40 (ft) R 0 0 0 0 0 Grind and Resurf with AHRM other 44 C 55 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western Total 99 000226 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 24 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Pedley Area various roads 7.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved roads (ft)/ (ft) 2 Pigeon Pass Rd 5 Moreno Valley C.L. 0.7 mile North M.V.C.L .70 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 18 (ft) Recon and realign AC paved road Pilot Dr 4 Galley Dr N'Ly Galley Dr 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) Reconstruct Surface Pilot Dr Windlass Dr .20 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Ply 0.20 mi 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 4 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total 301 other Total Pine Crest Dr Paseo Grande .61 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Serfas Club Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 2 300 other Total Pinehurst Rd Bradley Rd Piping Rock Rd .47 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 31 300 Piping Rock Rd Belmont Ct .18 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 1220' S'ly 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) other Total 31 300 000227 other Total Fund Source Amount X $1000 820 820 443 443 11 11 35 35 152 152 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 103/04 04/05 05/06 D 0 0 0 10 50 E 0 0 0 5 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 355 400 300 Measure A/Western D 0 70 0 0 0 E 0 4 0 0 0 R 0 20 0 0 0 C 0 2 347 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 8 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 32 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 12 1 0 139 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 96 39 39 D E R C 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 25 06/15/2001 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 Total 300 other 37 D E R C 300 0i 0 0 0 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 31 0 0 0 0 Plum St 3 Esperanza Ave Ida Ave .17 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Grind and Resurf Total 37 300 other 32 D E R C 0 0 0 32 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumrose St 3 Cornell St E'ly 0.19 mi .19 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.15' AC and 0.12' AHRM Total 32 D E R C 0 0 0 75 301 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 75 Port Royal Ave 4 Hermitage Dr Cambridge Ave .38 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Reconstruct Surface 301 other Total 75 301 other 46 D E R C 301 0 0 0 46 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Port Royal Ave 4 Cambridge Ave Jamaica Sands Dr .22 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Recon AC surface Total 46 300 other 51 D E R C 300 3 1 0 47 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Porter Ave 1 Krameria Ave Van Buren Blvd .16 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Pulverize and Resurf RMS paved road Total 51 10 D E R C 300 0 0 0 10 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Primrose Ln 3 Viola St E'Ly 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.15' AC and 0.12' AHRM 300 other Total 10 301 other 342 930 D E R Ci 301 130 8 0 2 Measure 0 0 0 202 A/Coachella 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Valley 0 0 0 0 Ramon Rd 4 San Miguelito Dr Shadow Mountain Ln 2.40 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC paved road Total 1272 000228 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Rancho California Rd De Luz Rd 3.39 (mi) Recon AC paved road Temecula C.L. 31 (ft)/ 31 (ft) 1 Reche Canyon Rd Arroyo Dr .40 (mi) Realign road N'ly 0.4 mi 26 (ft)/ 40 (ft) 5 Record Rd Potter Rd .75 (mi) Grind and Resurf SH 79 13 (ft)/ 13 (ft) Redford Ct Pebble Beach Dr SW'ly 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.21' AC Ridgeview Ter Frontage Rd .44 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Via Santiago (ft)/ (ft) River Rd Bridge Santa Ana River .12 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Bridge Replacement RCTD Br.# S8002, State Br#. 56C 017 RCTD is working to secure the local matching Riverview Dr Limonite Ave Ave Juan Diaz 1.87 (mi) 25 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Reconstruct surface and widen Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 3 300 3 2 2 2 000229 other 1134 1134 188 396 584 80 Total 1 80 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other 10 10 199 199 85 23019 Total 1 23104 300 other 1208 Total 1 1208 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 D E R C 0 0 0 0 125 5 0 2 0 0 0 1002 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 188 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 8 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 71 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 25 1 0 173 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 45 24 0 0 16 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 95 5 0 3 0 0 0 1105 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 27 06/15/2001 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Rocky Way Double Tree Dr Wly .10 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf AC paved road 3 Round Robin Dr SH 243 SW'ly End .11 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Recon AC paved road 3 Royal Cir Jackie Dr Ply 0.07 mi .07 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Rubidoux Blvd UP RR X-ing 3-54.70-C .05 (mi) 70 (ft)/ (ft) Upgrade Crossing gates and road surface 2 Rustic Ln Opal St Pacific Ave .26 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Recon AC paved road 2 Sage Rd East Benton Rd S'ly 2.0 mi 2.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 3 Sage Rd S'ly E.Benton 2.0 mi S'ly E.Benton 4.0 mi 2.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurf RMS paved road 3 Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 other 21 Total 1 21 300 other 99 Total 1 99 300 1 12 other Total 1 12 300 other 75 432 Total 1 507 300 other 241 Total 1 241 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 18 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 21 0 0 i 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 1 76 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western E R C 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 other 368 Total 1 368 300 other 363 Total 1 363 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 358 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 358 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000230 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 28 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Sage Rd S'ly E.Benton 4.0 mi 2.00 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Ply E.Benton 6.0 mi 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Sage Rd Ply E.Benton 8.0 mi 2.27 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road SH 79 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 Sagebrush Ave W'ly Cottonwood 0.02mi .14 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 other Total 300 other 366 366 414 Total 1 414 31 300 other Total Sail Cir 41 301 Lighthouse Rd Ely Lighthouse 0.04 mi .04 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface Paved Road lother 45 45 9 Total 1 9 San Jacinto Rd 300 Fern Valley Rd .38 (mi) Resurf AC paved road other Glen Rd 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 3 San Timoteo Cyn Rd Redlands Blvd 1.20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 50% in SD#3 S.B. County Line 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 5 Sandra Dr Jackson St .11 (mi) Resurf AC paved road W'ly end 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Total 300 other 62 62 532 Total 1 532 41 301 other 24 Total 1 24 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 D 0i 0 3 0 0 E 0 0 3 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 360 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 3 E 0 0 0 0 3 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 408 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 D E R C 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 58 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 70 5 0 457 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000231 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Santa Rosa Mine Rd Lake Matthews/Gavilan Christmas Tree Ln 2.50 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf exist RMS paved road Total 11 300 1 665 Saturn Way Malibar Ave S'ly 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other Total 1 665 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 D 3 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 662 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 31 300 1 13 Scenic Dr Daryll Dr .30 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wayne Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) other Total 1 13 31 300 I 50 other Total 1 50 Scott Rd 3 300 823 1-215 Winchester Rd (SH 79N) 5.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconstruct AC paved road other and investigate widening to 4 lanes. Total 1 823 Scott Rd Murrieta Rd 2.00 (mi) Resurf AC paved road I-215 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) 31 300 1 201 Sea Gull Dr Via Costa Brova .57 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Flamingo Dr 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) other 1 681 Total 1 882 41 301 I 49 Seahorse Way Barnacle Dr .12 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Port Cir 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) other Total 1 49 41 301 1 19 other Total 1 19 D E R C 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 3 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 46 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 536 182 0 0 89 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 50 8 0 143 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 2 1 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000232 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Seeley Ave 4 Arrowhead Blvd Neighours Blvd (Rte78) 1.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Resurf 26', 0.26'RMS Shoal Dr Beacon Dr .22 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Rocky Point Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 4 Fund Source Total 302 other Total 301 other Total Silver Fir Dr Cedar Glen Dr Wly .20 (mi) Resurf AC paved road 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 300 other Total Simpson Rd Briggs Rd Rte 79 3.00 (mi) 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Reconst AC Paved Rd Investigate groundwater problem near ponds. 3 Soboba Rd N'ly Bath Ave 0.1 mi Chabela Dr .56 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Coordinate with City of San Jacinto for south half of road. 3 South Broadway 15th Ave Blythe CL .40 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Resurface 0.1', 38' A/C W/ petromat 4 Spalding Dr Cambridge Ave .25 (mi) Resurface 0.21', 35' AC Hopewell Ave 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 000233 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 108 108 28 28 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 1 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 D 3 0 0 0 0 E 2 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 103 0 0 0 0 302 Measure A/Palo Verde D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 25 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 33 D E R c 33 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1090 D E R C 1090 300 other Total 302 other Total 0 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 D E R C 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 9 0 82 0 0 0 85 D E R C 85 301 other Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 75 302 Measure A/Palo Verde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 D E R i C 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 31 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Fund Fund Source Source Amount .x $1000 Spar Cir 4 Galley Dr NWLy Galley Dr 0.07 mi .04 (mi) 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) Resurface Paved Road St. Lucia Ct 4 Port Royal Ave Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconstruct Surface Stetson Ave Hemet St Soboba St .27 (mi) 18 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Realign and widen AC paved road 3 Stetson Ave Soboba St 1.50 (mi) Widen and Reconst Surface Fairview Ave 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Stetson Ave Dartmouth St Stanford St .25 (mi) 42 (ft)/ 56 (ft) Widen road to add left turn lane Fronting Hemet High School 3 Stoneman St Grand Ave SW'ly 0.15 mi .15 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 28 (ft) Pulverize and Resurf RMS paved road 1 Studio Pl Kennedy St Lakeview Ave .15 (mi) 20 (ft)/ 20 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.21' AC Total 301 other 13 Total 1 13 301 other Total 300 other 11 11 568 212 Total 1 780 300 other Total 300 other 555 15 570 36 148 Total f 184 30D 1 31 other Total 1 31 2 300 other Total 47 47 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 1 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 10 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 11 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 531 37 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D E R C 0 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 3 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 31 000234 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 32 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Sugar Ln Ridgeview Terrace .04 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Wily 0.04 mi 30 (ft)/ 30 (ft) 2 Fund Source Total 300 other Total Sun City Area various roads .00 (mi) Resurf AC paved roads (ft)/ (ft) 3 Sun City Blvd McCall Blvd .50 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Chambers Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 3 Sun City Median Improvements Segment 4 of 5 .00 (mi) Place Stamped Concrete (ft)/ (ft) 3 Sun City Median Improvements Segment 5 Of 5 .00 (mi) Place Stamped Concrete (ft)/ (ft) 3 Swingle Ave 4 Miles Ave Wily Miles Ave 0.2 mi .20 (mi) 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) Resurface Paved Road 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total 301 other Total Sycamore Rd Atlantic Ave .31 (mi) Resurf RMS paved road Nancy Dr 33 (ft)/ 33 (ft) 3 000235 301 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 37 37 660 660 232 232 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 1 05/06 D 5 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 31 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 100 0 E 0 0 0 10 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 550 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 209 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 36 36 49 49 D E R C 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 7 1 0 42 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 2 0 46 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 33 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Sylvester Rd Mission Tr .21 (mi) Resurf 26',0.17'AC Lakeview Terrace 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 1 Tamarack Rd W'ly Verbenia 0.57 mi .57 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Verbenia Ave 48 (ft)/ 48 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Thousand Palms Canyon Rd Ramon Rd/Washington St Dillon Rd 5.00 (mi) 22 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen and Resurf RMS paved road 4 Tobago Ct 4 Port Royal Ave Nly Port Royal 0.03 mi .03 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Reconstruct Surface Tomal Ln 58th St 56th St .24 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 2 301 other Total 301 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 25 25 264 264 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 05/06 D 2 0 0 0 0 E 1 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 22 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 25 E 0 0 0 0 1 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 238 300 Measure A/Western 770 770 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 764 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 45 45 0 E R C 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 39 Trenton Way Fordham Dr Jamestown Dr .05 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Trinity Cir Port Royal Ave .20 (mi) Recon AC surface NW'ly end 35 (ft)/ 35 (ft) 4 300 other Total 301 other 13 13 D E R C 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 Total 46 D E R C 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000236 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Page 34 06/15/2001 Name Supv.Dist Limits Length (mi) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Description (Comments) Fund Source Fund Source Amount x 51000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x 51000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction Total 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Tumbleweed St 2 58th St South end .08 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 300 other 21 D E R C 0 0 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 15 Total 21 University Dr 3 Academy Dr Collegian Wy .04 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.13' AC and 0.12' AHRM 300 other 10 D E R C 0 0 0 10 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10 Valley Wy/ Armsrong Rd 2 SR 60 Sierra Ave .90 (mi) 28 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Reconst and widen to 4 lanes RCTD is working to secure the local funds needed for R/W and construction. 300 other 250 3147 D E R C 205 45 0 0 300 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3397 Van Buren Blvd 1 Mockingbird Canyon Rd .10 (mi) 48 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Const right turn lane for SE -bound traffic 300 other 120 D E R C 300 5 1 0 114i Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 120 Van Buren Blvd 1 Washington St Wood Rd 2.20 (mi) 76 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Design raised median Future Coop w/City of Riverside 300 other 127 750 D E R C 300 116 2 0 9 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 877 Van Buren Blvd 1 Mockingbird Canyon Rd Wood Rd 4.50 (mi) 61 (ft)/ 76 (ft) Design Bus turn -outs Future Coop w/RTA 300 other 78 312 D E R C 300 60 3 0 9 Measure 0 0 0 6 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 390 Van Buren Blvd (Northside) 1 West of Regency Ranch Wily 0.5 mi .50 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) Const concrete V ditch 300 other 93 D E R C 300 0 0 0 93 Measure 0 0 0 0 A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 93 000237 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Varner Rd 1.9 mi S. Chase School Berkey Dr 1.55 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Resurface AC paved road Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviorrmental C = Construction Total 4 301 90 Varner Rd Ramon Rd .70 (mi) Reconst AC paved road E'ly Harry Oliver Tr 44 (ft)/ 44 (ft) other 461 Total 551 01/02 02/03 03/04 1 04/05 1 05/06 D E R C 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 301 1 219 Vassar St Fulton Ave N'ly 0.05 mi .05 (mi) 29 (ft)/ 29 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM other ! 548 Total 1 767 3 300 1 12 other Total 1 12 D E R C 90 3 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 12 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbenia Ave Railroad Ave .51 (mi) Resurf AC paved road Chaparral Rd 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) 3 300 1 295 other Total 1 295 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 28 0 266 Verbenia Ave 3 Chaparral Rd Wily Chaparral 0.31 mi .31 (mi) 60 (ft)/ 60 (ft) Resurf AC paved road Via Costa Brava Vanderveer Rd .57 (mi) Resurface Paved Road Seaview Wy 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) 300 other 179 Total 179 4 301 60 other Total 60 Via Josefa 2 300 26 Via Santiago Frontage Rd .05 (mi) 34 (ft)/ 34 (ft) Recon AC paved road other Coordinate with City of Corona for a portion of the street. Only county costs are shown. Total 1 26 D 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 17 0 161 D E R C 2 1 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 5 0 0 E 1 0 0 R 0 0 0 C 20 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000233 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 36 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Vineland St Edgar Canyon Channel .01 (mi) Construct box culvert 26 (ft)/ 26 (ft) 3 Fund Fund Source Source Amount x $1000 Total 300 other 403 Total 1 403 Viola St Plumrose St Whittier St .09 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Remove pavement, Resurf 0.15' AC and 0.12' AHRM 3 Washington St/Ramon Rd 4 Pushawalla Rd Wily 1 mi 1000 Palm Cy 2.65 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Recon AC paved road 300 other 26 Total 1 26 301 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 01/02 102/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 D 0 0 52 0 0 E 0 0 20 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 331 0 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 26 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 262 other 1 855 Total 1 1117 Wellman Rd Terwilliger Rd Kirby St 1.00 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 26 (ft) Widen North side,0.5'DG; Resurf 26',0.21'RMS 3 Wentworth Dr Bradley Rd SE'ly 0.37 mi .37 (mi) 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Westover Way New Bedford Rd S'ly New Bedford .11mi .11 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 Windsor Dr Cherry Hills Blvd McCall Blvd .39 (mi) 41 (ft)/ 41 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 000239 300 other 103 Total 1 103 300 other 83 Total I 83 300 other 22 Total 1 22 300 I 103 other Total 1 103 DI E R C 85 4 0 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 2 1 0 100 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 37 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Name Limits Length (mi) Description (Comments) EW (ft)/PW (ft) Supv.Dist Wineville Ave Limonite Ave Bellegrave Ave 1.29 (mi) 38 (ft)/ 38 (ft) Recon AC paved road Funding is adjusted for purchased of speed trailers estimated to cost $30,000. 2 Winged Foot Dr Cherry Hills Blvd .38 (mi) Resurf with AHRM McCall Blvd 37 (ft)/ 37 (ft) 3 Fund Source Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Worsley Rd 20th Ave Dillion Rd .70 (mi) 24 (ft)/ 24 (ft) Reconstruct surface with RMS on existing base 3 Yorba Linda Ct Bradley Rd Ply Bradley 0.16 mi .16 (mi) 32 (ft)/ 32 (ft) Grind and Resurf with AHRM 3 z* Future Projects District 1 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 1 301 other Total 300 other Total 300 other Total Fund Source Amount x $1000 300 334 634 87 87 73 73 42 42 1720 1142 2862 z* Future Projects District 4 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 4 z* Future Projects District 5 Only .00 (mi) (ft)/ (ft) These funds will be used for various pavement rehabilitation projects in the years shown. 5 301 other Total 300 other Total 1100 2270 3370 800 362 1162 Measure A Funds by Fiscal Year Amount x $1000 D = Design R = Right of Way Acquisition E = Enviornmental C = Construction 01/02 J 02/03 1 03/04 04/05 05/06 D E R C 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E R C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 70 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D E R C 0 O 0 42 0 0 0 0 300 Measure A/Western 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 170 170 170 E 0 0 0 0, 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 1210 300 Measure A/Western D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 1100 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley D 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 450 350 300 Measure A/Western 000240 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Fiscal years 2002-2006 Page 38 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 06/15/2001 Fund Source Source Nme 300 Measure A/Western 301 Measure A/Coachella Valley 302 Measure A/Palo Verde * Grand Totals * 000241_ Fiscal Year (Amt x $1000) Fund Source Total Expenditure 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 (Amt x $1000) 17971 8174 5147 7140 8082 46514 2163 1317 1089 1058 1100 6727 309 155 155 160 150 929 20443 9646 6391 8358 9332 54170 City of San Jacinto Measure "A" Local Funds Program FY 2002-2006 Project Name Fiscal Year Description Total Cost Measure "A" ($1.000's) )$1.000's) Lake Park Drive 01-02 Pavement Imp. 800 50 Lyon Avenue Street Imp. 01-02 Street Imp. 400 400 Lori Ann & Pepperwood 02-03 Pavement Rehab 180 25 Sanderson Avenue 01-02 Pavement Rehab 850 300 State Street Sidewalks 01-02 Sidewalk Imp. 350 86 East Main Street 01-02 Street Imp. 300 300 Ramona Boulevard 02-03 Pavement Rehab 300 300 West Main Street 01-02 Street Imp. 250 250 Kirby Avenue 03-04 Pavement Rehab 150 150 Misc. Downtown Sidewalks 01-02 Sidewalk Imp. 106 20 Ramona Exp. Extension 02-03 Preliminary Eng. 40 40 Idyllwild Drive Imp. 01-02 Street Imp. 250 100 Ramona Blvd. & Tahquitz 01-02 Sidewalks 135 73 Paving of dirt roads 02-03 Paving 50 50 Tract 24054 01-02 Cap of Streets 100 100 Santa Fe Avenue 02-03 Pavement Rehab 100 100 De Anza Dr. bet. Young & 01-02 Pavement Rehab 180 50 Potter Ave. Total $4,541 $2,394 000242 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2001 - 2002 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/07/01 Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. PROJECT NA ME/ LIMITS 1 2 Diaz Road Realignment to Vincent Moraga Drive Rancho California Road Bridge Widening over M urrieta Creek 3 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide PROJECT TYPE Design & construction of 4 -lane roadway Bridge widening - design & construction of additional lanes Street r econstruction & rehabilitation TOTAL COSTS 942,580 2,557,300 1,840,000 MEASURE "A " FUNDS 942,580 489,300 1,350,400 r \rlauerl\Pubwks\ Meilslirr:AO? UC 1r.(1 ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 - 2003 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No. : (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/07/01 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase 11 Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide PROJECT TYPE Removal & reconstruction of asphalt concrete pavement Street reconstruction & reh abilitation TOTAL COSTS 1,841,120 830,200 Page 2 of 5 MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1,841 120 735,600 r \dauerj\P ubwks\ MeasureA02 06 Jcr1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/07/01 ITEM NO . 1 PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide PROJECT TYPE Street reconstruction & rehabilit ation TOTAL COSTS Page 3 of 5 MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1,239,000 1,144,400 r \daueri\Pubwks\ MeasureA02 (H jr;r1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/07/01 ITEM NO. 1 Page 4 of 5 TOTAL COSTS MEASURE "A" FUNDS Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide Street reconstruction & rehabilitation 1,431,000 1,336,400 r:\dauerl\Pubwks\MeasureA02-06 ;c(1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005 - 2006 Agency: City of Temecula Prepared By: William G. Hughes - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Phone No.: (909) 694-6411 Date: 06/07/01 ITEM NO. 1 PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Citywide PROJECT TYPE Street reconstruction & rehabilitation TOTAL COSTS 1,431,820 Page 5 of 5 MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1,431,820 r:\dauerj\Pubwks\ MeasureA02 06 Kcd COACHELLA VALLEY 000248' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION C OMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS C APITAL I MPROVE MENT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 THROUGH 2005-2006 Prepared by: Linda Kelly, Finance Direct or Pho ne No. (760) 329-6411 Ext . 289 Date: June 15, 2001 Available $1 159 nnn nn Item No . Pro jectDescription Fiscal Year Limits Pr oject Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 1 West Drive Street Improvements FY 00/01 - 01/02 Two Bunch Palms to Pierson Minor Paving, Curb, Guter and Sidewalk $1,317,000.00 $535,000.00 2 Indian Avenue @ Mission Lakes Blvd. FY 01/02 Intersection Improvements Minor Shoulder Widening - Safety, PM10 Improvement $102,676.00 $11,500.00 3 Palm Drive FY 00/01 - 01/02 Two Bunch Palms to Hacienda Pavement Rehabilitation $345,000 .00 _ $225,000 .00 4 Pierson Boulevard Street Improvements FY 01/02 - 03/04 Palm Driv e to Atlantic Minor Widening/Pavement Rehabilitation $850,000.00 $212,500.00 5 New Traffic Signal _ FY 02/03 _ Palm Drive @ Ironwood New Signal $175,000 .00 $175,000.00 T OTAL COSTS: $2,789,676.00 $1,159,000 .00 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2001-02 Agency: Prepared by: Date: The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director May 2, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay $430,569 $430,569 TOTAL $455,569 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 01.doc 000250 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002-2003 Agency: Prepared by: Date: The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director May 2, 2001 Item No. 1 2 TOTAL Project Name/Limits 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay 000251 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 01.doc Project Type Maintenance. Total Cost $25,000 $144,431 Measure "A" Funds $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003-2004 Agency: Prepared by: Date: The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director May 2, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $25,000 2 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Road Maintenance $25,000 $25,000 TOTAL $ 50,000 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 01.doc 000252 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004-05 Agency: The City of Indian Wells Prepared by: Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director Date: May 2, 2001 Item No. 1 2 TOTAL Project Name/Limits 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide 93-70 Citywide Pavement Overlay Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds Maintenance. Road Maintenance $163,000 $25,000 $163,000 $25,000 00025? F:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 01.doc $188,000 UPDATED PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005-06 Agency: Prepared by: Date: The City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil, P.E., Public Works Director May 2, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" Funds 1 93-48 Miscellaneous Repairs / Citywide Maintenance. $25,000 $ 25,000 _ 2 93-70 Citywide pavement _overlay Road Maintenance $150,000 $ 150,000 TOTAL $175,000 F:\Tim\Misc\RCTC MEASURES A 01.doc 000254 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M CARRYOVER PROJECTS FY 2000 — 2001 AND PRIOR YEAR(S) r\) CJ1 C.JZ Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: City of Palm Desert J oseph S. Gaugush, P.E. 760/346-0611 ext. 566 May 16, 2001 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS 1 8. 9. 10. Highway 111 and Highway 74/Monterey Avenue Page 1 of 1 PROJECT TYPE Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Project - Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Fred Waring Drive - Highway 111 to Fairhaven Drive Gerald Ford Drive - Portola Avenue to Cook Street Highway 111 — Larkspur Lane to Indian Wells City Limit NB Portola Avenue — San Marino Circle to El Cortez Way Hovley Lane — Water Way to O asis Country Club Hovley Lane West/Portola Avenue El Paseo/Larkspur Lane Shadow M ountain Drive/Portola Avenue Intersection widening, drainage improvements, and traffic signal modifications Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications TOTAL COST ($000'S) 1,000 800 Bridge and roadway widening, 50 drainage improvements, and traffic signal modifications (design) Roadway widening and 690 drainage improvements Roadway and intersection 3,000 widening, and traffic signal modifications Roadway widening and drainage improvements Roadway widening and drainage improvements Traffic Signal Installation Traffic Signal Installation Traffic Signal Installation 1,650 1,700 150 150 150 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 917 800 50 690 3,000 1,650 1,700 150 150 150 5/16/01 - G 1PubWorks\Sonja De La Fuenle\My Docu,nems\RCTC\RCTC Fu nds Program F orm FY 0001 Can yovers doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGR AM FY 2001 — 2002 Agency: Prepared by: Phone No.: Date: City of Palm Desert Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E. 760/346-0611 ext. 566 May 16, 2001 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS _ PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Fred Waring Drive — Highway 111 to Fairhaven Drive Bridge and Roadway widening, drainage improvements, and traffic signal modifications 1,500 1,500 2. Kansas Street/Hovley Lane East/Oasis Club Drive Intersection realignment and traffic signal installation 1,400 1,400 3. Highway 111 @ Desert Crossing/Toys "R" Us Intersection Intersection realignment and traffic signal modifications 350 350 5/16/01 - G 1PubWorks\Sonja De La Fuente/My Documents \I CTC1RCTC F unds Pr ogram Form 92 doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2002 — 2003 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: Joseph S. Gaugush, P .E. Phon e No.: 760/346-0611 ext. 566 Date: May 16, 2001 ITEM NO. Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS Frank Sinatra Drive — Cook Street to Gerald ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive — Cook Street to Frank Sinatra Drive PROJECT TYPE Roadway widening Roadway widening TOTAL COST ($000'S) 850 475 MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 850 475 5/16/01 - G 1PubWo rks\Sonja De La Fuenle\M y DOcurnenls/RCTCIRCTC Funds Pr ogram Forrn - FY 02-03 dot - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 Agency: City of Palm Desert o Prepared by: Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E . o Phone No.: 760/346-0611 ext. 566 U Date: May 16, 2001 U1 Pag e 1 of 1 ITEM- NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. N/B Monterey Avenue — Gerald Ford Drive to Dinah Shore Drive Roadway widening, traffic signal and drainage improvements 1,000 1,000 2- Gerald Ford Drive/Frank Sinatra Drive Traffic signal installation 150 150 5/16/01 - G \PubWorks/Sonla De La Fuente\My Documenls\RCTC\RCTC Funds Program Form • Fs( doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 — 2005 Agency: City of Palm Desert Prepared by: J oseph S. Gaugush, P.E. Phon e No .: 760/346-0611 ext . 566 Date: May 16, 2001 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Portola Avenue/I-10 Overcrossing Freeway overcrossing (Feasibility Study) 100 100 2. San Pablo Avenue — Magnesia Falls Drive to COD Driveway Roadway widening 400 400 5/16/01 - G \PubWorks/So nla De La Fuenle\M y Documenlsd2CTC\RC IC F unds Progr am F oirn - FY 04-05 doc - sd RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2005 — 2006 Agency: Prepared by: Phon e N o.: Date: City of Palm D esert J oseph S. Gaugush, P.E. 760/346-0611 e xt . 566 May 16, 2001 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE Portola Avenue/I-10 Overcrossing Dinah Shore Drive — Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue Portola Avenue/Whitewater Channel Freeway overcrossing (design and R/W phase) New roadway construction (design phase) Bridge construction TOTAL COST MEASURE A ($000'S) FUNDS ($000'S) 1,000 1,000 600 600 5,000 5,000 5/16/01 - G /PubWorks\Sonja De La Fu en le/My Do cuments /RCfC\RCTC Funds Program Form 1 V 05 06 doc • sd RIVERSIDE COUNT Y'. ANSP ORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Manager) Date: June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2001-02) Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (FY 00/01) PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* 7* Mesquite Ave. (Desert Way — Demuth Park) SB-821 (99/00) Vista Chino Sidewalk/Bikewa Bridge Repairs (99/00) Araby Drive Flood Control Study Gene Autry Tr. Sidewalk/Bikeway (Ramon- V.Chino) N. Indian Canyon Widen s/o 1-10 to RR Bridge Belardo Rd. Bridge/ Roadways (Ramon- S. End) *Continued from Prior Year(2000/0 I ) Street Widening — south 1/2 239,000 Sidewalk/Bikeway/Bus Stop w/o Sunrise Way 61,527 Misc . Repairs- Various Brid ' es 50,000 Study Drainage Alternatives 75,000 RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 317.000 RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 200,000 Federal PLH-D Grant (L ocal Match) 4.083,000 00/01 Projects Continued to 01/02 $ 5,025,527 239,000 23,500 50 ,000 75,000 46,000 33,000 236,000 $702,5011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROG RAM Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Ma nager) Date: Ju ne 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Meas ure A Local Streets & Roads I'rogram (FY 2001-02) ITEM NO. Page 2 of 3 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS (2000/01) PROJECT TYPE (1-7) 8* 9* 10* 12* 13* (Carried Forward from Previous Page) 2000/01 Projects Continued: Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Indian Canyon/ 1-10 Interchange (Design Only) Bridge Misc. Repairs- 00/01 (Annual Program) Annual SB-821 School Sidewalk Grant (00/01) CMAQ- PM -10 Mitigation- Vario us Lo cations Gene Autry/ Ramon Median Island Landscape * 2000/01 Projects Continued to 2001/02 (00/01 Projects Carried Over to 01/02) Slurry Streets (Contract Crews) Design New 6- Lane Interchange at 1-10 Repairs to Various Palm Springs Bridges Local Measure A match ($66,500 SB821) L ocal CMAQ Match f or Paving Projects 2000/01 TEA Grant (L ocal Match) (Subtotal of New 2000/01 Pr ojects Above) YR. 2000/01 TOTALS T OTAL cosT $5,025,527 400,000 1,500,000 100,000 95,000 500,000 604,000 $3,199,000 $8,224,527 MEASURE „A " FUNDS 5702,500 400,000 200,000 100,000 28,500 100,000 108,000 $936,500 51,639,000 RI VE RSIDE COUNTY '. ANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE " A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs ' Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Manager) , June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr . Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2001-02) Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO. (1-13) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS *2000/01 Projects continued to 2001/02 N ew 2001/02 Projects Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) A RHM Street Overlay(s) LED Retrofit of City -Wide Traffic Signals SB 821 Baristo Rd. Scho ol Safety Sidewalk Grant Gene Autry/Palm & 1-10 Interchange Construction Indian Canyon RR Bridge @ WW River (Design) Tahquitz & Sunrise/ E. Palm Canyon & S.Palm Can. Tachevah Drive Traffic Safety (Desert Hospital) PROJECT TYPE (From tw o previous pages) Crack Filling (C ontract Crews) Asphalt -Rubber Overlys (Contract Crews) Install Energy Saving LEDs (City Match) N. Side Baristo (e/o Sunrise to w/o Farrell) City share of Joint County/CVAG (Design) 4 -lanes (80% HBRR Grant) -design only Traffic Signal M odifications TOTAL COST $8,224,527 50,000 375,000 400,000 45,000 12,228,000 1,600,000 100,000 MEASURE FUNDS $1,639,000 50,000 375,000 40,000 36,000 500,000 40,000 100,000 Lighted Walk New 2001/02 Projects S.T . 2001/02 T OTALS 5,000 $14,803,000 $23,027,000 5,000 $1,146,000 $2,785,500 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSI ON MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Governme nt Affairs Manager) June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2002-03) Page 1 of 1 ua ITEM NO . - PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS s 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (C ontract) Sluig Streets (Contract Crews) 300,000 300,000 2. 1 Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) Crack Filling (Contract Crews) 50,000 50,000 3. E. Palm Canyon (Sunrise - Gene Autry) ARHM Overlay 350,000 350,000 4. Indian Canyon & Interstate 10 Interchange- 6 Lanes Const . (75% CVAG, %2 of 25% w/Riv.Co .) 15,262,000 2,500,000 1,908,000 200,000 5. Indian Canyon RR Bridge Widen (HBRR Grant) 6 -Lanes vs. 2 Lanes (Local Match)- C onst. 6. 7. Indian Can on Roadwa Widen across WW Wash Gene Autry & Interstate 10 Interchange- 6 Lanes 4- Lanes vs. 2 Lanes (Local Match)- Const Const. (City Share ofJ oint-County/CV AG) 250,000 12,228,000 75,000 1,750,000 8. Gene Autry Trail RR Bride @ WW River (STIP) Const . (City Share with CVAG match) 1,842,000 _ 200,000 9. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Various Bridges 25,000 25,000 10. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Pedestrian Safety Project - Install Concrete Sidewalk behind curbs 60,000 400,000 $33,267,0011 40,000 40,000 $4,938,000 11. LED Retrofit of City -Wide Traffic Signals Install Energy Saving LEDs (City Match) 2002/03 TOTALS RIVERSIDE COUNTY `. _.ANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OC AL FUNDS PROG RAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs ' Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Manager) June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2003-04) Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ann ual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) AHRM Street Overlays Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Pro gram) Araby Drive Bridge across Araby Wash (HBRR Grant) Mesquite Avenue & El Cielo Traffic Signal Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project Vari ous Locations (Contract Crews) Various L ocations (Contract Crews) Various Locations (Contract Crews) Steve ns Road Various Bridges City 20% Match cost to 80% HBRR Grant Increased Traffic from Mid -Valley Parkway Install Concrete Sidewalks behind curbs 2003/04 T OTALS 500,000 75,000 125,000 75,000 25 ,000 2 ,000,000 150,000 60,000 $3,010,000 500,000 75,000 125,000 75,000 25,00() 200,000 150,000 40,000 $1,190,000 RI VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: Prepared by: Date: City of Palm Springs Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Manager) June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Measure A Local Streets & Roads Program (FY 2004-05) ITEM NO. PROJECT N AME/LIMITS I'age 1 of 1 PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ann ual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Annual Street Crack Filling (C ontract) Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) Calle Encilia Street Widening Bridge Misc. Repairs (Ann ual Program) Ramon Bridge Widen- WW. Wash (HBRR)-Add 2 Lanes Racquet Club & Caballeros Traffic Signal Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Project Various Locations (Co ntract Crews) Various Locations (Contract Crews) Various Locations (Contract Crews) (Ramon Rd . to Arenas Rd)- 1/3 mile Various Bridges Joint w/ Cathedral City/ CVAG (DESIGN) New Signal Install Concrete Sidewalks behind curbs 2004/05 TO TALS 600,000 75,000 125,000 485,000 25,000 800,000 150,000 60,000 52,320,000 600.000 75,000 125,000 485,000 25,000 40,000 150,000 40,000 $1,560,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY '1 .4NSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PRO GRAM Agency: City of Palm Springs 1'repared by: Robert L. Mohler (Grants and Government Affairs Manager) Date: June 15, 2001 FY 2002-06 5-Yr. Measure A L ocal Streets & Roads Program (FY 2005-06) Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 2. Annual Street Crack Filling (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) 3. Cape Seal Street Overlays (Contract) 4. 5. 6. 7. Bridge Misc. Repairs (Annual Program) Ramon Bridge Widen- WW. Wash (HBRR)-Add 2 Lanes Alejo Road & Caballeros Traffic Signal Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Pro ject Various Locations (Contract Crews) Various Bridges Joint w/ Cathedral City/ CVAG (CONSTRUCT) New Signal Install Co ncrete Sidewalks behind curbs 2005/06 TOTALS 600,000 75,000 125,000 25,000 7,000,000 150,000 60,000 $8,035,000 600,000 75,000 125,000 25,000 350,000 150,000 40,000 $1,365,000 PALO VERDE VALLEY 000263 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ME ASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS P ROGRAM FISCAL YE AR 2002-2006 Agency: City bf Blythe Prepared By: Helen Colbert Phone N o.: (760) 922-6161 Date: June 14, 2001 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE "A" FU NDS ($000'S) 1 "" 1997105 Hobsonway Reco nstruction Project $7,000. $4,500. 2 2001/02 Lane C/R ight of Way 12 . 12. 3 2001/02 Sixth A venue Street P aving _ 352 . 200 . 4 1998103 14th/Lo vekin Signalization 468. 468 . 5 2001/03 S. Lovekin Design !WidenlR es urface(Deslg n 01/02) 50. _ 50 . 6 1998/03 Wheelc hair R amps (ADA) (50,000/yr f or 5 year s) 250 . 250. 7 2001/03 Sidewalk Improve ments (Safe Ro utes) 500 . _ _ 50 . 8 1996/02 A lleyway Improv ements 215. 215. 9 1999/03 Fog 8 Chip Seal 100. 100. 10 2001/03 Co mbined Streets Protec t (Re pair/Resurface) 150 . 150 . 11 1999/02 As phalt Materia l (Stockplle!An nual) 175. 175. "• NOTE: City is accumula ting Measure "A" proceeds to f und Item 1.; Engineering will be completed s oon. Construc tion is projected to sta rt fisca l year 2001/02 and should be completed in fiscal ye ar 2004/05. AGENDA ITEfrI 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Amendment to Cities of Calimesa and Palm Desert's FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Approve the amendment to FY 2001 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Calmesa and Palm Desert, 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. The Cities of Calimesa and Palm Desert's Measure "A" Plans were approved by the Commission at its July 12, 2000 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Calimesa has submitted a revised Plan eliminating one project from the FY 2003, one project from FY 2004, and including Administrative overhead charge for each fiscal year. The City of Palm Desert has submitted a revised Plan for FY 2000-01 which adds three traffic signal installation projects to their previously approved Plan. 000270 e. 055240 City Of Calimesa May 21, 2001 Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Measure A Project Status Report Dear Mr. Rivera: As requested in your letter of April 25, 2001, please find attached an amended copy of our 2001-05 Measure A Local Funds Program. Two significant changes have been made to the program. First, during the 2003 fiscal year the City had proposed to overlay Avenue L after a major Storm Drain Project. The project will not extend up Avenue L as anticipated, so this project has been removed. Second, during fiscal 2004 the City had planned to Overlay Bryant following the installation of a 54 -inch water line by the State Department of Water Resources. During the street repair the contractor agreed to repave the street from curb to curb due to damage caused by construction thus making the City project unnecessary. You will also note that the City has included a line item for the Administrative charge mentioned in the last Audit Finding. If you have any questions on this information please call me at 909-795-9801. Sincerely CITY OF CALIMESA /<4 -- Elroy L. Kiepke Public Works Director enclosure P.O. Box 1190 • Calimesa, California 92320 • (909) 795-9801 000271 Primed on Recycled Paper. RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A " LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000 - 2001 PAGE 1 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 3, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 96 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 96 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 24 24 Total Measure "A" Funds $120,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRA M FY 2001 - 2002 PAGE 2 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No. : 909-795-9801 Date: May 3, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location ' Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 100 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 100 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 25 - - 25 Total Measure "A" Funds $125,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM FY 2002 - 2003 PAGE 3 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALI MESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No.: 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 3, 2001 ItemTotal No. Project Name/Location Project type Cost Measure A Funds (000's) 1 tG oryant— Ir4e+ v orlay 2 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 104 104 3 Administrative Charge O verhead 26 26 Total Measure "A" Funds $130,000 RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON CO MMISSI ON MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2003 - 2004 U IV AGENCY: CITY OF CALI MESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No. : 909-795-9801 Date: May 3, 2001 PAGE 4 OF 5 Item No. ' Project Name/Location Project type Total Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's)J --1-00 1 _ —150 Re ourocs-- 2 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 108 108 3 Administrative Charge Overhead 27 27 Total Measure "A" Funds $135,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004 - 2005 PA GE 5 OF 5 AGENCY: CITY OF CALIMESA Prepared by: Elroy Kiepke Phone No. : 909-795-9801 Date: M ay 3, 2001 Item No. Project Name/Location !Total Project type Cost (000's) Measure A Funds (000's) 1 Various Streets City Wide Remove, Repair, Crack Fill, Slurry Seal, Overlay as needed 112 , 112 2 Administrative Charge Overhead 28 28 Total Measure "A" Funds $140,000 June 12, 2001 U 1 1 1 UI I II L III U L J L II I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 I FAX: 760 341-7098 intote palm-deserr.org Mr. Jerry Rivera Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue Riverside, California 92507 055649 Subject: Amendment to the City of Palm Desert's Capital Improvement Program (Measure "A") — Revised Project Listing Dear Jerry, In response to your request, I have revised the City's FY 2000-2001 Measure "A" Project listing to include the traffic signal projects referenced in my correspondence of May 15, 2001. As previously indicated, we are requesting that the following amendments be posted to the City of Palm Desert's Measure "A" Program: 1) Traffic Signal Construction a. Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive b. Portola Avenue and Hovley Lane West c. El Paseo and Larkspur Lane We appreciate the continued cooperation and coordination that RCTC has shown the City of Palm Desert. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. - Sincerely, Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer JSG/sd Enclosure cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Richard J. Folkers, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer J. Luis Espinoza, Finance Operations Manager last pnnled 06/12/2001 10:45 AM G:tPubWorkslSonja De La Fuente\My Documents RCTC2Ltr J Rivera re Amendment 10 CIP Program - Measure A - Revised L n.no ow nanm nnr 000277 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2000 — 2001 AND PRIOR YEAR(S) Agency: Prepare d by: Phon e No.: Date: City of Palm Desert Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E. 760/346-0611 ext. 566 May 16, 2001 ** NEW PROJECTS Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PR OJECT TYPE TOTAL COST ($000'S) MEASURE A FUNDS ($000'S) 1. Highway 111 and Highway 74/Monterey Avenue Intersection widening, drainage improvements, and traffic signal modifications 1,000 917 2. Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Project - Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road Bridge construction, street widening, and traffic signal modifications 800 800 3. Fred Waring Drive - Highway 111 to Fairhaven Drive Bridge and roadway widening, drainage improvements, and traffic signal modifications 50 50 (design) 4. Gerald Ford Drive - Portola Avenue to Cook Street Roadway widening and drainage improvements 690 690 5. Highway 111 — Larkspur Lane to Indian Wells City Limit Roadway and intersection widening, and traffic signal modifications 3,000 3,000 6. NB Portola Avenue — San Marino Circle to El Cortez Way Roadway widening and drainage improvements 1,650 -1,650 CD 7.CD Hovley Lane — Water Way to Oasis Country Roadway widening and 1,700 1, 1,700 U Club drainage improvements 8. iv Ho vley Lane West/Portola Avenue Traffic Signal Installation 150 150 9. Co El Paseo/Larkspur Lane Traffic Signal Installation 150 150 10. Shadow Mountain Drive/Portola Avenue Traffic Signal Installation 150 150 6112/01 - G:\PubWo rks\So nja De La Fuenle\My Documenls\RCTC\RCTC Funds Pr ogr am Form - FY 00-01 REVISED d oc - sd AGENDA ITEM2O RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2001-02 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval of: 1) The FY 2001-02 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program allocations as shown on the attached schedule; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April, the Commission notified the cities, the county, and local school districts that an estimated $842,000 would be available for programming in FY 2001-02 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. This program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Funds (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State and funds carried over from prior years. Carryover funds available this year were $7,799 from higher than estimated revenues last year. Also, previously programmed projects which either did not require the full allocation or were subsequently abandoned by the applicants for various reasons, have been carried over to this year. The proposals were due on Friday, May 25. The Commission received 33 proposals for projects (2 bicycle projects, 28 sidewalk projects, and 3 ADA related retrofit projects) from 15 agencies requesting a total of $1,314,670 (Attachment I). An evaluation committee comprised of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee and three members from the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the proposals on June 6, 2001. All of the applicants were invited to the meeting and requested to present their proposal(s) and answer questions from the Committee members. The proposals were evaluated and ranked based upon the Commission adopted scoring criteria (Attachment III). Nineteen projects are recommended for funding as indicated on Attachment II. Attachments 000275 RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2001-02 Attachment I Agency Banning (6) Park Avenue Sidewalk Nicolet St. Sidewalk Sylvan Park Sidewalk Ramsey Street Sidewalk 3rd Street Sidewalk Roosevelt Williams Park Sidewalk Total Blythe (3) 7th St. Sidewalk Rice St. Sidewalk - Sixth to Seventh St. Fourteenth Ave. Sidewalk Total Cathedral City 30th Ave. Bike Lane & Sidewalk Corona Bus Stop Accessibility Project Desert Hot Springs (2) Palm Drive Sidewalk Ocotillo Road Sidewalk Total Hemet Buena Vista & Mayberry Ave. Sidewalks / Curb Access Ramps La Quinta Washington St/Avenida La Fonda Sidewalk Moreno Valley (4) Dracaea Avenue Sidewalk Bay Avenue Sidewalk Gentian Ave. Sidewalk Ironwood Ave. Sidewalk Ramps Total Total SB 821 Funds Cost Requested $55,000 $27,500 $44,000 $22,000 $46,000 $23,000 $105,000 $52,500 $17,000 $8,500 522.500 $11,250 $289,500 $144,750 $28,951 $28,432 $61.248 $118,631 $36,000 523,161 $22,746 548.998 $94,905 Local Match S27,500 522.000 S23.000 552.500 $8,500 S11,250 $144,750 $5,790 $5,686 $12.250 $23,726 524,000 512,000 $233,200 $116,600 $116,600 $35,436 351.489 $86,925 $48,200 $121,550 $97,500 $27,000 $27,500 514.000 $166,000 $28,349 $41,191 $69,540 $7,087 $10.298 $17,385 $38,560 $9,640 $60,775 $60,775 $48,750 $48,750 $13,500 $13,500 $13,750 $13,750 $7,000 $7,000 $83,000 $83,000 000280 RCTC SB 821 PROGRAM SUBMITTALS FY 2001-02 Attachment I Agency Palm Desert Portola Ave. Bicycle & Pedestrian Pathway Total SB 821 Funds Local Cost Requested Match $109,000 $54,000 S55,000 Palm Springs Baristo Road School Sidewalk $45,000 Perris San Jacinto & Diana St. Sidewalk Improvements $97,000 $36,000 $9,000 $48,500 $48,500 Riverside (4) Garfield Street Sidewalk $95,170 $47,585 $47,585 Cridge St. Sidewalk $96,110 $48,055 $48,055 California Avenue Sidewalk $44,740 $22,370 $22,370 Central Avenue Sidewalk $70,560 $35,280 S35.280 Total $306,580 $153,290 $153,290 Riverside County (5) Washington St. & Krameria Ave. Sidewalk $119,500 $97,000 $22,500 El Palomino Drive Sidewalk $25,000 $22,500 $2,500 Harlow Avenue Sidewalk $85,500 $72,000 $13,500 Stetson Avenue Sidewalk $91,000 $71,000 $20,000 Coahuilla Street Walkway $25.000 $22,000 $3,000 Total $346,000 $284,500 $61,500 San Jacinto San Jacinto HS SW @ Ramona Blvd. & Idyllwild Dr. $125,000 Temecula Rainbow Canyon Villages Sidewalk Project $53,750 $62,500 $62,500 $43,750 $10,000 Grand Totals -15 Agencies 33 Projects 2 182 3 $1,314,670 $867,661 Total SB 821 Funds Available $849,800 JR: 6/J,31O 2 8 1_ Rank Agency 1 San Jacinto 2 Riverside 3 Corona 4 Moren o Valley 4 Perris 6 Moreno Valley 7 Desert Hot Springs 8 Palm Desert 9 Cathedral City 10 Riverside County 11 Ban ning 12 Banning 13 Banning 14 Riverside County 15 Banning 16 Riverside County 16 Riverside County 18 La Quinta 19 Riverside 20 Desert Hot Springs 21 Riverside 22 Banning 22 Banning 24 Mo reno Valley 25 Riverside County 26 Hemet 26 Riverside RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT'AT'ION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2001-02 RANKING OF PR OJECTS Project Description San Jaci nto HIS SW (Ramona & Idyllwild) Califor nia Ave. Sidewalk Bus Stop Accessibility Project Dracaea Avenue Sidewalk San Jacinto & Diana St . Sidewalk Ironwood Avenue Sidewalk Ramps Palm Drive Sidewalk Portola Ave. Bicycle & Ped . Pathway 30th Avenue Bike Lane & Sidewalk Harlow Avenue Sidewalk Park Ave. Sidewalk Ramsey Street Sidewalk N icole St. Sidewalk Coahuilla Street Walkway Sylvan Park Sidewalk Washingto n St. & Krameria Av e. SW El Palomino Drive Sidewalk Washington St./Avenida La Fonda SW Cridge Street Sidewalk Oco tillo Road Sidewalk Garfield St. Sidewalk 3rd Street Sidewalk Roosev elt Willams Park Sidewalk Bay Ave. Sidewalk Stetson Avenue Sidewalk Buena Vista/Mayberry SW & Ramps Central Avenue Sidewalk Total SB 821 Funds Recom mended Cummulative Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Attachment 11 Average Score $125,000 $62,500 $62,500 $62,500 89.8 $44,740 $22,370 $22,370 $84,870 88.8 $233,200 $116,600 $116,600 $201,470 88.7 $97,500 $48,750 $48,750 $250,220 87 .1 $97,000 $48,500 $48,500 $298,720 87 .1 $14,000 $7,000 $7,000 $305,720 86.3 $35,436 $28,349 $28,349 $334,069 82.8 $109,000 $54,000 $54,000 $388,069 79.6 $36,000 $24,000 $24,000 $412,069 79 .3 $85,500 $72,000 $72,000 $484,069 79 $55,000 $27,500 $27,500 $511,569 76.8 $105,000 $52,500 $52,500 $564,069 76.8 $44,000 $22,000 $22,000 $586,069 76.5 $25,000 $22,000 $22,000 $608,069 76 .5 $46,000 $23,000 $23,000 $631,069 76.3 $1 19,500 $97,000 $97,000 $728,069 75 $25,000 $22,500 $22,500 $750,569 75 $121,550 $60,775 $60,775 $811,344 74.8 $96,1 10 $48,055 $38,456 $849,80( 74.6 $51,489 $41,191 $0 $849,800 74 .5 $95,170 $47,585 $0 $849,800 72 .7 $17,000 $8,500 $0 $849,800 72.2 $22,500 $11,250 $0 $849,80( 72.2 $27,000 $13,500 $O $849,800 71 5 $91,000 $71,000 $0 $849,800 71 .3 $48,200 $38,560 $0 $849,800 71 $70,560 $35,280 $O $849,80( 71 Ran k A enc 28 Blythe 28 Palm Springs 30 Moreno Valley 31 Blythe 32 Blythe 33 Temecula JR: 6/07/01 RIVERSIDE COUN'T'Y TRANSPORTATI ON COMM1ISSION S13 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES I'ROGRAM1 FY 2001-02 RANKING OF PR OJECTS Project Description 7th Street Sidewalk Barist o Road School Sidewalk Gentian Avenue Sidewalk Rice Street Sidewalk Fourteenth Street Sidewalk Rainbow Canyo n Villages Sidewalk Total Costs $28,951 $45,000 $27,500 $28,432 $61,248 $53,750 SI1821 Fu nds Requested $23,161 $36,000 $13,750 $22,746 $48,998 $43,75() Recommended Allocation $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 To tals $2,182,336 $1,314,670 $849,800 Cunu nu1alive Funds All ocated $849,800 $849,800 $849,800 $849 ,800 $849,800 $849,800 Attachment 11 Average Score 70.9 70.9 70 68 .8 66 .1 65 .4 Attachment III SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE MAXIMUM POINTS The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just a application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 25 20 20 15 10 6. POPULATION EQUITY 10 The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT 10 BONUS The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. RCTC: 4/12/95 000281 AGENDA ITEfrI2/ RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Approval of City of Corona's Bicycle Master Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Review and approve the City of Corona's Bicycle Master Plan, dated May 31, 2001, as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached is a copy of the City of Corona's Bicycle Master Plan. The Plan has been submitted to the Commission for certification that it complies with the requirements of the State Bicycle Lane Account program as required by State law (SB 1095). The City of Corona has prepared the Plan in order to be eligible for a State Bicycle Lane Account (BLA) grant to fund the signing and painting of two bike lanes in the city. Commission staff has reviewed the City of Corona's Bicycle Master Plan and finds that the Plan includes all of the required elements of a bicycle transportation plan for the BLA program as specified by State law. Attachment 00028 Carona Bicycle Master Plan Prepared for: City of Corona Prepared by: Alta Transportation Consulting Ryan Snyder Associates May 31, 2001 000280 Corona Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Section Page Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 6 Needs Analysis 16 Recommended Improvements 24 Implementation 41 Design and Maintenance 56 Appendices Appendix A: Land -Use Map Appendix B: Glossary of Terms Tables 83 84 Page 1. Existing Bikeways 9 2. Existing Bicycle Parking and Support Facilities 13 3. Bicycle Accident Data 21 4. Bicycle Demand and Air Quality 22 5. Medium -Term Bikeways 39 6. Long -Term Bikeways 40 7. Bikeway System Cost Estimates 43-44 8. Bikeway Operation and Maintenance Estimates 45 9. Funding Sources 46-48 10. Signing and Markings 67 11. Parking Locations and Quantities 74 12. Maintenance Schedule and Checklist 78 000287 Introduction Corona Bicycle Master Plan Introduction The City of Corona recognizes that a safe and effective bikeway network enhances the quality of life for residents and visitors to the City. The City and its residents have called for a comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) that will create the foundation for a bicycle friendly environment to serve commuter and recreational riders. This Bicycle Master Plan serves as a document to guide the development and maintenance of a bicycle network, support facilities and other programs for Corona over the next 20 years. The Plan addresses important issues related to Corona's bicycling environment including bikeways, parking, multi -modal integration, safety and education, support facilities as well as implementation, maintenance and funding. The success of the plan will only be assured by continued support of the City Staff, the bicycling community and other residents who recognize the benefits of cycling in their community. 1 000288 Li Introduction Bicycle Master Plan Needed 000289 The vitality of the City of Corona brings with it traffic congestion for residents and visitors. For both long commutes and short commutes in the City, people tend to drive, adding to the traffic conditions they dislike. If there were better alternatives, people would be more likely to choose bicycling in the temperate climate, along tree -lined streets, to their destination. In order to achieve this goal, the bicycling environment in Corona must be enhanced. Having a planning document such as the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) that identifies bicycle routes, programs and facility priorities will enable the City to create an attractive alternative. Another reason to have a Bicycle Master Plan is the enjoyment and quality of life for the residents of Corona. Since bicycling is one of the most popular forms of recreational activity in the United States (with 46% of Americans bicycling for pleasure), we can assume that based on this national data, approximately 56,000 of them would bicycle in Corona purely for pleasure, at least occasionally. Safety is a primary reason to improve bicycling conditions in Corona. Concerns for safety is the single greatest reason people don't commute by bicycle, according to a 1991 Lou Harris Poll. Addressing those concerns for bicyclists through physical and program improvements is another major objective of this Bicycle Master Plan. Safety, access, quality of life, and effective implementation are imperative elements for Corona's success as a bicycle -friendly city. Safety is the number one concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational cyclists or bicycle commuters. The City's wide arterial streets City create a fairly safe cycling environment, however the widths of the traffic lanes can also contribute to higher vehicle speeds. Heavy traffic volumes combined with narrower streets in the central force bicyclists to use side streets to avoid traffic along the commercial corridors, making safe access to employment centers and shopping destinations problematic. Few streets cross the 91 freeway north -south, and those that do are generally busy arterials. Alta Transportation Consulting 3 I . *a► �r . T IT •I Introduction Major to implement the plan. The end result will be to dramatically Recommendations, increase the number of people bicycling for utilitarian trips continued such as work, school or shopping, as well as for recreational bicyclists. The specific recommendations of the Corona BMP include the completion of a comprehensive bikeway network and implementation of new educational and promotional programs to be implemented over the 20 -year life of the Plan. Short-term projects in general order of preference are detailed later in this report and include bikeways along the following corridors: • Temescal Creek • Maybey Canyon Wash • 6th Street • Buena Vista Avenue • Main Street • Fullerton Avenue • Olive Street • Railroad Street/Auto Center Drive • Parkridge Avenue/Harrison Street/Blaine Street The BMP also includes as high enough priority to consider as short term projects: • Bicycle Parking Program • Bicycle Safety Awareness Program Planning Process This plan has been developed during the fall of 2000 and winter of 2001 by the City of Corona Public Works Department. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the City was established to oversee the project. The TAC includes representatives from the City's Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments. In addition, the public has been involved in the planning process. A public workshop was held and some people have submitted comments to the City at various times. The public workshop was advertised through the media, bicycle shops, city hall, mailings to neighborhood and community association leaders. Alta Transportation Consulting 0002590 Bikeways Definitions Corona Bicycle Master Plan Existing Conditions It is important to evaluate existing conditions in order to develop a bicycle system that enhances the existing system and more importantly builds and improves upon it. Consideration of existing conditions includes evaluating and assessing bikeways, signage, support facilities, safety education and multi -modal connections. Bikeways are described by Caltrans in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual as being one of three basic types (Figure 1). Class I Bikeway Variously called a bike path or multi -use trail. Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated from any street or highway. Class II Bikeway Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. Class III Bikeway Referred to as a bike route. Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing. It is important to ensure that all bikeways in Corona meet the Caltrans minimum designated Class I, II and III standards. For example, Class I multi -use paths must meet specific width, clearance, curve radii, gradient, and other requirements, while Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes must meet specific striping, signing and other requirements. Off-street paved paths that do not meet Caltrans standards should not be identified as Class I paths on maps or plans. The design guidelines provided later in this plan should help ensure consistency with accepted state and national standards. 6 Ms « .., �I• ' T! Existing Conditions Existing Bikeways Alta Transportation Consulting An extensive field review was conducted of all the existing bikeways in Corona. There are approximately 8 miles of Class I, II and III bikeways. The breakdown of the bikeways by class includes approximately 1 mile of Class I, 7 miles of Class II and no Class III bikeways. Table 1 provides an inventory of each class type, destinations, conditions, comments and length in miles of each existing bikeway. Figure 2 , shows the existing bikeways. Corona presently has few bikeways, and nothing that could be called a bikeway network. However, the bicycling community, ranging from experienced club riders to school children, has figured out a way to use the existing streets and routes for their own purposes. This plan looks at the existing opportunities and constraints to help develop a comprehensive bike system that will make it easier for all types of bicyclists to travel to their destinations. 000292 8 M• _ = M .: n• • : M,Existing Conditions The City of Corona is a rapidly developing city. Neighborhoods and commercial districts in the central sections of the city have narrow streets and a high level of density compared with the rest of Corona, which is more suburban with long wide streets. Sidewalk Bikeways Sign Conditions 000293 Corona has some sidewalk bikeways, which are not mapped because they do not meet design standards. These bikeways have significant disadvantages and should be used only in circumstances where there is "high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space for bicycles" or along bridges as described by Caltrans in the Highway Design Manual. They can be useful to people traveling within their own block. Implementing a well planned, attractive, and effective system of network signing greatly enhances bikeway facilities by promoting their presence to both potential and existing users. Signing helps increase bicycle use by leading people to city bikeways and also helps increase visibility for safety reasons. There are four major types of signs, including those used to - identify a route, destination signs, access signs and safety signs warning cyclists and motorists of each other. Good signage would improve bicycling in the City, but since there are presently few bikeways, it will help most as more are installed. There are no destination signs in the City. These types of signs identify major destination centers and indicate the approximate number of miles to that location. Safety signs are important in reducing the number of accidents between bicyclists and motorists. The most common safety signs can either warn motorists of bicyclists or caution bicyclists to on coming traffic. There are no bicycle safety sings in Corona. Alta Transportation Consulting 10 •lye.. = h .� ., : a: ' L17 Existing Conditions Bicycle Parking and Storage, continued Bike lockers are covered storage units that typically accommodate one or two bicycles per locker, and provide additional security and protection from the elements. These are typically located at large employment center, colleges, and transit stations. Class II bicycle parking facilities are best used to accommodate visitors, customers, messengers, and others who are expected to depart within two hours. Bicycle racks provide support for the bicycle but do not have locking mechanisms. Racks are relatively low-cost devices that typically hold between two and eight bicycles, allow bicyclists to securely lock their frames and wheels, are secured to the ground and are located in highly visible areas. They are usually located at schools, commercial locations, and activity centers such as parks, libraries, retail locations and civic centers. A field review of Corona revealed that there are existing bicycle parking facilities that range from simple bike racks to bike lockers. The bicycle parking facilities are typical racks that are often located at shopping centers. Since the design of these racks don't support bicycles well, and they are difficult to lock to, they are not considered user-friendly. These bicycle parking facilities are located at public buildings, parks and private commercial developments. The City has 14 bicycle lockers located at City Hall and at the library. Additionally, the City has placed bicycle parking at numerous parks. Besides public facilities in Corona, the Corona Hills Marketplace shopping center and Citrus Village shopping center also have bicycle racks. The locations of these existing bicycle parking facilities are shown on the Existing Bicycle Parking and Support Facilities (Table 2). These are also shown on the Existing Bicycle Facilities Map (Figure 2). Alta Transportation Consulting 00029412 GORQNA BICYCLE MASTER PLA Existing Conditions Bicycle Safety Multi -Modal 000295 A safety education program has been conducted in each of the last two years at the elementary schools. It has taught students in grades 2nd through 6th. Altogether, 90 students received the training the first year, and 232 the second. The curriculum lasts four hours and includes: • A bike safety film and rodeo from the American Automobile Association • On -bike training including avoiding road hazards, balance, rules of the road, main causes of accidents • Bike inspections • Safety test The local transit operator, Riverside Transit Authority, has bike racks on all the front of its buses. Two lines presently serve Corona. In a survey taken in one week in January, 2001, an average of 13 cyclists used the racks per day in Corona. The most popular stops were on Ch Street. The City of Corona has recently initiated its own shuttle bus service for local trips, called the Corona Cruiser. Each of the five buses has bike racks on the front. The Metrolink (commuter rail) Station has bicycle lockers and racks. A future Metrolink Station will open on Blaine Street under Main Street in the future. It will also have bicycle lockers and racks. Alta Transportation Consulting 14 Figure 2: Existing _ icycle Facilities Map City of Corona A/Existing Class I N Ex isting Class 11 © Ex isting Bike Parking Existing Bike Amenities Metro link Statio n 1 Schools Commercial Streets Parks /\/ City Limit 113 Ci wily tyr? 5)Elli P itikittil, .7 N -12 �� A_ i •, 4 0419 i p cir o,N__, 1 , a ..., Ef --44, 0 P% e__J ir .., r--1 , ft2t! ,41, § r -- ,--2r1 plifRpiu. �Ae e P 4-s Y / P Bicycle Commuter Needs 000297 Corona Bicycle Master Pkin Needs Analysis The purpose of reviewing the needs of commuter and recreational bicyclists is twofold: (1) it is instrumental when planning a system that must serve both user groups, and (2) it is useful when pursuing competitive funding and attempting to quantify future usage and benefits to justify expenditures of resources. Commuter bicyclists in Corona range from employees who ride to work to a child who rides to school. Millions of dollars nationwide have been spent attempting to increase the number of people who ride to work or school, with some success. Despite this fact, Corona has a great potential to increase the number of people who ride to work or school because of: • the manageable size of the city • the easy to moderate terrain • favorable climate throughout most of the year • a large number of jobs which allow local residents to work in the city • a large number of school -aged people. In addition to the reasons why there is a potential for commuter bicycling, is a population in the City that is prime for bicycle commuting. The type of bicyclists and the characteristics of their cycling is summarized below. • Commuter bicyclists typically fall into one of three categories: (1) adult employees, (2) students, and (3) shoppers. 16 CORONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Needs Analysis Recreational Bicycle Needs Bicycle Population and Needs Assessed The needs of recreational bicyclists in Corona must be considered, as they are often different from commuter bicycle needs. Recreational cycling in Corona can be attractive because • There are . accessible parks and some water channels that show strong potential for off -road bike paths • The terrain is easy to moderate • Mild climate throughout most of the year • A young, well-educated population. There are also different needs and patterns for bicycling that are specific to the recreational rider: • Recreational bicycling typically falls into one of three categories; (1) exercise, (2) non -work destinations such as parks, or (3) touring, long distance treks or events. • Recreational users range from healthy adults to children to senior citizens. Each group has their own abilities, interests and needs. • Directness of the route is typically less important than routes with less traffic conflict. Visual interest, shade, protection from weather elements, moderate gradients or other "comfort" features are also very important. • •People exercising or touring often prefer a loop route rather than having to backtrack. A key goal of the Bicycle Master Plan is to maximize the number of bicycle commuters in order to help achieve larger transportation goals such as minimizing traffic congestion and air pollution. In order to set the framework for these benefits, national statistics and policies are used as a basis for determining the benefits to Corona. Alta Transportation Consulting 18 000298 ��• • a .a IT.:W' V Needs Analysis Bicycle Population, continued Bicycle Safety Accident Data Assessed 0002` 'I • The U.S. Department of Transportation in their publication entitled National Walking and Bicycling Study (1995) sets as a national goal the doubling of current walk and bicycling mode shares by the year 2010, assuming that a comprehensive bicycle system was in place. This would translate into a full-time commute bicycle mode share of 1.34% in Corona. However, adding in the estimated number of commuters who commute to local schools (based on national averages), the average number of daily bicyclists in Corona increases to 1.87% with a an estimated 5,646 bicycle commuters when the Bicycle Master Plan is fully implemented. These bicyclists will be saving an additional projected 25,545 vehicle miles per day. Safety ranks as one of the top concerns for bicyclists when considering riding either for commuter or recreational purposes. Although there is a bicycle safety program in Corona, the program is not monitored. Thus, it is difficult to determine its effectiveness. Other communities with successful bicycle safety programs have found such programs to be of great value in improving safe cycling. Although the center of Corona is older, most of the city shows newer suburban characteristics. High-speed arterial streets designed to get large numbers of motorists to freeways quickly present the primary safety hazards noted during field research conducted for this Plan. The streets are generally well maintained. The drainage grates are bicycle -safe, as are the railroad track crossings. Many potential bicyclists cite the fear of traffic as one of their main objections to riding a bicycle in suburban communities such as Corona. Bicycle related accidents were collected for the past three year from October of 1997 through September of 2000 in Corona. Accident data was generated from the City of Corona engineering. Alta Transportation Consulting 20 RONA BICYCLE MASTER PLA Needs Analysis Police Enforcement„ continued Air Quality Needs in the Region Assessed The Police Department also dispatches a fleet of bicycle - mounted officers. These officers have had special training in bicycle safety and assist in enforcing traffic laws. They are especially qualified to enforce laws as they pertain to bicycles. The number of bicycle -related accidents hasn't changed much in the past three years, so it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the safety program and police efforts. However, since the accident rate of .28 is much lower than the state average, these efforts are likely helping. There is a need in the greater Los Angeles area, which includes Corona, to consider the need for better air quality where bicycling can help. The combined air quality benefits of future bicycle commuters over the next 20 years are an annual reduction of tens of thousands of pounds of reduced air pollutants like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. The annual reduction of pollutants is estimated at 30,373 pounds of particulate matter PM10, 82,338 pounds of nitrogen oxide NOx and 119,842 pounds of reactive organic gases ROG. The calculation of future bicycle commuters, the miles reduced and air pollution reduced from build -out of the Bicycle Master Plan is shown in Table 4. It uses statistics from sources cited and a methodology developed by Alta Transportation Consulting for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Alta Transportation Consulting 00030022 Planned Bicycle System 000301 Corona Bicycle Master Plan Recommended Improvements The recommended system and improvements consists of three (3) distinct components: • Bikeway network • Bicycle parking program • Bicycle safety program This set of recommendations comprises the heart of the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP). It is consistent with other local and regional transportation and air quality plans. First, the BMP will be folded into Corona's Circulation Plan, as well as the City's General Plan. Second, while Riverside County has not engaged in a comprehensive bicycle planning process, it does link to other regional plans. Presently, a trail plan for the Santa Ana River is underway where this BMP proposes to connect. The Santa Ana River trail will provide a scenic, pleasant bike ride into both Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Additionally, only two cities abut Corona: Riverside and Norco. This plan links with bike routes that Riverside has planned. Norco has no bicycle route plans. Overall, this plan will fit nicely into Riverside County's portion of the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. The RMP is the regional transportation plan. It is also the transportation element of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Master Plan. 24 Figure 3: Plab..ged Bicycle Facilities City of C or ona / Planned Class 1 /V Planned Class 11 Planned Class 111111 A/ Planned Class I11 l Potential Class I A,' Ex isting Class f Existing Class 1I M etro link Statio n Planned Bike Parking © Existing Bike Parking Existing Bike Amenities Streets City Limit IIII Co mmercial Schools Parks Dos Lagos alta i R AH5POR tr4FON CCINS J! TIN Kano Bicvat.E MASTER PLAN Recommended Improvements Selecting a Bikeway System 000303 There is an established methodology for selecting a bikeway system for a community includes careful assessment of the existing system, the input from the community and consultants expertise. The existing network of bikeways in the City and in adjacent Cities and Counties provides a basis for Corona. The process and specific analysis of the existing conditions is explained in the previous chapters. The real human factor is input from the local bicycle community and city staff that is already familiar with the constraints and opportunities in Corona. Input was received through the public workshop session and meetings with City staff to determine which bikeways would meet their needs. In addition, the consultant team considered more technical criteria to select the most feasible projects. • connectivity • travel volumes and speeds • amount of side friction (driveways, side streets) • curb -to -curb width • pavement condition • access from residential areas • number of destinations served (schools, employment centers, transit stations, parks, etc.) • topography • integration into the regional system • adjacent land use • on -street parking • accident data and safety concerns • existing bicycling patterns • existing bottlenecks or constraints • existing opportunities such as planned roadway improvements Alta Transportation Consulting 27 •.: =i :! Recommended Improvements Project 2 Maybey Canyon Wash Ranking - Short Term Responsibility - Corona Existing Challenge Inadequate north south bicycle route Classification - Class I Length - Approximately 1.5 miles Alta Transportation Consulting The Maybey Canyon Wash traverses through a residential neighborhood in the southeastern part of Corona. A bike path along this wash would provide off-street bicycle access to Corona High School, parks and end directly behind a shopping center. It would also provide access to 6th Street. • Conduct an engineering study to determine the best to alignment and intersection crossings • Pave a Class I path along the designed route from Ontario Avenue to Sixth Street • Construct appropriate at -grade crossings • Add signals and signage at crossings • Post access signs telling cyclists where to get on the route, location and safety signs along the route, as well as signs to destinations along connecting bikeways 000304 29 '' . - = •• : I i. Recommended Improvements Project 4 Buena Vista Avenue Ranking - Short Term Responsibility - Corona Existing Challenge - Inadequate north to south bicycle route with few places to cross under the 91 Freeway Classification - Class III Bike Route Length - Approximately 2.8 miles 000305 Buena Vista Avenue is the most bicycle -friendly street to use in crossing the 91 -Freeway. The other streets that cross the freeway are busy and have freeway access. This makes it an excellent choice to link northern and southern Corona. It would make a good route for commuters live in southern Corona and work in northern Corona. Buena Vista also serves Corona High School as well as several parks. It would be a good choice of a street to enhance to the level of a bicycle boulevard as described in the Design and Maintenance Section of this Plan. • Add good signage along the entire route from Railroad Street to Foothill Parkway • Consider adding pavement stencils Consider adding traffic circles and special signalization (or other traffic calming measures) to create a bicycle boulevard Alta Transportation Consulting 31 • �+,� i = M ►. va_ Recommended Improvements Project 6 Fullerton Avenue Ranking - short Term Responsibility - Corona Existing Challenge Inadequate north to south bicycle access to central Corona from he east side Classification - Class II Bike Lane and or Class III Bike Route Length - Approximately 3.7 miles Class II and 0.5 miles Class III Fullerton Avenue provides bicycle access on the east side of Corona from residential neighborhoods in the southern part of town to the downtown area. It provides access to several parks and schools, and would help create a community -wide network of bikeways. It is a nice wide street for bicycling south of Magnolia Avenue. • Stripe bike lanes south of Magnolia Avenue to the southern end • Add good signage along the entire route • Consider adding pavement stencils north of Magnolia Avenue to Grand Boulevard • Sign cyclists onto Eighth Street at the northern end 000306 Alta Transportation Consulting 33 I • Recommended Improvements Project 8 Railroad Street and Auto Center Drive Ranking - Short Term Responsibility - Corona Existing Challenge - Inadequate east to west bicycle access through large employment center Classification - Class II Bike Lanes and or Class III Bike Route Length - Approximately 2.0 miles Class II and 1.7 miles Class III 000307 Railroad Street is the primary access route through the large industrial employment district in northwest Corona. It would enhance commuting opportunities for the many people who work there. This bikeway would continue along Auto Center Drive and would provide access to an existing Metrolink station, as well as a future Metrolink station on the east end. • Stripe bike lanes on Auto Center Drive from the 91 Freeway to Railroad Street • Stripe bike lanes on Railroad Street from Auto Center Drive to Smith Avenue • Consider adding pavement stencils along the Class III portion of the route from Smith Avenue to Grand Boulevard • Add good signage along the entire route Alta Transportation Consulting 35 _• : r. = rN ., =: :. " Recommended Improvements Project 10 Bicycle Parking and Amenities Ranking - Short Term Responsibility - Corona and Private Businesses Existing Challenge - Inadequate bicycle parking and amenities The lack of bicycle amenities has been identified as one of the major obstacles in cycling for transportation in Corona. This citywide program would provide and install bike racks in commercial districts, at schools, parks, public buildings and at employment sites. This program will also encourage showers and clothing lockers at work sites. • The City should first develop specific design guidelines for bicycle amenities, perhaps with the assistance of local bicyclists. These guidelines should be used by city staff, developers and employers to determine the location and type of bicycle parking to be provided. • The City should place bicycle racks on public sidewalks in front of retail and commercial establishments. • The City should place bicycle racks, or lockers, at schools where they are needed. • The City should place bicycle racks in public parks, in front of the library and any public building where they are needed. • The City should contact the owners or managers of shopping centers to put bike racks in front of stores, where they are permitted. • The City should contact large employers to see which of them would like to use bicycle lockers. • The implementation program could be also implemented on an 'as requested' basis by commercial and retail property owners. • The City will consider requirements for bicycle parking, showers and clothing lockers at new commercial developments. This will require developing guidelines for the required amount of bicycle parking, showers and clothing lockers based on gross square feet. Alta Transportation Consulting 37 000308 Mr111 N. ' :.; Recommended Improvements Other Bikeways Medium -Term Bikeways The Bicycle Master Plan will provide a more complete network of bikeways than highlighted in the top priority project list. It will serve every area of Corona, every residential neighborhood, every school and park, as well as all the shopping and employment. When carried out, Corona will become one of the most bicycle -friendly communities in California, as well as the United States. This will provide for an enhanced quality of life that will attract residents and businesses. Some of the network will unfold as funds become available. The rest will occur with new development. The entire network is shown on the map on page 26, and on the table below. Altogether there are approximately 4 miles of Class I, 21 miles of Class II and 20 miles of Class III bikeways in the Second Priority List. Table 5 Medium -Term Bikeway Projects Street or Corridor Classification From To River Rd. II Corydon Way Main St. Promenade Ave. II Magnolia Ave. Buchanan 5t. Sampson Ave. I/II Buchanan St. Temescal Creek Rincon St. _ II Corydon Way Temescal Creek Grand Blvd. III Full circle Magnolia Ave. II/III Main St. Buchanan 5t. Eighth St. III _ Lincoln Ave. Grand Blvd. Ontario Ave./Temescal Canyon Rd. II/III Paseo Grande Dos Lagos Foothill Pkwy./Chase Dr./EI Cerrito Rd. II/III Upper Dr. i Temescal Canyon Rd. Serfas Club Dr. II/III Green River Rd. 91 Freeway Border Ave./Smith Ave./Rincon Rd./Auburndale 5t. II/III South city limit River Rd. Oak Street Wash I Southern end Maybey Canyon Wash Main Street Wash I Ontario Ave. Temescal Canyon Wash Rimpau Ave. II/III Upper Dr. Sixth St. 000309 Alta Transportation Consulting 39 Corona Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Selection of Projects This section identifies costs for the proposed bicycle improvements, plus strategies on funding and financing. Previous Funding Funding Recommendation Some of the primary goals of the Corona Bicycle Master Plan ensure that the City receives its fair share of competitive funding. Thus, the Plan prioritizes projects so that those projects providing the greatest benefit are implemented in the short term. This plan recognizes that cooperation between local agencies in the selection of priority projects and the allocation of local funding (such as Transportation Development Act monies) is critical to ensuring an orderly implementation of an effective bicycle system. Previous expenditures on bicycle projects by the City of Corona over the past 5 years is approximately $245,000. The City has received funding for one Class I bikeway in two separate grants. In Fiscal Year (FY) 98/99, Corona received $52,000, and $193,000 in FY99/00 for the Chase/Foothill bikeway. Both of these grants were from 5B 821 funds. Short-term projects identified in this plan represent the highest priority bicycle projects currently identified in Corona. Local available matching funds, such as Transportation Development Act(TDA), should be allocated whenever possible to these projects or to other locally -identified projects that 41 000310 Table 7 Corona Bikeway System Cost Estimates Corona 1 Table Bikeway System Cost Estimate ,Segment or Program Units or Miles (Type . construction, signals Cost 1. Temescal Creek Bike Path New Class I design 10 $ $ '5,500,000_ 5,000,000 10 engineering onstruction, ignals $ $ 500,000 825,000 2. Maybey Canyon Wash Bike Path New Class I design 15 _ $ 750,000 1.5 ngineering ! $ 75,000 3. Sixth Street/Frontage Road B"ke Route $ 196,000 New Class II and III 4.9 igns, striping, tencils $ 196,000 ..Buena .Vista Avenue Bike Route j2.8 signs $ $ 169,200 28,000 New Class III New Class III 2.8 stencils $ 11,200 Optional Bike Boulevard Traffic Signal' 1 signal $ 100,000 Optional Bike Boulevard Traffic Circles 2 raffic circles $ 30,000 5. Main Street Bike Route $ 92,000 New Class II igns, striping, 1 tencils $ 50,000 New Class III 3 igns $ 30,000 New Class III 3 tencils $ 12,000 . Fullerton Avenue Bike Route $ " 192,000 New Class II 3.7 signs, striping, stencils $ 185,000 New Class III 105 signs $ 5,000 New Class III k?.5 stencils $ 2,000 . Olive Street Bike Route $ 19,600 New Class III 1.4 signs $ 14,000 New Class III 1.4 stencils $ 5,600 000311 43 ONA BICYCLE MASTER PLA Implementation Table 8 Corona Bikeway System: Annual Operation and Maint en anc e Costs Project Unit Cost Description Existing Miles Proposed Miles Short Term Proposed Miles Medium and L ong T erm Total Miles or Units Total Cost Class I Maintenance $8,500 Cost per mile 1 2.5 7 10 .5 $89,250 Class II M aintenance $2,000 Cost per mile 7 10.3 41 58.3 $116,600 * Class III Maintenance $1,500 Cost per Mile 0 12.9 35 47.9 $71,850* Total Maintenance $277,700 Bicycle Safety Awareness Program $25,000 Cost per year $25,000 TOTAL 0 & M COSTS $302,700 *Some of the maintenance cost of Class II and III bikeways can be absorbed in routine maint enance of streets. Alta Transportation Consulting 45 CORONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN I mplem entation Table 9 Corona Bikeway Syst em Funding Sources, Continued Gra nt Source Due Dat e Agency Annual Total M atching Eligible Applicants Requirement Eligible Bikew ay Projects Commute Recr eation Safety/ Educ ation Comments State Funding 51. Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) Program M ajor Projects, $ 300,000+ 52. State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLPP) Dec. of odd # years Regional Transportati on Agency Caltrans none cities, counties, transit operators, Caltrans Cities, counties, assessment districts X x X x Must be included in an adopted RTP, STIP, CMP, RTIP Any road projects being resurfaced or using l oc al funds should include bike lan e for reimbursement through this program; cont act Caltrans 53. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program 54. Bicycle Transportation Account (BT A) Nov. Spring 2001 State Re sources Agency Caltrans 55. Safe Routes to School (AB 1475) Varies Caltrans $7.2 m annually $18 m not required but favored 10% 11. 5% Local, state and federal government non- profit agencies Cities and counties Government nge ncie s, non- profit groups, schools, community groups X X X X X X x Projects that enhance or mitigate future transportation projects; cont act EEM Proj ect Man ager (916) 653-5800 Contact local Caltrans district office for details Only two years of funding currently authorized as of 2000; submission dates and deadlines in flux Alta Transportation Consulting 47 CORONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Implementation Funding There are a variety of potential funding sources including local, state, regional, and federal funding programs that can be used to construct the proposed bicycle improvements. Most of the Federal, state, and regional programs are competitive, and involve the completion of extensive applications with clear documentation of the project need, costs, and benefits. Local funding for bicycle projects typically comes from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding, which is prorated to each community based on return of gasoline taxes. Funding for many of the programs would need to be procured either with TDA, general fund (staff time), or possibly private grants. Table 9 presents a summary of available funding along with timing, criteria, and funding agency. Transportation Equity Federal funding through the TEA -21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Act) program will provide a significant portion of outside Century (TEA -21) funding. TEA -21 currently contains three major programs, STP (Surface Transportation Program), TEA (Transportation Enhancement Activities), and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) along with other programs such as the National Recreational Trails Fund, Section 402(Safety) funds, Scenic Byways funds, and Federal Lands Highway funds. TEA -21 was adopted by both houses of Congress on May 22, 1998. However, there was delay in adopting the new transportation legislation resulting from conflicts between donor and recipient states (states that received more or less money than they paid in gas taxes) under the old transfer arrangements. The new formulas will rectify the past imbalances, allowing large donor states with higher amounts that can be transferred between various funding programs. The follow-up to ISTEA, TEA -21 offers some important changes in funding opportunities. TEA -21 funding is administered through the state (Caltrans or Resources Agency) and regional governments (Riverside County Transportation Commission). Most, but not all, of the funding programs are transportation versus recreational oriented, with an emphasis on (a) reducing auto trips and (b) providing an Alta Transportation Consulting 000314 49 TZTIT7TITTrIMPIP Implementation TEA -21 Highlights, continued 000315 • Requirement that each project be directly related to a surface transportation project • Eighty percent federal matching requirement applies only to total non-federal share rather than total project cost. • Eight specific projects are funded off the top of the TEA program, none in the western United States. 4. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) program was amended as follows: • $8.12 billion available nationwide • Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same • A small percentage can be transferred to other programs 5. The Recreational Trails Program was amended as follows: • $270 million available nationwide over the next six years • Bicycle project eligibility remains essentially the same 6. The Hazard Elimination Program was amended as follows: • Now can be used for bicycling and walking hazards • Definition of a "public road" now expended to include bikeways, pathways, and traffic calming measures. 7. A new category, Transit Enhancements Program, was created that calls for transit agencies in urbanized areas over 200,000 population to use 1 percent of their Urban Formula Funds for Transit Enhancements Activities. Up to $50 million per year may be available for pedestrian access, walkways, bicycle access, bike storage facilities, and bike -on -bus racks. The program calls for 95% Federal/5% local match. 8. Scenic Byway, bridge repair, transit, safety (non - construction), and Federal Lands programs all remain essentially the same under TEA -21, with the amounts either the same or increasing from ISTEA. Alta Transportation Consulting 51 RONA RECYCLE MASTER PLAN Implementation State Funding, continued AB 434 AB 434 funds are available for clean air transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in California. AB 2766 Clean air funds are generated by a surcharge on automobile registration. The Air Quality Management District may allocate some of these funds for external bicycle projects. The grants are generally in the range of $50,000 to $200,000 and are based on a cost -benefit formula for air quality developed by the District. Projects must have a direct and positive effect on reducing air pollutants through transportation programs or projects in the City. Bicycle Transportation Account The State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual statewide discretionary program that is available through the Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit for funding bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects that benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. While the fund has been small it was increased to 7.2 million per year starting fiscal year 2001. The City of Corona may apply for these funds through the Caltrans Office of Bicycle Facilities. Safe Routes to School (A81475) The Safe Routes to School program is a newly created State program using funds from the Hazard Elimination Safety program from TEA -21. For the year 2001, this program is meant to improve school commute routes by eliminating barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel through rehabilitation, new projects and traffic calming. A local match of 11.5% is required for this competitive program, which will allocate 18 million dollars annually. Planning grants are not available through this program. This fund expires this year, but legislation is pending to extend it. Alta Transportation Consulting 000316 53 > • ' M V Implementation Local Funding, continued Financing 000317 year, possibly working with a local designer or engineer. Work parties may be formed to help clear the right of way where needed. A local construction company may donate or discount services. A challenge grant program with local businesses may be a good source of local funding, where corporations 'adopt' a bikeway and help construct and maintain the facility. Other opportunities for implementation will appear over time which may be used to implement the system. Proposed improvements and programs to be developed over the next 20 years in Corona have been analyzed to determine the annual financing requirements, and to allow the City to budget its resources and target funding applications. It is important to note that the majority of funding for bicycle projects is expected to be derived from federal sources, TEA -21. These funding sources are extremely competitive, and require a combination of sound applications, local support, and lobbying on the regional and state level. Alta Transportation Consulting 55 Existing Design Standards and Classifications Corona Bicycle Master Plan Design & Maintenance This chapter provides details on the recommended design and maintenance operations for the Corona Bikeway System. National design standards for bikeways have been developed by the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, serves as the official design standard for all bicycle facilities in California. Design standards in Chapter 1000 fall into two categories, mandatory and advisory. Caltrans advises that all standards in Chapter 1000 be followed, which also provides a measure of design immunity to the City. Not all possible design options are shown in Chapter 1000. For example, intersections, ramp entrances, rural roads, and a variety of pathway locations are not specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. The following section summarizes key operating and design definitions: • Bicycle: A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having either two or three wheels in tandem or tricycle arrangement. • Class I Bikeway: Variously called a bike path or multi -use trail. Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated from any street or highway. • Class II Bikeway: Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a 56 000318 •,."�► = • - ,, Design and Maintenance Class I Guidelines, continued 000310 4. Landscaping should generally be low water consuming native vegetation and should have the least amount of debris. 5. Lighting should be provided where the bike path will be used by commuters in the evenings. 6. Barriers at pathway entrances should be clearly marked with reflectors and ADA accessible (minimum five feet clearance). 7 Bike path construction should take into account impacts of maintenance and emergency vehicles on shoulders and vertical requirements. 8. Provide two feet wide unpaved shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a separate tread way where feasible. Direct pedestrians to right side of pathway with signing and/or stenciling. 9. Provide adequate trailhead parking and other facilities such as restrooms, drinking fountains at appropriate locations. Alta Transportation Consulting 58 OJONA BICYCLE MASTER PLA Design and Maintenance Class II Guidelines, continued Recommendation 3: Class III Design. Recommendation 4: Other Guidelines to Consider Signing 7. Bike Zane pockets (min. 4' wide) between right turn lanes and through lanes should be provided wherever available width allows, and right turn volumes exceed 150 motor vehicles/hour. 8. Where bottlenecks preclude continuous bike lanes, they should be linked with Class III route treatments. Class III bike routes are typically simply signed routes and don't provide much advantage for bicyclists. With proper selection, signage and other treatments they can add significant visibility, direction and advantages. Class III routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques cis: • route, directional and distance signage • wide curb lanes • accelerated pavement maintenance schedules • new stencils marking the bike routes • traffic signals timed for cyclists • traffic calming In addition to those identified by Caltrans, there are a variety of improvements which will enhance the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists. All bikeway signing in Corona should conform to the signing identified in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These documents give specific information on the type and location of signing for the primary bike system. A list of bikeway signs from Caltrans and the MUTCD Bikeway Signing and Marking Standards are shown in Table 10. A typical bike route sign is shown in Figure 7. Corona should also provide standard signing at signalized and unsignalized intersections on bikeways, as shown in Figures 10 and 11. In addition, warning signs for motorists at intersection are also recommended for safety reasons (Figure 12) In addition to the signing, striping and stencils should be Alta Transportation Consulting 60 000320 RONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Design and Maintenance Sidewalks Traffic Calming The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by Caltrans, even as a Class III bike route. There are exceptions to this rule. The California Vehicle Code states: 'Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the (...) operation of bicycles (...) on the public sidewalks.' (CA VC 21100, Subdiv. H). Caltrans adds in Chapter 1000: 'In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel.' Action Corona has a number of existing sidewalks that are currently designated as bicycle facilities, but new sidewalks should be considered only when there are no other options. Traffic calming includes any effort to moderate or reduce vehicle speeds and/or volumes on streets where that traffic has a negative impact on bicycle or pedestrian movement. Because these efforts may impact traffic outside the immediate corridor, study of traffic impacts is typically required. For example, the City of Berkeley instituted traffic calming techniques by blocking access into residential streets. The impact was less traffic on local streets, and more traffic on arterials and collectors. Other techniques include installing traffic circles, intersection islands, partial street closings, 'bulb -out' curbs, pavement treatments, lower speed , signal timing, and narrowing travel lanes. The City of Corona already has a relatively continuous street grid system with little filtering of through traffic into residential neighborhoods. Traffic circles, roundabouts, and other measures may be considered for residential collector streets where there is a desire to control travel speeds and traffic volumes but not to install numerous stop signs or traffic signals. Alta Transportation Consulting 62 000321 RONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Design and Maintenance Parking Stalls or Optional 4' Solid Stripe Curb Lane: 10' Under 2000 ADT 11' over 2000 ADT (under 35 mph) 12 over 20,000 ADT (over 35 mph) Gutter transition must be smooth to be included in width Striped Parking Vertical Curb Parking Permitted Without Stripe or Stall CD DJ rg m II Bike Lane 6' Solid White Stripe_ 6' if parking is substantial or turnover of parked cars is high (e.g. commercial areas) Rolled Curb Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manua[ Bike Lane 13' if parking is substantial or tumover of parked cars is high (e.g. commercial areas) Figure 4: Class II Bike Lane Cross Section Alta Transportation Consulting 64 000322 CORONA BIcYa-E MASTER PLA besign and Maintenance Signal Pole Typical High -Speed, Low Visibility Channelized Right Turn 142* (7. ---.:Varies: 50' Signal Pole Modified Low -Speed, Higher Visibility Channelized Right Turn 112* l (±=4°. R=275' Figure 6: Recommended Right Turn Channelization Alta Transportation. nsulting 66 0003?;• PrIll emr1711r Design and Maintenance Table 10: Recommended Signing and Marking, continued Item Location Color Caltrans Designation MUTCD Designation Trail Regulations All trail entrances B on W n/a n/a Multi -purpose Trail: Bikes Yield to Pedestrians All trail entrances n/a n/a n/a Bikes Reduce Speed & Call Out Before Passing Every 2,000 feet B on W n/a n/a Please Stay On Trail In environmentally -sensitive areas n/a n/a n/a Caution: Storm Damaged Trai I Storm damaged locations B on Y n/a n/a Trail Closed: No Entry Until Made Accessible & Safe for Public Use Where trail or access points closed due to hazardous conditions n/a n/a n/a Speed Limit Signs Near trail entrances: where speed limits should be reduced from 20 mph B on W n/a n/a Trail Curfew 10PM - 5AM Based on local ordinance R on W n/a n/a Alta Transportation Consulting 68 000321 8 et z• Design and Maintenance YIELD TO BIKES Figure 8: Schematic of Colored Lane Application 28" .- ► 344 tit ?b' Figure 9 Schematic of Pavement Stencil in use in San Francisco and Denver Alta TransporGAA �nalting 70 CORONA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Design and Maintenance wm Where Vehicle parking is Prohibited ere O T uopnB 4snd a'I!t3 • uotp+p Wsnci pad • Notes: edu1S GIRIM PloS .9 Lpreaence Loop With Stencil Typical Signalized Intersection Presence Loop With Stencil -7 When parking area becomes Right - Turn -Only lane Typical path of through bicyclist I. The Bicycle Crossing sign (W79) is optional where the approach is controlled by a signal, stop sign, or yield sign. 2. 250 - 1500 feet (75 -450 m); Based on vehical approach speed. COO 3. The bike lane may either be dropped entirely approximately 100` -200'(30- rasa 60 m) in advance of the intersection, or a dashed line carried to the intersection or through the intersection is optional. e0 T } .CL fy t✓ 6' Sold While Sldpe Q H ORS KIM 0I3 chi Rte Varies 2 • Ped Push i2uom • Bike Push Button -5- M optional 4' sand white stripe may be used it place at t^.e cross sincere wtsare parking ataiis are unnecessary because pal1dng is Gght and there is concern that a motorist may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane Where Vehicle parking is Permitted ma aws CEM Figure 11: Signing at Signalized Intersections Alta Transportation Consulting 72 000326 I:.,. = hM_ n_ . 1i, Design and Maintenance Table 11: Recommended Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Locations and Quantities Land Use or Location Physical Location Type of Parking Bicycle Capacity City Park Adjacent to restrooms, picnic areas, fields, and other attractions A Frame, Staple Rack 8 bicycles per acre City Schools Near office entrance with good visibility A Frame, Staple rack in fenced area 8 bicycles per 40 students Public Facilities (City Hall, libraries, community centers) Near main entrance with good visibility U, Staple Rack 8 bicycles per location Commercial, Retail and Industrial Developments over 10,000 gross square feet Near main entrance with good visibility U, Staple Rack 1 bicycle per 15 employees or 8 bicycles per 10,000 gross square feet Shopping Centers over 10,000 gross square feet Near main entrance with good visibility U, Staple Rack 8 bicycles per 10,000 gross square feet Commercial Districts Near main entrance with good visibility Not to obstruct auto or pedestrian movement U or Staple Rack 2 bicycles every 200 feet Transit Stations Near platform or security guard Enclosed Lockers 1 bicycle per 30 parking spaces Recommended Locations Prohibited Locations 4 Feet Minimum Distance From 5 Feet Minimum Distance From Red zones, blue zones, bus zones, white zones, corners Parking meters, newspaper boxes, trees, sign posts, light poles and public telephones. Wheelchair ramps, driveways fire hydrants, fire escapes, and doorways. 000327 Alta Transportation Consulting 74 ORONA BICYCLE AAASTER PLAN Design and Maintenance 4,- Melo Competent. 1 • End 3 • Back 3• DMCN 4- Mak 6 - &de e • Dew 7. Post 0•Lock 6 -Top TOP VIEW 6 Lockers 10 Bicycles Figure 14: Bicycle Lockers Alta Transportation Consulting 01103?, '�= ��► = •.: ��: :� •! besign and Maintenance Table: 12 Bikeway Maintenance Check List and Schedule Item Sign Replacement/Repair Pavement Marking Replacement Tree, Shrub & grass trimming/fert. Pavement sealing/potholes Clean drainage system Pavement sweeping Shoulder and grass mowing Trash disposal Lighting Replacement/Repair Graffiti removal Maintain Furniture Fountain/restroom cleaning/repair Pruning Bridge/Tunnel Inspection Remove fallen trees Weed control Remove snow and ice Maintain emergency telephones, CCTV Maintain irrigation lines Irrigate/water plants Frequency 1 - 3 .years 1 - 3 years 5 months - 1 year 5 - 15 years' 1 year Weekly-Monthly/As needed Weekly/As needed Weekly/As needed 1 year Weekly-Monthly/As needed 1 year Weekly-Monthly/As needed 1 - 4 years 1 year As needed Monthly/As needed Weekly/As needed 1 year 1 year Weekly-Monthly/As needed Alta Transpor tioti§pelting 78 cm, :, •s e ,lrm:. { Design and Maintenance Liability, continued Liability, continued Planning, Design_ and Management Manual for Multi -Use Trails. Note that Caltrans requirements and guidelines are legally binding for all bikeways in California: deviations to these standards must go through the design exception process. Careful compliance with applicable laws, regulations, route selection criteria, and design standards should greatly reduce the risk of injury to bicyclists using the bikeway, and also provide strong evidence that the agency used reasonable care. A detailed Project Feasibility Report is specifically designed to address existing standards. 2. Traffic signals and warning devices. CalTrans has adopted a Traffic Design Manual, which defines the circumstances under which traffic signals and warning devices are required. While California law limits the liability of public entities for failure to install regulatory traffic signals, signage and markings, non -regulatory warning signs must be installed where necessary to warn of dangerous condition, such as an intersection. All signals and warning devices must be adequately maintained, so as not to invite reliance on a defective warning device. 3. Usage of Professionals. Facilities that have been reviewed and approved by unregistered or unlicensed professionals may increases liability exposure. 4. Adhere to Maintenance Standards. Maintenance practice should be consistent along the entire facility, and conform to recognized maintenance practices. The responsible maintenance agency(ies) should have a written procedure to follow to maintain all portions of the facility, including pre-existing conditions such as drain grates. 5. Monitor Conditions. The responsible agency(ies) should have an internal mechanism to monitor and respond to actual operating conditions on the Alta Transportation Consulting 80 O003.1n RC/NA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Design and Maintenance Liability, continued 11. Do Not Rush to Settle. Fear that juries will award a plaintiff large sums for damages has made many attorneys eager to settle cases before they come to court. Lawsuits related to bikeways and walkways may be settled more quickly than other types of lawsuits due to the misconception that walking or bicycling are inherently unsafe activities. Attorneys may feel that a local government has an extra responsibility on designated bikeways or walkways —more than it does for motor vehicles on roadways for example —to prevent incidents. In fact, there is no evidence that bicycling or walking is inherently more or less safe than other transportation modes such as driving, flying, or other recreational activities such as swimming or playing soccer. This misconception is probably shared by the same public, who must be educated about the facts of bicycling and walking. The same exceptions for user responsibility and facility condition that apply to driving should apply to bicycling or walking. Since by lay bicyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all roadways except were expressly prohibited, and roadway conditions vary widely, a public agency incurs no additional liability by identifying the route on a map or a plan. The net effect or prematurely settling a case is to incrementally reduce the types of improvements that can be offered by local government. In other cases, settling cases prematurely may simply encourage legal actions by others. Alta Transportation Consulting 00n 33 82 Appendix A (Insert Land Use Map) 00033;' Appendix B Acronym List 1 AASHTO American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials 2 ADA American Disabilities Act 3 AD T Average Daily Trips 4 BMP Bicycle Master Plan 5 BTA Bicycle Transportation Account 6 Caltrans California Department of Transportation 7 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 8 CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 9 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 10 LACBC Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition 11 LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 12 LBATRA Long Beach Area Transportation Resource Association 13 MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 14 MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 15 NHS National Highway System 16 OTS Office of Traffic Safety 17 RFP Request For Proposal 18 RTP Regional Transportation Plan 19 SCAG Southern California Association of Governments 20 STP Surface Transportation Program 21 SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System 22 TAC Technical Advisory Committee 23 TPA Transportation Development Act 24 TE Funds Transportation Enhancement Funds 25 TEA Transportation Enhancement Activities 26 TEA -21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 000333 AGENDA ITEfrf 22 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2001 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: SB 821 Program Extension for the City of Temecula STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Committee approval to: 1) Grant the City of Temecula a six-month extension to December 30, 2001 to complete the Southern Cross Road Sidewalk Project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Temecula was allocated $40,160 in FY 2000-01 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funds for the construction of the Southern Cross Road sidewalk project. The plans and specifications for the project have been approved and the project was advertised for bid beginning June 13, 2001. Bid opening is scheduled for July 11, 2001. The City anticipates completing the project by August 31, 2001, and is requesting a six month extension to claim the approved funds. 000331