The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03 March 24, 2003 Budget & Implementation(J5r77 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 2:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, March 24, 2003 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1St Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Robert Schiffner, Chair / Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Terry Henderson, Vice -Chair/ Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Art Welch / Sue Palmer, City of Banning Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Jack Wamsley / Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan DeLara / City of Coachella Mike Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio G. Dana Hobart / Ron Meepos, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two/ County of Riverside Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission H 0/-3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda__ 2:30 p.m. Monday, March 24 , 2003 BOARD CHAMBERS* * County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, lS` Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Committee at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (February 24, 2003) 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioners) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Pg. 1 Overview Budget and Implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 2 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending February 28, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 66. HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 5 1) Receive and file the attached Highway & Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. AWARD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT NO. 03-31-061 TO DMJM + HARRIS FOR THE MEASURE "A" STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II PROJECT, FROM WASSON CANYON TO 7T" STREET Pg. 7 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Concur with the selection committee's recommendation and consultant ranking to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, as follows: Top Ranked DMJM + Harris Second Caltrop Third Berg & Associates, Inc 2) Authorize staff to contract out for a pre -award audit of DMJM+Harris and contingent upon the successful completion of a pre -award audit; 3) Award Contract No. 03-31-061 to DMJM + Harris to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, for a Base Work amount of $2,375,000 and an Extra Work amount of $125,000 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000; 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. 8. APPROVE AGREEMENT #03-33-062 WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES FOR Budget and Implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR A NEW PARKING LOT AT THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION Pg. 17 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement #03-33-062 (Amendment #3 to Agreement #02- 33-029) with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to provide Preliminary Design and Environmental Services for a new parking lot on the south side of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station for an additional base amount of $69,253 and a total not to exceed agreement value of $568,959; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TO BUILD A RAIL AND BUS MULTIMODAL FACILITY IN PERRIS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 26 1) Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering services for the development of the Perris Multimodal Facility; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and City of Perris staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. REQUEST TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Pg. 28 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the State Route 74 Segment 11 Highway Improvement Project, from Wasson Canyon Road to Budget and Implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 4 Seventh Street, in the County of Riverside, contingent upon receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. 1-215 NORTH FROM THE 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE TO 1-10 — COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SANBAG ON FUNDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK Overview Pg. 30 1) Approve a loan from the 2002 Measure A Extension program which begins on July 1, 2009 to support project development work on the Commission's 1-215 North project; 2) Authorize repayment of borrowed funds in FY 2009-10 at 4% interest from 2002 funds to the current (1988) Measure program; 3) Approve entering into a cooperative agreement with SANBAG to participate in and fund the development of an EIR/EIS for the 1-215 North project; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final approval. 12. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the budget adjustments for State Transit Assistance; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 37 13. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the agreement for State Board of Pg. 38 Budget and implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 5 Equalization administration of District transactions and Use taxes; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. AUDITOR SELECTION Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg.41 1) Approve the selection of McGladrey and Pullen as the auditor of the Commission's Local Transportation Fund's, and State Transit Assistance's financial statements and the Single Audit for the Commission for the amount of $82,800; and 2) Approve the selection of Caporicci and Larson as the auditor of the Measure A and TDA recipients for the amount of $178,325; and 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. INVESTMENT POLICY REVISION Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revisions to the Investment Policy, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 53 16. AGREEMENT #03-45-060 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY CALL BOX SYSTEM FOR FY 2001-02 Pg. 62 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement #03-045-060 with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, for the operation of the call box system for FY 2001-02; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and Budget and Implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 6 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. PROPOSAL TO THE MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUESTING FUNDING FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON SR -60 Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 72 1) Authorize staff to submit an application to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) requesting $274,056 in funding for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) service on SR -60; 2) Commit to providing the required 25% matching funds; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission once funding is finalized; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 18. FY 2003-04 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM Pg. 80 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Release a Call for Projects for the FY 2003-04 SB 821 program and notify the cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 19. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS Pg. 83 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Countywide candidate project list for submission to Congressional representatives for consideration in the annual federal appropriations process, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee March 24, 2003 Page 7 20. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the State Legislative Update, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 21. COMMISSIONERS/STAFF REPORT Overview Pg. 87 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues relted to Commission activities. 22. ADJOURNMENT The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2003, in the Board Chambers of the County Administrative Center at 4080 Lemon Street, 1St Floor, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, February 24, 2003 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chairperson Chris Buydos at 2:33 p.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Chris Buydos Terry Henderson Ameal Moore Robert Schiffner John F. Tavaglione Placido Valdivia Jim Venable Jack Wamsley Art Welch Members Absent Robert Crain Juan DeLara G. Dana Hobart Gregory Pettis Mike Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — M/S/C (Venable/Wamsley) to approve the January 27, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Henderson Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revision to the agenda. 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Commissioner John Tavaglione nominated Commissioner Robert Schiffner as the 2003 Chairman of the Budget and Implementation Committee. M/S/C (Welch/Henderson) to elect Commissioner Robert Schiffner as the Committee Chairman. B. Commissioner John Tavaglione nominated Commissioner Terry Henderson as the 2003 Vice -Chairperson of the Budget and Implementation Committee. M/S/C (Welch/Tavaglione) to elect Commissioner Terry Henderson as the Committee Vice -Chairperson. -- At this time, Commissioner Schiffner assumed the Chair. 7 CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Buydos/Tavaglione) to approve the Consent Calendar. 7A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending January 31, 2003; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ending December 31, 2002; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 3 8. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-055 FOR ADDITIONAL ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Karl Sauer, RCTC's Consultant - Bechtel Construction Manager, reviewed the unforeseen circumstances associated with the construction of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station and additional material testing services required to support construction of the Riverside -Downtown and Riverside - La Sierra Metrolink Station Parking Lot Expansion Projects resulting the staff recommendation to amend the agreement with Ninyo & Moore. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-055 (Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. RO-9832) with Ninyo & Moore to provide additional on -call material testing services in support of Measure "A" projects scheduled for construction for the remainder of this fiscal year, for an additional base amount of $86,000.00; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. AGREEMENT NO. 03-33-038 FOR RIVERSIDE -LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION PHASE II PARKING LOT EXPANSION Bill Hughes, RCTC's Consultant - Bechtel Project Manager, briefly reviewed the La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase I and 11 Parking Lot Expansion Projects and the responses from the three lowest bidders for the Phase II Project. He noted that the three lowest bidders did not submit evidence of insurance but staff is currently working with the bidders to verify they either currently have or can obtain the insurance required. Commissioner Terry Henderson questioned why none of the bidders submitted evidence of insurance with the bid documents. Bill Hughes responded that it has been the practice of the bidders not to include the insurance certificate due to the cost to obtain it until confirmation of award is received. However, all insurance certificates must be in place by the awarded bidder in order to proceed with the project. Discussion followed whether or not bidders must include the insurance certificates with their bid documents. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Jim Venable's inquiry, Bill Hughes indicated that the insurance requirements are outlined in the Request for Proposal and staff will reinforce this requirement. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 03-33-038 for the construction of the Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station Phase II Parking Lot Expansion Project to Riverside Construction Co. for the amount of $1,199,850 plus a contingency amount of $150,150 to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $1,350,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003- 2004 BUDGET John Standiford, Director of Public Information, presented the proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget, outlining the following: • Mobility • Goods Movement • Congestion Relief and Safety Improvements • Air Quality • Economic Development • Intermodalism and Accessibility • Technological Innovation • Public and Agency Communications Commissioner Ameal Moore asked if the Goals and Objectives addressed working with cities for grade separation project funding. Eric Haley responded that the grade separation projects are included in the TEA 3 Reauthorization package and confirmed they continue to be a priority. He noted that the current and reauthorized Measure "A" do not include specific program areas for grade separations but are part of every advocacy effort with Federal and State Governments for discretionary funds. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Chris Buydos requested that under the Economic Development section, the following wording be added, "Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges and corridors that are in proximity to and serve regional economic centers and developments." M/S/C (Moore/Venable) to: 1) Approve the proposed Commission's Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget as amended; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. CITY OF CANYON LAKE LOAN John Standiford presented the City of Canyon Lake's request for a loan to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road, including the terms of the loan and the loan amortization schedule. Eric Haley noted that loans have previously been approved for the Cities of Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, and Hemet. They have proven to be good investments for the Commission and beneficial to the Cities. Commissioner Tavaglione requested staff review the Measure "A" Loan Policy, taking into consideration the federal, state, and local financial positions that could create a stronger demand on this loan program. At the request of Commissioner Buydos, John Standiford confirmed that the funds will come from the current Measure and will be repaid under the current Measure timeline. M/S/C (Venable/Buydos) to: 1) Grant the City of Canyon Lake an advance of Measure "A" - Local Streets and Roads Funds; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AMENDMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2003 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CORONA, LAKE ELSINORE, AND PALM DESERT Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the amendments to the FY 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads.requested by the Cities of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Palm Desert. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 6 M/S/C (BuydosNenable) to: 1) Approve the amendments to the FY 2003 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Corona, Lake Elsinore, and Palm Desert; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATION FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY APPORTIONMENT AREA Jerry Rivera reviewed the FY 2002-03 allocation of LTF Funds for Local Streets and Roads for the Palo Verde Valley Area. M/S/C (Buydos/Venable) to: 1) Allocate the FY 2002-03 Local Transportation Funds for Local Streets and Roads purposes in the Palo Verde Valley Apportionment Area; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. SB 821 EXTENSION STREAMLINING Jerry Rivera reviewed the Commission's request to review the SB 821 Extension Policy and the resulting Technical Advisory Committee and staff recommendation. Commissioner Buydos requested that the policy include that a local agency may receive one twelve-month for projects requiring coordination with another public agency that have been delayed beyond the local agency's control. M/S/C (Buydos/Tavaglione) to approve: 1) Adopt the policy regarding project extensions for the Commission's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program as amended; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 7 15. CITY OF PERRIS CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY SUBSTITUTION REQUEST Shirley Medina, Program Manager, presented the City of Perris Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Substitution Request for the design and construction of a 'round about'. Commissioner Henderson noted that the City of La Quinta constructed a 'round about' project approximately one year ago and has been extremely successful. M/S/C (Buydos/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the City of Perris request to substitute the State Route 74 and Redlands Signal Project with a "Round About" Project at the same location and transfer the unobligated CMAQ Funds from the signal project to the round about project; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATION BALANCES Shirley Medina reviewed the projects for which CMAQ Funds had been obligated but not expended. Staff recommends moving these unexpended funds to the SR 60 HOV Project from the East 1-215 Junction to Redlands Boulevard. M/S/C (Venable/Buydos) to: 1) Approve moving unexpended CMAQ Funds to the State Route 60 HOV Project from the East Interstate 215 Junction to Redlands Boulevard; 2) Receive and file a report on the status of federal funding obligation balances; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, updated the Committee on the status of the State Budget, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, and the Reauthorization of TEA 21. Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting February 24, 2003 Page 8 M/S/C (Buydos/Venable) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 18. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 19. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments by Commissioners or staff. 20. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2:30 p.m., Monday, March 24, 2003, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending February 28, 2003, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status on contracts reported by projects, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending February 28, 2003. Attachment: Monthly Report — February 2003 000001 RCTC MEASURE °°A°° HIGHWAY/I 'ROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLOCATION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Final Design/ROW HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042) (3000) SU$ TAL IWU. TSB ROUTE 74 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) (R02141) (2140)...(3001) (3009) SUBTQTAL RQUTE7a i iEi ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Engineering/Environ./ROW (3003) Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961) SUSTOtAL Rtu 70 ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2) SU6TElTAt R TE E ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwall/Aux lane design, ROW and construction (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) (2144) (2136) (3600, 3602) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R03008) Mary Street to 7th Street HOV design & ROW(3005) Sndwall Landscaping.(R09933,9946,2059.3601) RGiu'h' ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R0 9219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9540) 3410,9635,974319849-9851,9857,9529 (3400-3405) • $7,700,000 $7,700, $69,847,655 $69;847 855 $2,894,497 $20,253,000 $33,860,000 14113 sIOO' $11,902,100 $2,954,000 $1,274,430 $1,603,450 �9 7;7'3�,S8b $16,946,856 3�46,�48,588' CONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE $6,838,641 ;:538;0 $29,514,368 17 ,514 358 $2,793,935 $1793}935 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 $53,260,000 $10,374,324 $2,954,000 $1,062,025 $1,603,450 $16,946,856 $ iS,94fi;8.5.6; Page 1 of 3 % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST ALLOCATION 02/28/03 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE 88 .8% 42 .3 % 3% 96 .5% 96 .3 % 99 .7% 87.2 % 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% 100.0% $237,552 $37,552 $504,088 $4 088; $30,928 0.90`; Project Complete Project Complete • $0 $0 845,555 $0 ;txz5� $673,929 $,o29' $5,612,315 5;6;12,3#$ $20,059,100 20 059 100 $986,505 86:505 $18,060,000 $31,013,510 9 073,610 $9,527,668 $2,109,519 $457,359 $852,213 946.,759: $15,619,414 S'I 5;£10,4 f 4. 68.0% 35.3% 5.? 92.6% 91.9% 9: 91.8% 71,4 % 43.1% 53.1% 92 .2 % 2 RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGI ' PRO JECTS BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMM ITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES PROJECT AUTHORIZED COM MITMENTS AGAINSTAUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 02/28/03 TO DATE COM MITMNTS TO DATE 1-215 PROJECTS Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018) SUl3`E"f TAL f• 45_ INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946) % T[77AL ItsTEROHAN PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. (Agreement (02-31-081)) SUBTOTAL171=Ls:` PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corridor study (R09936) SUBTOTAL P#7OGRAM AL,ANN -$ SVCS PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM (RO 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917) 2126 2127,2138,2139 SUSTOTAL.PA.Mic*filpOiiii COMMUTER RAIL Studles/Engineering/Construction (RO 9731,9832,9833,9956,2028) 2031,2027,2120 R02029,2128, 3800 - 3811,3813, 3814) Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Costs ;0000,2026,2056,4000-4007,4198A199,4009,3812 SU r3TALON1P/I06 R.AI%, ... . 174 $440,000 $2,138,641 $25,000 $2,323,177 323,17�7! $19,985,407 $13,900,329 X33;885,7 7-76,0 87. 4% 90.9% 94. 8% 100. 0% 100 .0% Page 2 of 3 $5,878,173 $400,000 $2,027,483 2,{i2T,41R3 $25,000 2000 $2,323,177 10:44. 01 $19,654,070 $13,900,329 $0 $115,671 (1 . $0 $5,704,897 $312,519 $1,084,793 $165,916 $1,543,248 $1,183,240 $19,452,210 $92,169 4 $9,347,704 9;799,9. a1 ;742 78.1% .1% 535%0 0.0% 66.4% 99.0% 67 .2 % RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/LOCAL .EETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroad Canyon Rd Improvements SIJBTOTAL;GANYON LAKE L CITY OF CORONA Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure SUBTOTAL, CITY OF CORONA CITY OF PERRIS Local streets & road improvements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Local streets & road improvements CITY OF TEM ECULA Local streets & road improv ements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local streets and road Imprmts CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Local streets & road improvements CITY OF HEMET Local streets & roads improvements TOTALS: APPROVED COMMITMENT $1,600,000 $5,212,623 1;1. 23:: $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 0.0 % NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs. EXPENDITURE FOR MONTH ENDED 02/28/03 TOTAL MEASURE "A" ADVANCES $1,600,000 $5,212,623 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 $2,139,067 $1,500,000 $730,000 1 e B.fFG;S36:' All values are for total Proje ct/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets. OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE $641,665 $641,665;; $2,808,769 $2 848,7'68:: $1,140,908 $780,375 $3,001,322 $1,260,306 $700,605 $0 % LOAN BALANCE OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AG AINST COMMIT MENT APPRO VED COMMIT. 40 .1% 53.9% Stat us as of: 2/28)73 58.9 % 58.9 % 58.9 % 58 .9% 46.7% 5is$To Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Program Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager _ THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Highway and Commuter Rail Construction Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the attached Highway & Commuter Rail Construction Program Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND: The following is a summary of the status of all RCTC Contracts which are either: 1. Currently under construction; 2. Being advertised for receipt of Construction Bids; or 3. In final design, and will be ready to advertise for receipt of Construction Bids within the next six (6) months. The attached RCTC Project Construction Status summary sheet outlines the status of the referenced project as of March 14, 2003. All underlined dates are actual dates and all bold dates are forecasted dates. 000005 Riverside County Transportati, ;ommission - Project Constructi on Status - Project Contractor Advertise Open Bids Award Start Const Finish P rojects under Constructio n Adams/Mallory Construction Placentia, CA - Lynch Communication, Inc . Riverside, CA Riverside Const Co., Inc . Riverside, CA L.D. Anderson, Inc . Bloomington, CA Riverside Const Co., Inc. Riverside, CA Granitex Const. Co., Inc . Costa Mesa, CA New Age Communications Ontario, CA Riverside Const Co., Inc. Riverside, CA To be determined To be determined 15 -Apr -02 6 -Jun -02 12 -Jun -02 5 -Jul -02 22 -Nov -02 ,1. North Corona Main Station Operational Station Complete 2. West Corona & LaSierra CCTV Security System 3. Route 74, Segment I 4. Downtown Riverside Parking Lot Expansion 5. Riverside - LaSierra Parking Expansion - Phase I 6. Pedley Emergency Platform Extension Pro jects Recently Awarded 15 -Apr -02 4 -Jun -02 12 -Jun -02 22 -Jul -02 9 -Jul -03 11 - Apr -03 17 -Oct -03 14 -Mar -03 20 -May -02 2 -Jul -02 10 -Jul -02 16 -Sep -02 10 -Jun -02 8 -Jul -02 10 -Jul -02 8 -Oct -02 10 -Jun -02 15-Auci-02 11 -Sep -02 21 -Oct -02 11 - Apr -03 23 -May -03 18 -July -03 24 -Oct -03 Aug -05 Jun -05 16 -Sep -02 17 -Oct -02 13 -Nov -02 25 -Feb -03 4 -Dec -02 16 -Jan -03 12 -Feb -03 12 -May -03 12 -May -03 Aug -03 Nov -03 1. Pedley CCTV Security System 2. Riverside - LaSierra Parking Expansion - Phase II Projects in Final Design 4 -Dec -02 6 -Feb -03 12 -Mar -03 April -03 Jul-03 May -03 Aug-03 June -03 Sep -03 1. Route 60, Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening ;2. Route 74, Segment II 37 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager , __. Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Construction Management Contract No. 03-31-061 to DMJM + Harris for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment 11 Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Concur with the selection committee's recommendation and consultant ranking to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, as follows: Top Ranked DMJM + Harris Second Caltrop Third Berg & Associates, Inc 2) Authorize staff to contract out for a pre -award audit of DMJM + Harris and contingent upon the successful completion of a pre -award audit; 3) Award Contract No. 03-31-061 to DMJM + Harris to provide construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street, for a Base Work amount of $2,375,000 and an Extra Work amount of $125,000 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements will realign curves and widen the 000007 existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project is being designed in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Construction of Phase 1 from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon began in September of 2002 and is currently scheduled for completion by October, 2003. The design of Phase 11, from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street, is currently scheduled for completion in June 2003. It is anticipated that Phase 11 of the project will be ready to advertise for construction bids by July of 2003 and the start of construction is scheduled for November of 2003. At the January 8, 2003 Commission meeting, the Commission approved and directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to perform construction management support services for the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon to 7th Street. It is anticipated that the SR - 74 Segment II Project will be ready to advertise for construction bids in the summer of 2003. The calendar of events was as follows: Advertise Request for Proposals January 13, 2003 Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline February 13, 2003 Shortlist Top Three Firms February 27, 2003 Interview Top Three Firms March 13, 2003 Staff received proposals from eleven (1 1) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC, Bechtel, Caltrans, City of Perris and County of Riverside. The selection panel reviewed the eleven (1 1) proposals and determined to extend an invitation for oral interviews to the three firms. The three (3) firms each presented teams that would be capable of completing 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 (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked DMJM + Harris Second Caltrop Third Berg & Associates, Inc. 000008 After DMJM + Harris, out of Orange, CA, was selected as the top ranked firm, their cost proposal was opened and used as a starting point in further negotiations. Staff has been working with DMJM + Harris and has come to an agreement with the attached scope of services and the respective costs. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Contract No. 03-31-061 be awarded to DMJM + Harris, contingent upon a successful completion of a pre - award audit. The contract will be to provide construction management support services for construction of the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project, from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris for a Base Work amount of $2,375,000 and a Extra Work amount of $125,000 for a Total Contract amount not to exceed $2,500,000. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $2,500,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" and SHOPP Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 1222-31-81302 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: + 3-17-03 Attachment A - Scope of Work 006009 Attachment "A" Scope of Work The scope of work for this project is to perform Construction Management (CM) support services as part of the Measure "A" Strategic Plan Project, which includes improvements to Route 74 Phase 11, between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the city of Perris, a length of approximately 5.5 miles. The improvements are to widen the existing` 2 -lane roadway to 4 lanes with 8 -foot shoulders and a continuous 14 -foot paved median. The improvements to Route 74 are being conducted in two phases. Phase I is from 1-15 to east of Wasson Canyon Road and is currently under construction. Phase 11 is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. This CM is for Phase 11 only in which construction will begin east of Wasson Canyon Road (STA. 77+00; KP 32.5; PM 20.2) and construction will end at 7th Street (STA. 161 +20; KP 41.4; PM 25.7). The CM should be prepared to assist RCTC with bid preparation and constructability review and to conduct research on the utility relocation plans (if any), be prepared for coordination for community outreach activities related to the upcoming construction activities, and to help identify the staging areas for the project. The project's final design is scheduled for completion by June 2003. 1. PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE. A. Consultant shall assign responsibilities for safety precautions and programs, temporary Project facilities, and equipment, materials and services for common use of the contractors. B. Consultant shall review the scope of work at the Project to ensure that: (1) the Work is coordinated; (2) all requirements for the Management Project have been assigned to the appropriate separate contracts; (3) the likelihood of jurisdictional disputes has been minimized; and (4) proper coordination has been provided for phased construction. C. Consultant shall develop a Project Construction Schedule providing for all major elements, such as times of commencement and completion required for the Project. The Consultant shall provide the Project Construction Schedule for each set of Bidding Documents. 0ki D. Consultant shall cooperate with and assist the Commission in ensuring that all contracts for construction are competitively bid when required by law. E. Consultant shall cooperate with and assist the Commission in ensuring that the following requirements are included in all proposed contract documents: (1) applicable requirements for equal employment opportunity programs, including all DBE requirements; (2) performance bonds at 100% of the total contract amount; (3) labor and material bonds at 100% of the total contract amount; and (4) bid bonds at 10% of the total contract amount. F. The selected Consultant shall not be a bidder on any individual contract within the Management Project. However, the Consultant shall: (1) develop Bidders' interest in the Project; (2) assist the Commission in the pre -qualification of bidders by sitting on the evaluation committee if requested; (3) assist the Commission in checking the references and experience of the bidders; (4) share information in its possession with the Commission and the evaluation committee; (5) establish bidding schedules; (6) assist the Commission in issuing Bidding Documents to Bidders; (7) conduct pre -bid conferences to familiarize Bidders with the Bidding Documents, management techniques and any special systems, materials or methods; and (8) assist the Commission with the receipt of questions from Bidders and with the issuance of Addenda. G. Consultant shall receive bids, prepare required bid summaries and make recommendations to the Commission for award of contracts or the rejection of Bids. H. Consultant shall certify in writing that the contracts contained in the submittal represent all of the prime contracts required to perform the work in the contract plans and specifications of the total Management Project, and that no additional prime contracts are foreseen to complete the necessary work. J. Consultant shall conduct pre -award conferences with successful Bidders. Consultant shall assist the Commission in preparing Construction Contracts. K. In addition to the above, Consultant shall provide all construction management services for the Pre -Construction Phase which are required by applicable state laws, rules or regulations. 00001 2. CONSTRUCTION PHASE. The Construction Phase will commence with the award of the first Construction Contract. A. Consultant shall provide administration of the Contracts for the Project. B. The Consultant shall provide administrative, management -and related services as required to coordinate work and allow the Commission to complete the Project in accordance with the Commission's objectives for cost, time and quality. Consultant shall provide sufficient organization, personnel and management to carry out the requirements of this Agreement. C. Consultant shall schedule and conduct preconstruction, construction and progress meetings to discuss such matters as procedures, progress problems and scheduling. The Consultant shall prepare and promptly distribute official minutes of such meetings. D. Consultant shall prepare the Project Schedule and update the Project Schedule periodically as required by this Agreement. The Consultant shall incorporate the activities of contractors on the project, including activity sequences and durations, allocation of labor and materials, processing of Project plans. E. Consultant shall endeavor to achieve satisfactory performance from each of the contractors. The Consultant shall recommend courses of action to the Commission when requirements of a contract are not being fulfilled and the nonperforming party will not take satisfactory corrective action from the Consultant or Commission. F. Consultant shall incorporate approved changes as they occur, and develop cash flow reports and forecasts as needed. G. Consultant shall: (1) recommend necessary or desirable changes to the Commission; (2) review requests for changes; (3) assist in negotiating contactors' proposals; (4) submit recommendations to the Commission; and (5) prepare and sign Change Orders for the Commission's authorization. H. Consultant shall develop and implement procedures for the review and processing of Applications for progress and final payments. Consultant shall make recommendations for certification to the Commission for payment. OO2 I. Consultant shall provide regular monitoring of the approved estimates of Total Construction Cost, showing actual costs for activities in progress, and estimates for uncompleted tasks. Consultant shall identify variances between actual and budgeted or estimated costs, and advise the Commission whenever Project costs exceed budgets or estimates. J. Consultant shall maintain cost accounting records on authorized work performed under unit costs, additional work performed on the basis of actual costs of labor and materials, or other work requiring accounting records. K. Consultant shall ensure that safety programs are developed by each of the contractors as required by their contract documents, and shall coordinate the safety programs for the Project. L. Consultant shall assist in obtaining building permits and special permits for permanent improvements. Consultant shall verify that the Commission has paid applicable fees and assessments, and shall assist in obtaining approvals from authorities having jurisdiction over the Management Project. M. Consultant shall be selecting and retaining the professional services of surveyors, special consultants and testing laboratories, and shall coordinate their services. N. Consultant shall determine whether the work of each contractor is being performed in accordance with the requirements of their contract documents, and shall endeavor to guard the Commission against defects and deficiencies in such work. The Consultant shall make recommendations to the Commission regarding special inspection or testing of Work not in accordance with the provisions of the contract documents whether or not such work is then fabricated, installed or completed. The Consultant shall also inform the Commission of work that it believes does not conform to the requirements of the contract documents. Consultant shall review any contractor's recommendations for corrective action on observed non -conforming work. 0. Consultant shall not be responsible for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures employed by the contractors in performance of their contracts with the Commission. Consultant shall also not be responsible for the failure of any contractor to carry out their work in accordance with the contract documents. Consultant shall be responsible, however, for any reports, advice or information provided to the Commission regarding the Project and the work of the contractors, including any information regarding the compliance of their work with the contract documents. 000013 P. Consultant shall consult with the Commission if any Contractor requests interpretations of the meaning and intent of the Drawings and Specifications, and shall assist in the resolution of questions which may arise. Q. Consultant shall receive Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements from the Contractors, and shall forward them to the Commission's purchasing agent. R. Consultant shall receive and review from the contractors all Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other submittals. Consultant shall coordinate them with information contained in related documents and transmit to the Commission for review and approval. In collaboration with the Commission, Consultant shall establish and implement procedures for expediting the processing and approval of Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other submittals. S. Consultant shall record the progress of the Management Project, and shall submit weekly written progress reports to the Commission including information on each Contractor and each Contractor's work, as well as the entire Project, showing percentages of completion and the number and amounts of proposed and executed Change Orders and their effect on the Contract Sum as of the date of the report. The Consultant shall also keep a daily log containing a record of weather, Contractors, work on the site, number of workers, work accomplished, problems encountered, and other similar relevant data as the Commission may require. The Consultant shall make the log available to the Commission. T. Consultant shall maintain at the Management Project site, on a current basis, a record copy of the following: (1) all Contracts, Drawings, Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders, As -Built Drawings and other Modifications, in good order and marked to record all changes made during construction; (2) Shop Drawings; (3) Product Data; (4) samples; (5) submittals; (6) purchases; (7) materials; (8) equipment; (9) applicable handbooks; (10) maintenance and operating manuals and instructions; and (1 1) other related documents and revisions which arise out of the contracts or work. The Consultant shall maintain records in duplicate of the following: (1) principal layout lines; (2) elevations of the bottom of footings; and (3) levels and key site elevations certified by a qualified surveyor or professional engineer. Consultant must replace any damaged or destroyed monuments. Consultant shall make all records available to the Commission. Upon demand at any time, Consultant shall provide all such documents to the Commission within ten (10) days of such request. At the completion of the Project, Consultant shall deliver all such records to the Commission, such As -Built drawings. U. When bids and/or quotations are received for equipment, Consultant shall assist the Commission in determining the lowest responsible/responsive bidder. Consultant shall arrange for delivery and storage, protection and security for U'OUO`t. Commission -purchased materials, systems and equipment which are a part of the Project, until such items are incorporated into the Management Project. Consultant shall coordinate with or assign these activities to the appropriate contractor who is responsible for the installation of such materials, systems, and equipment. Consultant shall ensure that all requisitions for major equipment include a window period for delivery directly to the Management Project site. Consultant or its designee shall receive at the Management Project site the delivery of all equipment and supplies. Consultant or its designee shall inspect all deliveries for -damages or errors, and shall coordinate with all vendors/suppliers any necessary corrections of such damages or errors prior to signing for receipt of the equipment or supplies. Consultant or its designee shall not accept any equipment or supplies which contain damage or errors. The Commission shall pay only for equipment and supplies which do not contain any damage or errors, and which have been received, inspected and signed -for by Consultant or its designee. Consultant shall be responsible and liable to the Commission for any equipment or supplies accepted in violation of this paragraph. V. Consultant shall observe the Contractors' check-out of utilities, operational systems and equipment for readiness, and shall assist in their initial start-up and testing. W. When Consultant considers each contractor's work or a designated portion thereof substantially complete, Consultant shall prepare for the Commission a list of incomplete or unsatisfactory items and a schedule for their completion. Consultant shall assist the Commission in conducting inspections. After the Commission certifies the Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, Consultant shall coordinate the correction and completion of the Work and any punch list items. X. Consultant shall determine when the Project or a designated portion thereof is substantially complete. Consultant shall prepare for the Commission a summary of the status of the work of each Contractor, listing changes in the previously issued Certificates of Substantial Completion of the Work and recommending the times within which contractors shall complete uncompleted items on their Certificate of Substantial Completion of the Work. Y. Following the issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Completion of the Project or designated portion thereof, Consultant shall evaluate the completion of the work of the contractors and make recommendations to the Commission when Work is ready for final inspection. Consultant shall assist the Commission in conducting final inspections, and shall secure and transmit to the Commission required guarantees, affidavits, releases, bonds and waivers. Consultant shall also °Q;U O O 5 deliver all keys, manuals, record drawings and maintenance stocks to the Commission. Z. Consultant shall perform any necessary management services during the warranty period of the construction contracts. AA. The extent of the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of Consultant as a representative of the Commission during construction shall not be modified or extended without the written consent of the Commission and Consultant. AB.- In addition to the above, the Consultant shall provide all construction management services for the Construction Phase which are required by applicable state laws, rules or regulations. OOJO_1C AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget & Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager ` THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Agreement #03-33-062 with Engineering Resources for Preliminary Design and Environmental Services for a New Parking STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement #03-33-062 (Amendment #3 to Agreement #02- 33-029) with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to provide Preliminary Design and Environmental Services for a new parking lot on the south side of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station for an additional base amount of $69,253 and a total not to exceed agreement value of $568,959; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the May 9, 2001 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to address policy issues identified in the draft Station Management Plan submitted separately to the Commission at that same meeting. One of the main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010, four out of the five, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have parking deficits. In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad Hoc Committee, staff has continued to negotiate with several entities to purchase additional right of way for the possible expansion of the existing and proposed new parking for the Riverside -Downtown and Riverside - La Sierra Metrolink commuter rail stations. At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to provide engineering, environmental and design services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan. 00001,7 On November 14, 2001, the Commission approved the selection of and authorized the Chairman to enter into Agreement #02-33-029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER), to provide engineering, environmental and design services for development and implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the existing Riverside -Downtown and Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink stations for a base amount of $196,295 with a 20% extra work contingency of $38,705 for a total Agreement amount of $235,000. On July 10, 2002, the Commission approved Agreement #03-33-003 (Amendment #1 to Agreement #02-33-029) with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER), to provide additional PS&E Design Services and photovoltaic design for Phases I and PS&E design for Phase II expansion of the La Sierra station parking lot for a base amount of $114,705. On October 9, 2002, the Commission approved Agreement #03-33-020 (Amendment #2 to Agreement #02-33-029) with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER). Amendment #2, covered the cost for expedited design services to deliver the station parking at both La Sierra and Downtown at the earliest time possible, the City of Riverside plan check fees and for Design Construction Support Services, which were not in the original ER scope of work. The cost of Amendment #2 was for an additional base amount of $134,040 and an additional contingency of $15,960. Staff requested that ER provide a scope and cost of services for the additional work involved for ER to provide Preliminary Design and Environmental Services for a new parking lot on the south side of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station (Figure 1). Staff received, reviewed and concurs with the attached ER scope of work and respective cost of services for the new Riverside -Downtown south side parking lot. Amendment #3 will cover the cost for Preliminary Engineering only. As soon as staff and the City of Riverside agree to the final scope of the project, staff will return with another amendment to cover the cost for final design of the Riverside - Downtown south side parking lot. Amendment #3 will increase the contract value by a total of $69,253, for a new total base cost of $543,646. The remaining contingency balance of $25,312, will be used as authorized by the Executive Director. The total Agreement value will not exceed $568,959. Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to amend the agreement with Engineering Resources. 000018 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 02-03 Amount: $69,253 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds (LTF) GLA No.: 221-33-81101 Project 3810 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 3-17-03 Attachment: Scope of Services for Preliminary Design RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Parking Lot Expansion at Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station SCOPE OF SERVICES Preliminary Design PROJECT MANAGEMENT SCOPE DEFINITION - We will meet with RCTC and development of a clear written scope of services. In general, we will seek to identify the quality and size of facilities, amenities, overall planning and design schedule and overall project budget. We will establish expectations, minimum design criteria, and other project factors, which are known at the outset (recognizing that they may change with time). Potential conflicting objectives between RCTC and stakeholders can be identified, discussed and, hopefully, resolved at these meetings. We will establish required RCTC approvals, the City of Riverside permitting requirements, and other project approval requirements. A project directory, overall schedule, submittal milestones, and plan check and approval process will all be established. MEETINGS - 'e anticipate up to six monthly meetings with RCTC Staff to review overall project progress, schedule, oudget, and other project issues. We will prepare an agenda and meeting minutes with action items for each of these meeting. Deliverables: Meeting Agenda and Minutes Design Team Meetings - Based on a six month design phase duration, we will hold periodic design team meetings to coordinate our progress, refine the design and resolve any potential conflicts. Public Meetings - We will attend up to two public presentations with the RCTC, City of Riverside, or other planning group(s). The landscape architect will prepare colored site plans and sketches for presentation purposes. Deliverables: Presentation Documents PROJECT MANAGEMENT/SUBCONSULTANT COORDINATION - We will provide overall Project Management to monitor schedules, budgets, and monitor the activities of our subconsultants including negotiating written and signed contracts with each subconsultant to clearly establish his or her respective scope, insurance obligations, schedule, budget and production responsibilities. We will also review and process subconsultant's invoices. Deliverables: Monthly invoices with progess reports downtown ne scope of work 1 (JO ij PHASE I - CONCEPT DESIGN RESEARCH - We will research applicable records, existing utilities, regulations, permit requirements, etc. with the City of Riverside that will establish the design parameters and the permit requirements. Deliverables: List of collected documents SITE RECONNAISSANCE - Members of our design team will visit the Downtown Station site to visually review various site constraints and opportunities and to identify access points to the site for field investigation requirements. Deliverables: Copies of photo -documentation CONCEPTUAL EXPANSION PLANS AND ESTIMATES - We will prepare preliminary base sheets of the project sites and develop conceptual layouts of parking spaces and modification required for the existing site. After completion of the various layouts, construction cost estimates will be prepared for each layout and alternative. Deliverables: Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Our environmental staff will prepare a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form, in consultation with RCTC and the City of Riverside. They will conduct a preliminary environmental review of the project site, and will review and incorporate available site design information. This PES document will address environmental issues of the project alternatives, focusing on potential impacts that may require future detailed studies, or that may delay or affect the viability of an alternative. The evaluation will include early consultation with potentially affected agencies, as well as identification of the recommended Environmental Document, recommended technical studies, regulatory processing approach and scheduling issues. The PES form can later be used in obtaining NEPA clearance for the project. No formal technical studies are proposed during the Preliminary Work phase. Deliverables: Copies of all pertinent applications and reports PLAN REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDATION - The parking expansion layouts and cost estimates will be reviewed with RCTC and others as requested. Deliverables: Copies of Conceptual Layout Alternatives PHASE II - PRELIMINARYDESIGNAND APPROVAL PROCESS • downtown ne scope of work 2 PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE - Once the site expansion layouts have been selected, we will provide assistance to RCTC, as requested, to aid in the acquisition of the needed parcels (if any). These services could include meetings, reviews of agreements and easements, and the preparation of legal descriptions and plats. Deliverables: As Requested BASE MAPPING - We will undertake the collection and review of legal descriptions and title reports (as provided by RCTC) to establish the project boundaries. A base map will be prepared for the project site from record data and other site information as provided by RCTC. Collection of utility and public right of way and roadway record drawings will facilitate the plotting and locating of all existing utilities. No field surveys or topography are proposed for the preliminary design phase, the City of Riverside mapping and utility information that is available to the public will be utilized. Deliverables: Hardcopy of base mapping PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS- eliminary geotechnical report will provide input on the following data: Description of the existing soil data and condition of the existing soils as they relate to the proposed surface parking lot construction and perimeter roadway improvements. Deliverables: (4) copies of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report PRELIMINARY SITE EXPANSION DESIGN - We will advance the conceptual plans approved by RCTC in Conceptual phase to the preliminary level required to submit and process the proposed parking expansion design through the City of Riverside approval process. This will include the following: Coordination meetings with RCTC to verify pedestrian access requirements to the existing station platforms. Coordination with the City of Riverside as to specific needed improvements to the public rights of way fronting the project site, zoning requirements, etc. Verification of zoning and general plan designations, minimum landscaping, handicap accessible routes, lighting, etc. Coordination with City of Riverside fire department regarding minimum standards for onsite fire hydrant and fire lane circulation. Prepare City of Riverside applications and process plans. The anticipated plans required for the city process -eluded: Preliminary Site Plan with parking layout, Preliminary Grading Plan, and Preliminary Landscape ans. n downtown ne scope of work 3 Prepare and process environmental documents leading to a negative declaration. Attend coordination meetings with City staff and required city approval meetings. (assumed 2 each) Deliverables: Hardcopy of all submitted documents. 000023 downtown ne scope of work 4 RCTC DOWN TOWN STATION NORT HEAST P ARKI NG LOT EXP ANSIO N PLAN RESOURCE PERSONNEL PROJECT NO. TA SK MANAGER ALLOC ATION PROJECT ENGINEER HOURS SR CIVIL ENGINEER M ATRIX PER TASK CIVIL ENGINEER LAND CIVIL CADD ADMIN 2 -MAN HOURS SURVEYOR DESIGNER TECHNICIAN ASSIST ANT SURVEY CREW BY TASK ESTIMATED COST A PROJECT MANAGEMENT Al 9 SCOPE DEFINITION 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 4% 0 24 <$ . 2;440: A2 MEETINGS 32 36 . 6 0 0 0 0 14 0 88::$: 9,020 A3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION 28 301 01 0 0 4 0 10 0 72 :$; 7;49.2. ESTIMATED HOURS - MANAGEMENT 68 78 6 0 0 4 0 28 0 184 $. f.84952 B PHASE I - CONCEPT DESIGN B1 RESEARCH & SITE RECONNAISSANCE 10 22 8 0 011 0 0 4 0 44 $ 4,.430 B2 B3 CONCEPTUAL PLANS & ESTIMATES 24 28 0 16 0 8 0 6 _ 0 82 .$ 8:264 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 18 0 4 0 0 0 i 2 0 30 :$` 3,030 B4 REVIEWS & APPROVALS OF CONCEPT PLANS 14 16 0 01 0 _ 0 0 _ 4 0 34 $ 3,65 .0.. ESTIMATED HOURS - PHA SE I 54 84 8 20. 0 8 01 16 0 190 :$ 19,374. C PHASE II - PRELIM INARY DESIGN AND APPROVAL 1 C1 PROPERTYACQUISTIONASSISTANCE 121 12 0 0 8 8 0 4 0 44 $ 4;364 C2 BASE MAPPING 5 12 20 22I 01 20 0 10 0 89 :. .$ 7,505 C3 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS 4, 6 0 0 1 0 01 0 2 0 12 :..$ . 1,220 C4 PRELIMINARY SITE EXPANSION DESIGN 361 44 40 2 0 56 0 11 0 189 ' $. 17;838 . ESTIMATED HOURS - PHASE II 57 74 60 241 8 841 0' 27I 0 334: 3:0927 TOTAL ESTIMATED FRSC SERVICES ERSC Design Cost Estimate 030703, LABOR ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 3/17/2003, 3:49 PM REFERENCE: 2000 THOMAS GUIDE FOR LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY 204577-Al.DW0 NORTH Nittio &kin or e� C SCALE IN FEET 0 2400 SITE LOCATION MAP 3075 10TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA r2PROJECT NO. 04577001 4800 DATE FIGURE 3/2003 1 00002n AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Program Manager Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager — Gustavo Quintero, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Preliminary Engineering to Build a Rail and Bus Multimodal Facility in Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP), for consultant services to provide preliminary engineering services for the development of the Perris Multimodal Facility; 2) Form a selection committee, comprised of representatives from RCTC, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and City of Perris staffs, to review, evaluate, and rank all RFP's received; 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked consultant and provide a recommendation to the Commission for contract award, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the May 2001 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to work with RTA to seek congressional approval to transfer a federal grant from RTA to RCTC in support of the project to extend Metrolink service from downtown Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris via the San Jacinto Branch Line. Though we were unsuccessful in transferring the grant, our joint legislative effort has resulted in the congressional delegation reprogramming the federal grant to emphasize a multimodal facility to be located in the City of Perris. The reprogramming of the RTA federal grant is important because it allows us to proceed with our original intent — to build a capital project directly benefiting the City of Perris' portion of the San Jacinto Branch Line Metrolink extension (Riverside to Romoland) project. In partnering with RTA for the Perris Multimodal Facility, RTA staff will be a member of the project development team for all phases of the project. ; , , : t 0 0 0 2 lk-.. The development of the Perris Multimodal Facility will be designed for both rail and bus services. Pursuant to FTA policy, RTA has agreed to delegate the management of the implementation of the Perris multimodal facility project to RCTC, while RTA will be responsible for managing the grant. The grant allows for preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way and construction expenses in the amount of $3,083,743 ($2,466,994 FTA and $616,749 local). The project and the scope of work for the rail and bus Perris MultimodW Facility is proposed to be conducted in phases. The first phase includes, but is not limited to, preliminary engineering and environmental studies. Subsequent phases will involve final design. Selection of the consultant will be in accordance with federal procurement requirements. SCHEDULE The schedule for the selection process is proposed as follows: Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Proposals are delivered to RCTC prior to 2 PM Shortlist top three (3) qualified firms April 10, 2003 May 8, 2003 May 22, 2003 Interview top three (3) qualified firms Committee Review of Staff Recommendation June 12, 2003 June 23, 2003 Commission approval of Committee recommendation 000027 July 11, 2003 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Request to Advertise for Construction Bids the State Route 74 Segment II Highway Improvement Project for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the State Route 74 Segment II Highway Improvement Project, from Wasson Canyon Road to Seventh Street, in the County of Riverside, contingent upon receipt of the Authorization to Proceed with Construction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance; 2) Bring back to the Commission the results of the bidding for contract award to the lowest, responsive bidder; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th Street in the City of Perris (The Project). The Project will widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to a four (4) lane roadway, with a fourteen (14) foot paved median, and eight (8) foot paved shoulders. The Project will also realign and smooth out the horizontal and vertical roadway profile at several locations and make improvements to existing intersections, including. the intersection at Greenwald Avenue. The Project will be constructed in two segments. Segment I is from Dexter Avenue in Lake Elsinore to approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road. Segment II is from approximately 1,640 feet east of Wasson Canyon Road to 7th Street in the City of Perris. Segment 1 is currently under construction and is on schedule to complete construction by the end October, 2003. The proposed Segment II schedule is as follows: 000028 Activity Schedule Advertise July 14, 2003 Receive & Open Bids August 21, 2003 Award Contract September 10, 2003 Start Construction _ November 2003 Complete Construction June 2005 The 100% design plans and specifications have been submitted to Caltrans for final approval. All right-of-way required for Segment II has either been acquired through negotiation or will be acquired through an eminent domain action previously initiated by the Commission. Staff is currently working to finalize any utility relocation plans required for construction of Segment II. All environmental permits, required for construction of Segment II, CDFG, and the USACE, were finalized as part of Segment I. It is recommended that staff be authorized to advertise the SR74 Segment II for receipt of construction bids contingent on approval from Caltrans. Staff will present the results of the bids to the Commission for award of the project to the lowest responsible bidder. The estimated cost of construction is between $22,000,000 to $25,000,000. The project is partially funded by Caltrans SHOPP funding. No additional budget action is required at this time. AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director -- SUBJECT: 1-215 North from the 60/91/215 Interchange to 1-10 — Cooperative Agreement with SANBAG on Funding Project Development Work STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve a loan from the 2002 Measure A Extension program which begins on July 1, 2009 to support project development work (Environmental, Preliminary Design) on the Commission's 1-215 North project; 2) Authorize repayment of borrowed funds in FY 2009-10 at 4% interest from 2002 funds to the current (1988) Measure program; 3) Approve entering into a cooperative agreement with SANBAG to participate in and fund the development of an EIR/EIS for the 1-215 North project; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: One of the significant projects included in the original Measure "A" Program Plan is an improvement to the 1-215 north of the 60/91/215 interchange to the San Bernardino County Line (1-215 North). The match -up project on the San Bernardino County side is on 1-215 from 1-10 to the Riverside County Line (1-215 South). This project has not moved forward due to insufficient funding and priority in both the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Commission's respective highway delivery programs. This project is currently shown as not funded in the Commission's 1999 Measure "A" Strategic Plan and due to the project straddling the county line(s) is dependent on having a partnership with SANBAG to move it forward. The 1-215 North project is unique because it is included in both the original 1988 Measure "A" and the 2002 Measure "A" Extension programs. At this time, SANBAG is moving forward to begin project development work on this important regional project. SANBAG recently issued Requests for Qualifications to select an environmental consultant and design consultant to begin the requisite studies to support the development 'of an EIR/EIS for the project. RCTC staff participated on both selection panels and will be involved in the monthly project development team meetings as the work is expected to start prior to June 30, 2003. While this project is shown as not funded in the current Measure "A" Strategic Plan, the inclusion of the 1-215 North project in the 2002 Measure "A" Extension allows the Commission to consider this project funded on a going forward basis. The Measure "A" Extension program identifies the project as adding 2 lanes in each direction from the 60/91/215 interchange to the San Bernardino County Line the estimated cost is $231 million in current dollars. Given the overhang of the state budget deficit issues impacting all programs including transportation, we are not in a position to "clearly" identify all of the near term priorities the Commission should support for project development work leading to the delivery of the new Measure "A" program of projects. In fact, we are currently focused on the issue of trying to maintain/stop gap funding issues as they arise on all Commission project delivery efforts underway in support of the 1988 Measure "A" program. The fact that SANBAG is now interested in moving this work forward is very positive and is an opportunity that staff recommends the Commission support. Staff is recommending that given the status of the 1-215 North project being in both Measure programs that the Commission use existing Measure "A" funds to support the near term development work with the requirement that the new Measure, when it comes on line in July of 2009 repay the old Measure for all costs, including a modest interest payment of 4%. Over the next 3 years, staff estimates the near term costs for participating with SANBAG on the development of the EIR/EIS for the 1-215 North project to be in the range of $350,000 per year with up to $1,000,000 for special studies associated with the ultimate facility study that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has requested be performed on the 60/91/215 interchange. This places this work effort in the $2.0 million range over the three year period. As the Commission is aware, the average duration of an EIR/EIS for a major highway improvement project (from start to finish) is between 5 to 8 years. This is an effort that will likely continue into the period beyond 2009. 000031 The attached cooperative agreement identifies SANBAG as lead agency for the project, requires RCTC to participate in funding at a prescribed 25% of project cost rate, and provides for RCTC to be lead on scope issues in Riverside County. SANBAG will provide contract management, be lead agency, be lead on scope issues in San Bernardino County and support 75% of the project costs. This is a reasonable arrangement and staff recommends approving and executing the Cooperative Agreement with SANBAG on the 1-215 North project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2002-03 FY2003-04 FY2004-05 FY2005-06 Amount: $ 60,000 $ 940,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 222-31-81101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03-18-03 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 03-055 BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND COST SHARING FOR THE INTERSTATE 1-215 PROJECT This cooperative agreement is entered on this day of 2003, by and between the San Bernardino Associated Governments ("SANBAG") and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"). This cooperative agreement sets forth the guidelines for coordinated participation in project development activities and cost sharing between SANBAG and RCTC for the Interstate 1-215 Project. The Project limits are defined as a contiguous segment of Interstate 1-215 from the junction of the 60/91/215 interchange in the City of Riverside, in Riverside County, to the junction of 1-10 and 1-215 in San Bernardino County. The required project development work, to be performed by consultant services, includes preliminary design engineering, the preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR), survey and aerial photogrammetric mapping, geotechnical analysis, traffic engineering, and environmental assessment leading to State and Federal approval of a Project Report and Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS). Between SANBAG and RCTC, SANBAG shall serve as the lead agency on this Project with responsibility to contract for consultant services and act as contract administrator. RCTC shall participate in the review and selection of consultant, approval of scope of services, review of qualifications, and contract negotiations, including contract price. RCTC shall have control over project scope in Riverside County. SANBAG shall provide quarterly Project progress and cost reports to 000033 RCTC. Any amendment to this Agreement, amendment to the consultant contract(s), or significant change in the Project scope, or cost allocation procedure must be agreed to by both parties in writing. SANBAG will pay all consultant invoices when due. SANBAG will maintain complete financial records, including RCTC's proportionate share of the cost. All consultant costs incurred in the preparation of the Project Report and Environmental Impact Report/Statement shall be borne 75 percent by SANBAG and 25 percent by RCTC, regardless of what the ultimate project cost within each county may be, except that all costs associated with the analysis of HOV direct connectors in Riverside County will be born entirely by RCTC. SANBAG will bill RCTC monthly for its share of the consultant cost. SANBAG and RCTC will each be responsible for their own administrative and management costs. SANBAG shall bear the burden of contract administration. This cost sharing agreement shall apply only to project development activities outlined above. Any extra work items identified in pursuit of project development activities or subsequent phases of Project implementation shall be the subject of a separate and future cost sharing agreement. The Provisions of this Agreement may be modified, altered, or revised only with the written consent of both parties. RCTC or its authorized representatives shall have the right to review any and all books, accounts, financial, cost and accounting records, bills and other documents of SANBAG concerning any of the services rendered on this Project. SANBAG shall retain and make available such records for inspection by RCTC staff or other authorized representatives of RCTC for at least a three year period following completion of project development activities, or until December 2009, whichever is later. SANBAG and RCTC will independently work out their funding agreements with Caltrans District 8. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SANBAG and its officers, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, actions or losses, damages, and/or liability resulting from RCTC's negligent acts or omissions which arise from RCTC's or its contractor's performance of RCTC's obligations under this agreement. SANBAG agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC and its officers, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, actions or losses, damages, and/or liability resulting from SANBAG's negligent acts or omissions which arise from SANBAG's or its contractor's performance of SANBAG's obligations under this agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. Unless terminated by mutual action of both parties, this Agreement will continue in force until June 30, 2009, or until the issuance of a Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration, whichever is later. Attorney's fees. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorneys' fees directly arising from any third party legal action against a party hereto and payable under as a consequence of mutual indemnification. Venue. The parties acknowledge and agree that this agreement was entered into and intended to be performed in whole or substantial part in San Bernardino County, California. The parties agree that the venue for any action or claim brought by any party to this agreement will be the Central District of San Bernardino County. Each party hereby waives any law or rule of court which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or claim concerning this agreement is brought by any third party, the parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Central District of San Bernardino County. Jury Trial Waiver. The parties hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross -complaint in any action, proceeding and/or hearing brought by either RCTC against SANBAG or SANBAG against RCTC on any matter whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this agreement, the relationship of RCTC and SANBAG, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim. The parties acknowledge that this waiver of jury trial is a material inducement to each of them to enter into this agreement and that they would not have entered into this agreement without this jury trial waiver. The parties further agree that each of them has had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its own choosing in connection with this jury trial waiver and understands the legal effect of this waiver. SANBAG RCTC By: By: Bill Postmus, President Ron Roberts, Chairperson Date: Date: Approved as to Legal Form: By: _ By: Rex Hinesley, SANBAG Counsel Steven DeBaun, RCTC Counsel Date: _ Date: 000036 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 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 for the Committee to: 1) Approve the budget adjustments for State Transit Assistance; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff created the budget for this program using resources that were to be received in the current fiscal year. Several transit agencies started the year with STA funds that were allocation and in their reserved fund balance. The Rail program used $1,800,000 from prior year allocations and RTA used $1,448,000 from prior year allocations for capital expenditures. Staff is recommending this adjustment to have the appropriation authority to pay these transit agencies. Staff had previously asked for authority to increase the budget by $1,000,000 for the rail allocation and is requesting the remaining as part of this agenda item. The funds are available in reserved fund balances. Staff recommends approval of this appropriation adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2002-03 Amount: $2,248,000 Source of Funds: Reserved Fund Balances Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 241-62-86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03-17-03 000037 AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director ___ SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the agreement for State Board of Equalization administration of District transactions and Use taxes; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since the Measure was renewed in November 2002, the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) contacted the Commission to amend the agreement for State administration of District transactions and Use taxes. The SBOE administers and enforces RCTC's transactions and Use Tax imposed under Ordinance 88-1 and 88- 2. This amendment is submitted to substitute the original termination date of June 30, 2009 with June 30, 2039. Legal Counsel has reviewed the amendment and attached is the letter. Attached is also the amendment. Staff recommends the approval and extension of the agreement. Attachment: Amendments to Agreement of State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes 000038 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS INDIAN WELLS (760) 568-261 ONTARIO 0909) 989-884 STEVEN C. DEBAUN SCDEBAUN@BBKLAW.COM FILE No. 17336.00000 LAWYERS SAN DIEGO 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE (6 1 9) 525- 1300 POST OFFICE BOX 1028 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-1028 ORANGE COUNTY (909) 686-1 450 (949) 263-2600 (909), 686-3083 FAX SACRAMENTO B B KLAW. COM (916) 325-4000. March 14, 2003 Mr. Ivan Chand Chief Financial Office Riverside County Transportation Commission P:O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: State Board of Equalization Dear NE° EMAR 14 2003 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Per our conversation, attached is the Amendment for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes form Please present this form to the Board for their approval. eBaun BEST & KRIEGER LLP SCD:Ila Attachment R.VPUB\SCD\649455 "'000039 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAXES On May 26, 1989, the State Board of Equalization (the Board) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) executed an Agreement for State Administration of District Transactions and Use Taxes (the Agreement). Under the Agreement, the Board administers and enforces the RCTC Transactions and Use Tax imposed under Ordinance No. 88-1 and 88-2 and authorized by Public Utilities Code Section 240000 et seq. and Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7252.22. Ordinance No. 88-1 provides that the tax shall be imposed for a period of (20) twenty years. On November 5, 2002, the required two-thirds majority of the electorate of the County of Riverside voting on the issue, voted to approve Ordinance No. 02-001 extending the expiration date of the tax to June 30, 2039. All other statutory requirements for extension of the termination date have been met. The Agreement is hereby amended to substitute the original termination date of June 30, 2009 with June 30, 2039, the RCTC having met all the specified conditions. STATE BOARD OF EOUALIZATION By (Executive Director) (Date) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (Signature) (Print Name) (Date) ,.000040 RCTC-PASSED AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer - THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Auditor Selection AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE: The Audit Ad Hoc Committee recommendations will be presented to the Budget and Implementation Committee for its review and action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection of McGladrey and Pullen as the auditor of the Commission's Local Transportation Fund's, and State Transit Assistance's financial statements and the Single Audit for the Commission for the amount of $82,800; and 2) Approve the selection of Caporicci and Larson as the auditor of the Measure A and TDA recipients for the amount of $178,325; and 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 22, 2003, the Commission sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for auditing services. This RFP for auditing services was sent out as all professional services are required to be bid on a periodic basis. Attached is a copy of the RFP which includes the scope of services. The RFP was sent out to 8 auditing firms and 4 responses were received. Ernst and Young, the Commission's current auditor, did not submit a response due to strategic company decisions. Staff and a panel of reviewers that included Susan Van Note, CFO of SANBAG and Theresia Trevino, Financial Manager at OCTA reviewed the proposals and short listed the firms to three. These three firms were called in for interviews and Commissioner Schiffner joined the interview panel. The criteria used to evaluate the firms included qualification and experience of the firm, qualification and experience of the individuals, organization of the work and managerhent plan, f demonstrating understanding of the Commission's needs, references and fees. Each of these criteria was given a weight and cost was not the primary factor. Upon completion of the interviews and reviewing the fee proposals, the panelists unanimously recommended selecting McGladrey and Pullen to complete the Commission's audit and Caporicci and Larson to complete the Measure A and TDA recipients audits. A summary of the interview rankings and fee proposals are listed below. This arrangement will maximize cost efficiency for the Commission and maintain the level of service the Commission is accustomed to. Measure A & TDA Recipients Fee Auditing Firm McGladrey and Pullen Caporicci and Larsen Conrad and Associates Interview Ranking 1 2 3 Commission Fee $ 82,800 $ 121,810 $ 81,000 $ 259,050 $ 178,325 $ 93,300 Based on the above, staff is recommending approval of these auditors. Staff is working with legal counsel to draft the contracts and prepare the necessary agreements. A meeting of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee is scheduled to be held prior to the Budget and Implementation Committee meeting on Monday, March 24 at 1:45 p.m. to review the selection process. The Audit Ad Hoc Committee will present its recommendations to the Committee. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $ 261,125 Source of Funds: Measure A and TDA Administration Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: S-1 9-65401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03-14-03 Attachment: RFP for Audit Services 000042 Ivan M. Chand Chief Financial Officer January 22, 2003 The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms to provide auditing services for Fiscal Years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005. The Joint Powers Agreement creating Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) as well as the Single Audit Act as amended in 1996, and U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, requires that an annual audit be conducted of the financial statements of RCTC and its affiliated organizations. Additionally, it has been noted that the State of California is applying federal audit guidelines and standards to state funds which previously did not require an audit. The audit will be comprised of four basic elements: 1. Audit of the RCTC's General Purpose Financial Statements, including compliance with covenants and related testing as required by the indenture for the Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. 2. Audit of the State Transit Assistance Fund. 3. Audit of the Local Transportation Fund. 4. Single Audit in accordance with OMB Circular A 133 for RCTC. 5. Audit of the Cities and other agencies receiving Measure A and Transportation Development Act funds. The audit will be conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the governmental audit standards as promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. To assist you in your evaluation process, we have added samples of the Commission audit, two city financial statements and two TDA funds recipients. The proposal may be obtained by requesting copies to be mailed or via the Internet by visiting the RCTC website at www.rctc.org. Proposals are due to RCTC by 3:00 p.m. on February 19, 2003. Sincerely, 1 4 • Attachments: 1) RCTC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2) Audited Combined Financial Statements -City of Hemet 3) Audited Combined Financial Statements -City of Palm Desert 4) Audited Financial Statements -Partnership to Preserve Independent Living 5) Audited Financial Statements -Inland AIDS Project U06042! RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR AUDITING SERVICES Introduction State law created the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 1976 to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The Commission's mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in Riverside County and to maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation dollars in Riverside County. The governing body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected Mayor or member of the City Council in each of the County's 24 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor. The Commission is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County's various transportation operators and agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non -motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian) and other transportation activities. The Commission also serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter -approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program. Measure A was approved by the County's electorate in 1988 and imposes a half -cent sales tax to fund a specific program of transportation improvements. Additionally, the Commission provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists, and the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods. These services are provided at no charge to motorists and are funded through a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. Another RCTC responsibility is to administer funds provided through the State Transit Assistance program and Local Transportation funds on behalf of the County of Riverside. 000045 Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for Riverside County's roadway system. II. Scope of Services to be Provided A. RCTC requires an audit of its general purpose financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the governmental auditing standards as promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. Additionally, this audit should include compliance with covenants and related testing as required by the indenture for RCTC's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. B. The audit shall be performed so as to satisfy the audit requirements imposed by the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and U.S. Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") Circular A-133 and OMB's Compliance Supplement titled Uniform Requirements for Grants to State and Local Governments. C. The examination shall include an audit of the County's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF) in accordance with California Code of Regulations Section 6661 for LTF and Section 6751 for STAF. In addition, the examination shall include an audit of all the Measure A and TDA recipients. Currently, 23 cities received Measure A Sales Tax revenues and 9-12 agencies received TDA funds. D. It is expected that the firm which is selected shall keep the Commission informed of new state and national developments affecting municipal and local government finance. Additionally, reporting standards and trends including changes in federal/state grant program accounting and reporting requirements shall be communicated to the Commission. E. RCTC requires that the auditor's scope of service includes up to 40 hours a year of consulting time. Should RCTC require additional audits/services outside of the scope listed above, fees will be established at the time such services are determined to be necessary. 000046 G. The auditor shall provide the Chief Financial Officer with periodic progress reports during the course of the field work. These reports shall identify problems encountered or foreseen, deficiencies in work being performed by RCTC staff, disagreements over the application of accounting principles and other items which could result in delay of the audit work. H. The auditors shall observe the adequacy of the systems of internal control, accounting procedures and other significant observations. A draft management letter will be presented to the Chief Financial Officer for comments and a finalized letter will be presented to the Board of Directors. The auditors should be prepared to attend at least one Audit Sub Committee meeting and one Board of Directors' meeting to present the reports and respond to any inquiries. J. The auditors will deliver ten (10) copies of the RCTC and LTF audits and five (5) bound copies of the Measure A and TDA recipients. K. The fee proposals are to be presented as follows: a. A separate fee proposal for the RCTC, LTF and the Single Audit b. A separate fee proposal for the audits of the Measure A and TDA recipients on an annual basis c. A separate fee proposal is required if the cities were audited on a bi-annual basis with the TDA recipients being audited annually. III. Evaluation Process A. General Description 1. Firms are requested to respond to this solicitation in the manner more fully described in Section V below. 2. Authority and local RCTC staff will review and evaluate the responses received against the evaluation criteria listed below. 000047 3. The firms will be short listed, interviewed and the final recommendation will be presented to the Administrative Committee and approved by the Board of Directors. B. Evaluation Criteria 1. Qualification and experience of the firm. This will be evaluated based on the breadth and depth of the firm's experience as a whole in the performance of comparable audit assignments. 2. Qualification and experience of the individuals assigned to perform the work. This will be based on the resume of the individuals who will actually oversee and perform the work, especially those senior staff committed to participation in the work. 3. Organization of the work and management plan. This will be based on the proposed approach to organizing, managing, and implementing the necessary tasks. 4. Demonstrated understanding of the Authority's needs and proposed method of approach. This will be based on the preliminary description of the proposed approach to providing the required scope of services. This will give credit to firms who demonstrate insight, needed emphasis, priority, innovative thinking and ability to function as an integral member of RCTC's financial management team. 5. Reference comparable past work. This will be based on references from several clients where comparable work was performed. 6. Fees will be a significant factor when other evaluation criteria are relatively equal. 7. Actual or Potential Conflict of Interest. This will be based on an assessment of the firm's client list and the extent to which the firm may represent related entities whose interest may conflict with RCTC. 000048 B. Schedule Proposals Due - 3:00 p.m. 02/19/03 Determination of Short List 02/19/03 - 02/28/03 Interviews 03/10/03 - 03/14/03 Recommendation to the Admin. Committee 03/24/03 Board of Directors Approval of Admin. Recommendation 04/09/03 IV. Terms and Conditions A. Proposals are requested for a three year period starting with the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2003. The initial engagement will be for a three (3) year period. In addition, RCTC shall have the option to extend the engagement for up to two (2) additional years (one at a time). The option years shall be exercised by written amendments executed by the parties. B. After the initial year, the engagement shall be renewed, on a year-to-year basis at a mutually acceptable fee. Such renewal engagement shall be confirmed in writing. C. Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of RCTC. At such time as firms are selected and their names made public, all proposals submitted shall be regarded as public records. D. The Commission considers its relationship with its independent auditor to be a professional one. Although this is a formal selection process, the Commission reserves the right to decline acceptance of any and all proposals, to negotiate engagement conditions with the selected firm and to waive provisions of the RFP at its sole discretion. V. Preparation and Submission of Proposals A. General - The cost of preparing, submitting and presenting a proposal is at the sole cost and expense of the offeror. '00U049 B. Instructions 1. The offeror should prepare its proposal using the order and designations as presented in the Scope of Proposals below. 2. The offeror shall submit five (5) copies of its proposal to: Mr. Ivan M. Chand Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 3. Proposals must be received at the above address no later than 3:00 p.m. on February 19, 2003. Faxes or late submissions will not be accepted. 4. No contacts of any kind shall be made with Board members, their staffs, or RCTC staff other than as provided above. It is intended that the selection shall be made on merit alone within the process set forth. Violation of this condition shall be cause for immediate rejection of the proposal. C. Scope of Proposals You must provide the following information and your proposal should be concise and responsive. It should be no longer than 30 pages in length. 1. Title Page Show the Request for Proposal subject, the name of your firm, local address, telephone number, name of contact person and date. 2. Table of Contents Clearly identify the material by section and page number. 1 000050 3. Letter of Transmittal - Limit to one or two pages a. Briefly state your firm's understanding of the work to be done; including any segregation of audit work to be performed, and comment on the firm's ability to make a commitment to perform the work in a timely manner. b. Give the names of the persons who will be authorized to make representations for your firm, their titles, addresses and telephone numbers. 4. Profile of the Organization, Technical Qualifications and Approach Provide a description of firm or firms proposed to perform the audit(s). b. Indicate the number of personnel (by level) located within the proposing office that will perform the audit. c. Describe the range of activities performed by the proposing office, such as audits, accounting, tax services or management services. d. Provide a list of current and prior government, council of governments and joint powers authority, transit operator and TDA audit clients, including telephone number and contact person's name, indicating the types of services performed and the number of years served. e. Describe your approach to the audit. This should include at least the following points: (1) Type of audit program used. (2) Use of statistical sampling. (3) Use of computer audit specialists. (4) Organization of the audit team. (5) Types of assistance expected from RCTC staff. °10u051 (6) Anticipated amount of time (workdays) required to complete the audit. Preliminary work may begin upon engagement approval. 5. Summary of Individual Audit Staff Technical Qualifications Identify the partners, managers and supervisors who will participate in the audit, including staff from other than the proposing office. Include resumes for each supervisory person to be assigned to the audit. Identify the percentage of time key members will work on the audit. 6. Fee Proposal The fee proposal shall contain cost information for each area of audit work as defined in Section II and shall include the method by which the annual fees will be increased (i.e. CPI) during the three year engagement. VI. Payment Invoices may be submitted on a progress basis, so long as at least 10% of total fee is not billed until final audit presentation. 000052 AGENDA ITEM 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director - SUBJECT: Investment Policy Revision STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revisions to the Investment Policy, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section XIV requires a review of the Investment Policy Review and specifically states that "the Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting." As such, staff is bringing forward changes and revisions. These changes were made in consultation with the Investment Advisor hired by the Commission. Attached is a copy of the policy with the revisions. Some of the major revisions include clarification between the use of Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer. The language has been revised to delegate the investment authority to the Executive Director who may then delegate the duties to the Chief Financial Officer. The other major revision is the inclusion of Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) as an investment option. The Commission had previously approved a Resolution to allow staff to invest in LAIF. Several other minor revisions were made to update codes and bring the policy into compliance with the new Federal and State guidelines. Staff is recommending approval of these revisions and adoption of the Investment policy. Attachment: Revised Investment Policy 00u053 ,e sideC unity ranspnntatlon Commission. INVESTMENT POLICY [. Introduction The purpose of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance opportunities for a prudent and systematic investment program and to organize and formalize investment -related activities. 11. Scope It is intended that this Policy cover all funds (except retirement funds) and investment activities under the direction of the Commission. III. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative Code, the Board's management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The Executive Director may delegate these duties to his designee ("Chief Financial Officer"). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall follow this Policy and such other written instructions as are provided. IV. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Commission. Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion. V. Objective The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order, shall be: 44 1) Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of capital in the portfolio. 2) Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission to meet its cash flow requirements. 3) Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of the Commission shall be designed with the objective of maximizing return on its investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity In order to maximize return on its investments, the Commission seeks an active rather than passive management of portfolio assets. The Commission may from time to time sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow schedules, yield curve optimizations, yield opportunities existing between market sectors, or simply market timing. VI. Investments California Government Code Sections 53601 govern the investments permitted for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments permitted by Code, the Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investment to the investments listed in Section VI.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non -governmental issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 10%. Rating requirements where indicated, apply at the time of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is subject to a rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, the Chief Financial Officer shall notify the Board of the change. The course of action to be followed will then be decided on a case -by -case basis, considering such factors as the reason for the rate drop, prognosis for recovery or further rate drops, and the market price of the security. 1. Eligible Investments A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. B. Federal Agency securities. Federal agency or United States government -sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government -sponsored enterprises.. C. Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short- term investments not to exceed 30 days. The Commission may enter into repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties should also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A -1/P-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. 45 OJ:uO55 The following collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the Commission's custodian bank versus payment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the underlying securities must be reviewed on an on -going basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral. The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement. The Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counter party with which it enters into repurchase agreements. D. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Eligible investment shall be rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in U.S. Corporate Debt are further limited to 30% of surplus funds. E. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Eligible paper is further limited to issuing corporations that are organized and operating within the United States, have total assets in excess of $500 million dollars and whose senior debt obligations are rated "A" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more than 10 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 25% of surplus funds. F. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued by domestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker's acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible banker's acceptances are restricted to issuing financial institutions with short-term paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in the banker's acceptances of any one commercial bank. G. Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1, et seq.) that invest solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations. The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by company shall have met either of the following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the 46 0 u05G highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars (5500,000,000). The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies may charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 2.0% of surplus funds. H. Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund ("RCPIF"). The Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. I. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF"). The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on -going due diligence, the Chief Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: • A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. • A description of how often the securities are priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often they may invest, what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. J. Certificates of Deposit. FDIC insured or fully collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial institutions located in California. Eligible investments are restricted to those issuing institutions that have been in business at least five years and whose senior debt obligations are rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. 47 000057 Investments in certificates of deposit are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. All time deposits must be collateralized in accordance with California Government Code section 53561. The Commission, at its discretion, may waive the collateralization requirements for any portion of the deposit that is covered by federal insurance. 2. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the epplicable bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond proceeds will be invested in securities permitted by this Policy. With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy authorizes investing bond reserve fund proceeds beyond the five years if prudent in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer. 3. Ineligible Investments As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest -only strips or in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. The purchase of any security not listed in Section VI.1 above, but permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board. VII. Maximum Maturities Maturities of investments will be selected based to provide necessary liquidity, minimize interest rate risk and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis will be monitored and the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds. Where this Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Board has granted express authority to make that investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board no less than three months prior to the investment. VIII. Performance Standards The Chief Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's performance. A comparison of the portfolio's performance against a performance benchmark shall be included in the Chief Financial Officer's quarterly report. The Chief Financial Officer shall select an appropriate, readily available market index to use as a performance benchmark. IX. Reporting 48 00u058 The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and provide to the Board and the Executive Director, within 30 days following the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information: Type of investment Name of issuer • Date of maturity • Date of purchase • Par value • Original purchase cost • Amortized cost • Accrued interest • Call date and (if applicable) • Current market value of securities • Unrealized market value gain/loss • Coupon rate, if applicable • Yield to maturity • Yield at market • Credit quality, as determined by one or more nationally recognized credit rating services, of each investment. • Average duration of portfolio • Listing of all investment transactions during the quarter • A statement that the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance • A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall, or may not be, available X. Investment Procedures The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission's investment policies and establishing written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment program. No person may engage in investment transactions except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirmations of transactions, reconciliation of custody statements, and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity and compliance with policies and procedures. XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes. It shall be the Commission's policy to purchase securities only from those authorized institutions and firms. Separate lists shall be maintained for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase agreements and those approved for the purchase of other securities. If an investment 49 000059 advisor is used, they may use their own list of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions for investment purposes. To be eligible, a firm must meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, from a national or state -chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to transact business in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors. In addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements shall be limited to primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties shall also have (i) a short-term credit rating of at least A-1 /P-1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the basis of the firm's expertise and credit worthiness. The Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policy to all dealers approved to do business with the Commission. Each broker dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required to submit and annually update a Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which includes the firm's most recent financial statement. The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire. XII. Safekeeping and Custody To protect the Commission's assets, all securities owned by the Commission shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission's name by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures, the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered. Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. In addition, delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of interest: 1. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 2. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall disclose any material financial interest in any financial institution that conduct business with the Commission and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the Commission's portfolio. 50 0W3030 3. Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Commission. XIV. Investment Policy Review The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting. 51 000061 AGENDA ITEM 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Agreement #03-45-060 with the Department of California Highway Patrol for Operation of the Freeway Call Box System for FY 2001- 02 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement #03-045-060 with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol, for the operation of the call box system for FY 2001-02; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), and the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), previously entered into agreements to reimburse the CHP for all costs associated with the implementation and operation of the call box system in Riverside County. Legislation required the CHP to answer all call box calls and provide central dispatching services for SAFE call box motorist aid systems in areas of CHP jurisdiction and within Caltrans right of way. The agreement requires the Riverside County SAFE to pay for: • CHP costs for plan review; • A share of the cost for the planning, designing, and implementing a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system as well as the cost to purchase the equipment; • All dispatch personnel costs associated with the call box system; • A proportionate share of the SAFE Coordinator position and any related equipment; • Indirect costs applied to the personnel costs; • Call box related charges billed to the CHP by Translation Service Contractor that are directly attributable to the call box system; '0:0'6.062 • All furniture attributable to personnel handling SAFE call box calls, and • A share of telephone system costs that include Automated Call Distributor (ACD) and Telephone Management Information System features. The attached agreement is for a one (1) year period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. The total amount of the agreement shall not exceed $60,000. The contract amount for FY 2000-01 was $127,734. The agreement had not been forwarded to the Commission for approval because staff and the--CHP were negotiating on the number of dispatch positions to be charged to the SAFE. Although the CHP has continued to provide the service and invoice the Commission, no payments have been made to CHP. As you will recall, the Riverside County call box program entered into an agreement with SANBAG to share the costs of a private call answering center (CAC). The CAC begananswering all of the call box calls on February 9, 2002, and only those true emergencies calls were sent to the CHP. All other non -emergency calls were either routed through a remote message system (similar to e-mail) or were handled by the CAC. Therefore, it was staff's contention that the workload at CHP had decreased significantly and that we should no longer be required to reimburse the CHP at the same rate as before. The CHP argued that their staff was still required to answer the emergencies calls and that they not only continued to have considerable involvement during the transition period but were also required to take action on the remote messages. An agreement was finally reached between the CHP and staff from RCTC, SANBAG, San Diego, and MTC — the four agencies with private call answering center, whereas CHP would only require reimbursement for 1/2 of a dispatch position as of the end of the quarter the CAC began receiving calls. This results in a reduction to RCTC of 1 1/2 positions for the Indio dispatch center as of April 1, 2002, or a savings of approximately $70,000. Furthermore, it was agreed that the FY 2002-03 agreement (which we have not received yet) will only require reimbursement for our proportionate share of the CHP SAFE Coordinator position (no more than $6,000). That will result in an additional savings to the Riverside County SAFE of approximately $54,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 02-03 Amount: $ 60,000 Source of Funds: SAFE DMV Fees Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 202-45-81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 3-17-03 tt c,1-Im : Agreement #03-45-060 with the State of California Highway Patrol U, U Agreement #03;:45-060 CHP 1R047010 SMV AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2001, by and between the State of California acting by and through Department of California Highway Patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, hereinafter called SAFE, under provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 2421.5 and 9250.10, and the Streets and Highway Code Section 131.1 and Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2550) to Division 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: By and in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, CHP and SAFE do hereby agree as follows: This agreement is for services and assistance provided by CHP in accordance with the "CHP/Caltrans Call Box and Motorist Aid Guidelines," as they may be revised from time to time, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Hereinafter the "CHP/Caltrans Call Box and Motorist Aid Guidelines," shall be referred to as the "Guidelines." 2. The term of this agreement is July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, unless SAFE executes the option to extend the agreement for one (1) additional year in which case the agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2003 subject to the following: a. That it shall not become effective until (1) SAFE has submitted to CHP a copy of the resolution, order, motion, or ordinance from SAFE approving execution of this agreement and identifying the individual authorized to sign on behalf of SAFE, and (2) that this agreement is duly signed by both parties. b. That SAFE notifies CHP in writing, no later than January 31, 2002. If so notified, this agreement shall be in effect through June 30, 2003, and the total amount shall not exceed $60,000.00 annually. c. That it may be modified in writing and signed by both parties, and shall be modified by the parties to conform to any future changes to federal or state law which affect the terms o.f this agreement. 000064 CHP 1R047010 SMV d. Because of the time and expense early termination would entail to both parties, either party may terminate this agreement before the expiration of its term, or any extension, only upon six (6) months prior written notice to the other party. e. Notwithstanding subparagraph 2. c. above, CHP may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to SAFE should SAFE be financially_unable to reimburse CHP for services under this agreement. 3. For services and assistance herein, SAFE agrees to reimburse CHP quarterly, in arrears and upon receipt of an itemized invoice, for the charges identified in Section 12_ Upon receipt, payment shall be made to CHP as invoiced within sixty (60) days. If payment is not submitted because of a dispute, SAFE agrees to submit the reasons for the dispute to CHP within sixty (60) days of receiving the invoice charges. a. Payment shall be made to: Department of California Highway Patrol Accounting Section P.O. Box 942901 Sacramento, CA 94298-2901 b. Invoices shall be sent to: Riverside County SAFE c/o Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 4. The maintenance of the call box system (outside of the CHP communications center), including telephone service and line costs, shall be the sole responsibility of SAFE. 5. The SAFE shall reimburse CHP for all personnel costs associated with the number of Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD) positions CHP and SAFE agree are required to handle call box call traffic. The CHP shall only increase or decrease the number of PSD's after receiving a written request/commitment from SAFE stating that SAFE shall assume all personnel costs for the additional positions. After Initial Implementation 1. Ninety (90) days prior to the beginning of each subsequent fiscal year, CHP shall re- evaluate communications center call box operator staffing requirements. The most recent twelve (12) months (annual average) of call box call activity (when available) shall be used with CHP Reimbursable Position Formula (defined in the Guidelines) to determine the currently required staffing level. The CHP shall submit to SAFE a 0100005 CHP 1R047010 SMV letter, with applicable substantiating data, indicating any necessary changes in staffing. The SAFE shall then respond to CHP within thirty (30) days, in writing, indicating concurrence or disagreement with the recommendation. 2. The SAFE shall advise CHP of any anticipated significant new installations that should be considered into the annual staffing analysis. This notification_ should be made to CHP at least thirty (30) days prior to the annual staffing analysis. 3_ The SAFE may request, or CHP may perform, if the need arises, staffing analysis at other times of the year. If a change in staffing is required due to a non -predicted need, CHP and/or SAFE may request, in writing, such a change. Staffing changes may be necessary for, but need not be limited to increases/decreases in the number of call boxes, or significant increases/decreases in the number of call box calls. 6. The SAFE shall pay for its proportional share of the actual wage rate for one (1) CHP SAFE Coordinator position, and SAFE's proportional share of computer equipment costs (including software), when applicable, for one (1) CHP SAFE Coordinator. The SAFE Coordinator position, as well as the reimbursable computer equipment (including software), shall be used exclusively for SAFE related business. 7. Each SAFE's proportional share billing "factor" shall be determined at the beginning of each fiscal year by comparing the number of motor vehicles registered within each SAFE's boundaries to the total number of motor vehicles registered in all counties who have entered into SAFE agreements with CHP. This proportional share shall be billed over four (4) fiscal quarters. The CHP shall include an estimation of SAFE Coordinator's personnel and computer equipment costs in the annual staffing estimation. 8. Ca11 box calls shall be handled by CHP communications centers as third level priority - after 911 (first priority) and allied agency (second priority) calls. The CHP statewide standard level of service for the handling of call box calls is as follows: a. Call box calls shall be handled as rapidly as possible, however they should be handled ideally no longer than 60 seconds after the first ring at the communications center. Experience has shown that when emergency communications traffic becomes unusually heavy, call box traffic also increases. At these times, motorists may be required to wait several minutes for service. b. Call box calls should be handled ideally within a 3.5 minute (210 seconds) total call handling time. It is understood that the use of such services, as the Translation Service Contractor, shall increase total call handling time to levels above this standard. CHP 1R047010 SMV 9. The CHP shall provide to SAFE, on a monthly basis, the following summary reports from the Telephone Management Information System (TMIS) at CHP communications center handling SAFE's call box calls: • Control DN Performance Report • CDN Delay Before Answer Repor 10. If the communications center servicing SAFE does not have a TMIS, or should SAFE Coordinator's TMIS equipment (including software) fail, these reports may not be available. 11. The CHP shall be responsible for the procurement, installation, and maintenance of all communications center equipment related to the call box/motorist aid system. All systems procured for CHP dispatch operation shall be designed by CHP. No equipment shall be installed in a CHP facility which does not meet all CHP operational and technical specifications. 12. All communications center equipment purchased under this agreement shall become the sole property of CHP. 13. If CHP ceases to provide freeway call box dispatching services, CHP shall pay to SAFE that proportion of the fair market value of all equipment purchased for CHP in whole or part with SAFE funding. The current fair market value shall be determined by Telecommunications Division, Department of General Services, at the time of cessation of service. 14. The CHP shall review SAFE's plans and specifications for upgrading or modifying SAFE's call box system, and provide written comments within sixty (60) days of submittal by SAFE. If the sixty (60) day time frame cannot be met, CHP shall notify SAFE, in writing, specifying the reasons and indicating the additional time required. It is understood that all upgrades or modifications to SAFE's system shall be in accordance with the Guidelines. 15. The CHP agrees to submit an itemized invoice quarterly to SAFE which may include the following charges: A. ONGOING: 000067 The personnel costs (salary and benefits) determined under the terms of this agreement. Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD) personnel costs shall be based on the third step of the wage scale for PSD's in effect at the time of invoicing. The SAFE Coordinator personnel costs shall be based on the actual step of the wage scale for SAFE Coordinator position at the time of invoicing. These costs are subject to change according to increases and/or decreases in State of California salary and benefit rates, which are beyond CHP control. CHP 1R047010 SMV 2. Indio Communications Center FY 01/02 July - March - Personnel Year Reimbursement = 1.0 FY 01/02 April - June - Personnel Year Reimbursement = .5 3. Indirect Costs shall be applied to monthly personnel costs in accordance with California State Administrative Manual Section 8752 and 8752.1. The indirect cost rate is determined by CHP and approved by the California Department of Finance and is subject to change each state fiscal year. The re- evaluation of staffing requirements (as outlined under Paragraph 5) shall include an explanation of the projected upcoming fiscal year indirect cost rate. 4. Computer equipment costs (including software), when applicable, associated with CHP SAFE Coordinator position. 5. Translation service charges directly attributable to call box calls and billed to CHP by a Translation Service Contractor (TSC) shall be reimbursed by SAFE. The CHP shall maintain a contract with a translation service to provide necessary interpretation/translation services for call box -related calls. The CHP shall bill SAFE, in arrears, quarterly for charges billed by TSC. All SAFE invoices shall be accompanied by copies of billings from the TSC. 6. Telephone system costs (if applicable) The state shall provide a standard communication center telephone system which shall also be used to handle incoming call box calls. Any agreed upon changes above the standard phone system design, specifically requested by SAFE Program shall be funded by SAFE. B. ONE TIME CHARGES: 1. The purchase and installation costs of all furniture attributable to the handling of SAFE call box calls. Furniture costs charged to SAFE shall be based on the proportion of call box calls in relation to all telephone calls. 2. The SAFE's proportional share of thirty-three percent (33%) of costs for planning, design, and implementation of the statewide computer -aided dispatch (CAD) system, including the cost of a consultant contracted by CHP to perform those tasks. 3. The SAFE's proportional share of thirty-three percent (33%) of the cost of all equipment purchased for the computer -aided dispatch system. This shall include both hardware and software purchase for CHP communications center where SAFE call box calls are handled. '-006068 CHP 1R047010 SMV 4. Each quarterly invoice shall include a thorough explanation and justification for any new additional charges or changes of the amounts of past charges. 5. The total amount of this agreement shall not exceed Sixty thousand dollars and zero cents $60,000.00 for FY 01/02. 16. The CHP agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this agreement, and from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by any negligent act or omission by CHP in the performance of this agreement. Indemnification by CHP includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The CHP's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by RCTC, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. The RCTC agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this agreement, and from any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including but not limited to property damage, bodily injury or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by any negligent act or omission by RCTC in the performance of this agreement. Indemnification by RCTC includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or volunteers for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The RCTC's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by CHP, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. U0 JO69 CHP 1R047010 SMV 17. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement which is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the parties may be submitted to an independent arbitrator mutually agreed upon by CHP and SAFE. The arbitrator's decisions shall be non -binding and advisory only, and nothing herein shall preclude either party, at any time, from pursuing any other legally available course of action, including the filing of a law suit. Pending a final decision of a dispute hereunder, both parties shall proceed diligently with the performance of their duties under this agreement, and such continued performance shall not constitute a waiver of any rights, legal or equitable, of either party relating to the dispute. 18. All services under this agreement shall be coordinated by: Department of the California Highway Patrol Telecommunications Sections 860 Stillwater Road West Sacramento, CA 95605 (916) 375-2901 The contact person shall be CHP SAFE Coordinator. 19. This agreement, and any attachments or documents incorporated herein by inclusion or reference, constitutes the complete and entire agreement between CHP and SAFE and supersedes any prior representations, understandings, communications, commitments, agreements or proposals, oral or written. 20. Under no circumstances shall SAFE or its subcontractor(s) use the name California Highway Patrol or CHP to promote a product which is part of the call box system without the written consent of CHP. '0000 0 CHP 1R047010 SMV STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY Department of California Highway Patrol Service Authority For Freeway Emergencies P. G. McCARTHY Signature Administrative Services Officer Title Date Date Counsel, Riverside SAFE Date Department of California Highway Patrol Business Services Section . Attention: Contract Services Unit P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94198-0001 0Qpi0'7�. Riverside County SAFE 3560 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 AGENDA ITEM 17 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Proposal to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee Requesting Funding for Freeway Service Patrol Service on SR -60 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to submit an application to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) requesting $274,056 in funding for Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) service on SR -60; 2) Commit to providing the required 25% matching funds; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission once funding is finalized; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), currently operates a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on five segments or beats on SR -91, 1-15, and I-215/SR-60 in western Riverside County during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program has been in operation for almost ten years and has thirteen tow trucks under contract with three private tow truck operators. The MSRC has released a call for projects whereby the four transportation agencies in its area — MTA, OCTA, RCTC, and SANBAG — are each eligible to receive funding for new or expanded Freeway Service Patrol programs. The MSRC funds must be matched by 25% local funds and the actual FSP program operations cannot exceed two years. The MSRC has made available $1.5 million for these programs. Initially, a $375,000 allocation to each county transportation commission (CTC) was discussed; however, at the last MSRC meeting, the request for proposal was changed to provide a $200,000 base to each of the four CTCs, with the remaining funds to be awarded based on the State's Tier I allocation formula ' of 50% f, t Ltab .� U L w,. population, 25% congestion, and 25% urban freeway lane miles. Although the exact amount to be made available to each CTC is not known at this time, staff prepared an application based on the estimated required funding for the proposed project. Should the funding award be less than anticipated, staff will bring back to the Commission the exact award amount along with a revised project budget. The matching funds will be provided through a combination of CMAQ, Measure "A", and/or SAFE fees. The proposed project service area is on SR -60 from Day Street to Redlands Boulevard, approximately 7.6 miles, and will provide service specifically for the SR - 60 HOV construction project which will begin sometime this summer. The proposed project will provide two (2) vehicles during the morning and afternoon commute hours (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, for the two year duration of the construction project. The project is designed to mitigate congestion and assist motorists during the construction period. The application is due to the MSRC on April 8, 2003, the day before the Commission meeting. Therefore, staff will submit the application to the MSRC with the stipulation that formal Commission action is forthcoming. Upon MSRC and SCAQMD approval in June, the RCTC Chairman will execute the agreement with the SCAQMD, amend its contract with the existing tow truck operator in the area to add the additional vehicles, and begin work on the project when construction begins. 000073 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO1VIMISSION Proposal to the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee's (MSRC) Request for Proposal P2003-07 March 24, 2003 The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is pleased to submit to the MSRC a request for funding for Freeway Service Patrol service on State Route 60 (SR - 60) in Riverside County. I. Project Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), currently operates a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on five segments or beats on SR -91, I-15, and I-215/SR-60 in western Riverside County during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program has been in operation for almost ten years and has thirteen tow trucks under contract with three private tow operators. The MSRC FSP program will be implemented during SR -60 freeway construction in the city of Moreno Valley in western Riverside County and is designed to mitigate congestion and assist motorists during the construction period. Construction Parameters and Components: 1. Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2003, and completed in June 2005 (approximately 500 working days). 2. Construction zone is from Day Street to Redlands Boulevard, approximately 7.6 miles. 3. Construction of HOV lanes in median and re -construction of Perris Boulevard under -crossing. 4. Median widening at Heacock Boulevard and Frederick Street/Pigeon Pass Road under -crossings. 5. Construction of continuous sound walls throughout the project limits. The total value of the construction project is estimated at $32 million. This project is funded, designed and implemented by RCTC, utilizing Congested Management/Air Quality (CMAQ) and Measure "A" funds, Riverside County's %2 cent sales tax for transportation. During the construction period, there will be a reduction in traffic lanes and elimination of shoulders which will likely result in reduction in travel speed in the construction zone. These actions will result in an increase in congestion, as well as mobile source air pollution. 000074 To assist motorists during the construction period so that congestion and air quality can be improved, RCTC is proposing to implement an additional FSP beat on SR -60, consisting of the following components: 1. Location: RCTC proposes to implement an FSP beat that would assist motorists traveling between Day Street and Redland Boulevard on SR -60 in Moreno Valley. Currently, RCTC's FSP beat #18 ends at Day Street. Please refer to Attachment A, a map of the proposed FSP location. 2. Beat Length: The FSP beat length is approximately 7.6 miles. 3. Day and Hours of Operation: The FSP service will be implemented based on the following operational assumptions, which are identical to the current program: a. FSP service over the twenty-four month construction period; b. primarily Monday through Friday, except holidays, with some additional service implemented during long holiday weekends to mitigate congestion; c. operating 252 days per year with some contingency as noted in (b) above; d. hours of operation will be three and one-half hours in the morning commute peak period (5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.) and four hours in the afternoon commute peak period (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.); and e. two vehicles will be in operation each day. 4. Service Type: The proposed FSP program will mirror the existing program, will follow the existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) as developed by RCTC and CHIP, and will utilize two (2) Class A trucks with a minimum gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds, dual wheel chassis and four (4) ton recovery equipment rating. In its capacity as the SAFE, RCTC will administer the program and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) will provide daily field supervision of the tow trucks. II. Project Budget Total eligible project costs are $367,200, of which RCTC requests $275,400 in funding from the MSRC, matched with $91,800 in funding from RCTC. RCTC will also provide 000075 2 $45,300 to fund other non -eligible project costs. RCTC will utilize a combination of CMAQ, Measure "A", and SAFE funds for the match. Please refer to Attachment B — Project Budget. RCTC would be willing to provide additional matching funds should the total requested MSRC funds not be available. III. Implementation Schedule Based on the dates contained in the Request for Proposal (Table I.b-1 Key Program Dates), the following implementation schedule has been devised to meet the RFP requirements and construction schedule. The specific task, months for completion and estimated dates for the FSP program are as follows: Task Task Description Months Dates 1 MSRC/RCTC contract execution 1 6/6/03 to 7/1/03 2 Amend contract with existing tow company 1 6/11/03 to 7/9/03 3 Service implementation 24 7/03 to 6/05 4 Quarterly Progress Reports 24 Q1: 7/03 - 9/03 Q2: 10/03 - 12/03 Q3: 1/04 — 3/04 Q4: 4/04 — 6/04 Q5: 7/04 — 9/04 Q6: 10/04 —12/04 Q7: 1/05 — 3/05 Q8: 4/05 — 6/05 5 Program Closeout and Final Report to 3 7/31/05 - 10/31/05 MSRC (includes activity in last period from 7/31/05 to 10/31/05) Additional comments on tasks in above schedule: Task 4: Each Quarterly Report will include the following information for the period, as well as year to date summary of: 1. Number of FSP beats implemented; 2. Centerline miles for each beat implemented; 3. Average number of tow trucks deployed for each beat; 4. Total number of service hours per beat for the quarter; 5. Total number of motorist assists per beat for quarter, and 6. Average number of motorist assists per truck -hour per beat for the quarter. 000076 3 Task 5: Final Report will contain the following final information for the entire program: 1. Number of FSP beats implemented; 2. Centerline miles for each beat implemented; 3. Average number of tow trucks deployed for each beat; 4. Total number of service hours per beat implemented; 5. Total number of motorist assists per beat, and 6. Average number of motorist assists per truck -hour per beat. IV. Draft Contract RCTC Legal Counsel has had an opportunity to review the draft contract and there are no proposed changes to the boilerplate at this time. V. Attachments The following attachments are included at the end of this proposal: Attachment A — SR -60 FSP Project Map (page 5) Attachment B — Budget for Proposed FSP Beat (page 6) 00007' 4 CC S TATE OF CALIF ORNIA DEPART MENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON STATE HIGHWAY IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN MORENO VALLEY FROM 0.94 KM WEST OF DAY STREET TO 0.02 KM WEST OF REDLANDS.BOULEVARD To be suppl emented by Standa rd Pions doted July. 1999 (Revised November 8, 2000) BEGIN CONSTRUCTION "A1 @+66. 000 KP R20.48 v• -. 4 PM R12.73 047 St lit v1 In a 270 28 The Contractor aholl pones! the Cl0es (or c lasses) of Iloenee os specified In the " Notice to Con tractors'. 5' 230. 00 , 000 A 0 ELDER Ave Pr ey. ;.Z.w-prof 0,0. N HEMLOCK Ave MORENO V ALLEY 9 1 14) 8R No.56•420 R/ UTE 60 2d0 P)LEON Pe,SS Rd uC twlp$NI RR No.55-478 R/L 320 ROUTE 60 N0 SCALE 10 06 Ca lf re RIO POLITE 50 Yee VAIAS R20.45/02.75 Ik[lT CJItrans R'15 :1. . ;. P.AC BR No,56-021 RIL MORE N0 BEACH Or OC . ENO CONSTRUCTION "B"327+55.000 KP 32.76 PM 20.36 t alhieeiWIE 1M 11ILL1KTE111 I . ! � 1.•. IFr al oof Elgi n.., •w.i.01..4 01111 bgl n..r T. 330 eaunon 5545 •trlc 1A SfMIL ..8ft0\S "•SIMr 004.100 0 n1061TS101 00J001 TIWIWO0T•TION 10"440100 001 0. 0400(LT1 EVW1 1, RITE 100 0510010 & C.1.1,0111.• 0100 0 1Tpn4111 0119 00110.1 (04117110 9040 0140104610. 0011X4 Contract No. us(a')r , re i G c11 00000 11PPP‘Ils -01,01 1114.014a.01, Orr 06-463601 EA 463601 a 6 0 0 1V O rat rt n rt a Attachment "B" RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MSRC APPLICATION - PROPOSED FSP BUDGET OPERATIONS (see notes below) Tow Trucks - 2 Vehicles CHP Labor Total Operations Amount $ 354,076 $ 13,124 $ 367,200 REPAIRS Misc. Radio Repairs $ 600 SUPPLIES Printing - Brochures & Forms Patches, Signs, Hats, Etc. Postage Miscellaneous Supplies Total Supplies EQUIPMENT Equipment Maintenance - Scantron Radios - 2 Total Equipment ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD TOTAL BUDGET REQUIREMENTS REVENUES MSRC Funds - 75% Local Match Funds - 25% Other Non -match Funds 2,800 600 400 300 4,100 400 1,600 2,000 $ 38,600 $ 412,500 $ 275,400 $ 91,800 $ 45,300 TOTAL REVENUES $ 412,500 Notes: 1) Tow truck costs estimates = 252 days x 2 trucks x 7.5 hrs./day x $42.50/hr. x 2yrs. + 10 days mid -day service x 2 trks. x 6.5 hrs. x $42.50/hr. x 2 yrs. + 10 nites x 2 trks. x 9 hrs. x $42.50/hr. x 2 yrs. plus 2% extra work allowance. 2) CHP costs estimate = 10 hrs./mo. x $52.76/hr. + 10 hrs./mo. x 12 x $56.45/hr. JR: 03/03/03 000079 6 AGENDA ITEM 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION r DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Development Policy SUBJECT: FY 2003-04 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Release a Call for Projects for the FY 2003-04 SB 821 program and notify the cities, the County, and local school districts of the estimated funding available for the fiscal year, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Each year, 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 Program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1. All cities and the County are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals (all school districts in the county are also notified and asked to coordinate project submissions with either their local city or the county transportation department). The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, selection criteria, and Caltrans' Highway Design Manual are also provided with the notification. 2. The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Based on LTF revenues estimates for FY 2003-04 adopted by the Commission on February 12, 2003, the 2% LTF funding for the SB 821 Program viiill' 'be 00i�L'O approximately $949,715. Additionally, any carryover will be added to the new year's apportionment (receipts of LTF revenue in excess of the FY 2002-03 apportionment). This carryover amount will not be known until the close of the fiscal year. Also, there may be an unidentified amount of carryover funds from projects in the current program due to unclaimed funds, actual claims coming in lower than the allocated amounts, or time extensions were not requested and granted prior to the expiration of the funding authorization for FY 2002-03. Since these amounts are not known until after the awards for FY 03-04 are approved, any excess funds are carried over to the following fiscal year (FY 04-05) and made available for allocation to local agencies at that time. As a result of the new policy adopted by the Commission at its March 12, 2003 meeting, the agencies will now have twenty-four months to complete projects funded in FY 2003-04. Any projects not completed using local forces or awarded a construction contract within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, or a project requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the city's/county's control. Attachment: SB 821 Evaluation Criteria 000081 SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR MAXIMUM POINTS 1. USE 25 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 20 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE 20 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY 15 Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS 10 This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just a application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY 10 The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT 10 BONUS The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing 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 000082 AGENDA ITEM 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Appropriations Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Countywide candidate project list for submission to Congressional representatives for consideration in the annual federal appropriations process, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Every year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission submits to Riverside County's delegation to the United States Congress a list of important regionally significant transportation projects for which it is seeking federal financial assistance. Typically, staff has identified several projects within each Congressional District and then combined the 3-4 District lists into one larger list that is submitted to California's two Senators. The San Bernardino Associated Governments has generally used this process as well. Both agencies have primarily focused in the areas of bus and rail transit and freeway interchanges. While these areas remain a priority, the Appropriations process rules seem to be evolving in Washington, DC. Several Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA -21) funding programs that were administered by the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) are now being entirely ear- marked during the appropriations process, leaving no funding available for grants from the various DOT departments, such as the Federal Transit Administration or the Federal Highway Administration. In Tight of this evolution, staff is recommending a strategy of identifying those program areas that are being ear- marked and select projects within certain Congressional districts that match -up with the federal funding program. The projects on the attached list have been specifically selected as regionally significant transportation projects on which RCTC has participated in the development of the project and qualifies for one of the TEA - 21 programs. 000083 Riverside County Transportation Commission Federal Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation Appropriations. Requests CETAP Riverside/Orange County Corridor - $5 Million - Transportation, Community and System Preservation Currently, the primary route between "housing -rich" Riverside County and "employment -rich" Orange County is State Route 91. This freeway is one of the most congested freeways in the country and due the nature of the geography and sensitive habitat areas, the freeway cannot be widened necessitating exploring a new transportation corridor. This funding would be used to continue the study and preparation of environmental documentation that leads to the construction of a new corridor. San Jacinto Branch Line Commuter Rail - $5 Million - New Start New Start program funds would be used in combination with local revenues of $18.5 million to partially fund construction of a commuter rail transit line on RCTC owned right-of-way known as the San Jacinto Branch line. The segment extends from downtown Riverside to Perris, and also includes the construction of 3 new commuter rail stations, and the purchase of locomotives and passenger rail cars. The length of this segment is 19 miles. Inland Empire Transportation Management Center - $3 million — Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment ie Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (TMC) will provide transportation operations functions ror both Riverside and San Bernardino counties and is the last large urban area TMC to be funded and built. The TMC is the backbone of the Traffic Management System (TMS). Activities at the TMC will include the monitoring and regulation of traffic flow throughout the two county region. Preliminary estimates indicate that the cost for design, environmental, land improvements, building structure, software, hardware and furniture, is approximately $38,000,000. SANBAG has allocated $7 million in 2002 STIP funds to the project. Land is secured and owned by Caltrans. Ramsey Street Extension - $3 Million - Federal Lands This project would fund the environmental document preparation, engineering and design, and construction for the extension of Ramsey in the city of Banning through Native American lands to Field Road in Cabazon. Currently, Interstate -10 serves as a local street connecting the Pass cities of Beaumont and Banning to the employment centers of the Factory outlets retail center and the Cabazon Casino. I-10 would experience tremendous relief from local traffic that would use the extension of Ramsey Street. BNSF & UP/3" Street Grade Separation - $2 Million - Corridor Planning and Development This request is for federal funds for a rail line/highway grade separation project. The project includes the design, engineering, and environmental document preparation for an Alameda Corridor East rail line/highway grade separation on the BNSF & UP Rail Line at 3rd Street in the city of Riverside. 000084 UP/22"d Street Grade Separation Banning - $2 Million - Corridor Planning and Development This request is for federal funds for a rail line/highway grade separation project. The project includes the design, engineering, and environmental document preparation for an Alameda Corridor East rail line/highway grade separation on the UP Rail Line at 22nd Street in the city of Banning. I-10/Palm Avenue Interchange - $2 Million - Corridor Planning and Development A new interchange on the Interstate 10 at Palm Avenue in the Coachella Valley to relieve congestion at existing interchanges. This funding would be used to fund environmental document preparation and design and engineering costs to make the project "shelf -ready." Corona Multimodal Center - $2.15 Million - Bus & Bus Facility The Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Riverside Transit Agency, the City of Corona, and the California Department of Transportation are working together to develop a multimodal transit facility in the City of Corona. State and Local sources of funding total in excess of $26.5 million and fund the majority of the project. The project includes a parking structure accommodating 1000 vehicles, a Metrolink Commuter rail station, and bus to bus and bus to rail transfer facilities. Riverside Transit Center - $2.5 Million — Bus & Bus Facility RCTC is a co-sponsor with the Riverside Transit Agency in seeking funding for a Transit Center in the City of Riverside in order to meet the needs of this economically diverse City that is hub to many of the County's large, employers. The downtown area currently serves as the main transfer point for the majority of the RTA's routes. The existing bus terminal, owned by the City of Riverside, is scheduled for alternative use in the near future leaving the RTA without a transfer facility. It is critical to identify, acquire, and develop a replacement facility to ensure the continued safe and efficient operations of the transit infrastructure within Western Riverside County. The Riverside Transit Agency is the grantee. Temecula Transit Center - $2.4 Million — Bus and Bus Facility RCTC is a co-sponsor with the Riverside Transit Agency in seeking funding for a Transit Center in the City of Temecula in order to meet the needs of this the Riverside County business commuter traveling to San Diego, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Los Angeles County. This Transit Center will provide a central transfer point for both local and commuter bus services. It will be the launching pad for transportation to commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and local circulator services in the South/West area of Riverside County. The Riverside Transit Agency is the grantee. Hemet Transit Center - $800,000 — Bus and Bus Facility This project is a new transit center on property owned by the city of Hemet to meet the transit needs of the residents of cities of Hemet, San Jacinto and the San Jacinto Valley. This transit center will provide a central transfer point for both local and commuter bus services. The Hemet transit center is an integral transit element for central and southwest Riverside County commuters that will allow for connections to future commuter rail, and bus rapid transit services and local circulator services. j OS5 ,ate Route 86/Avenue 50 Interchange - $2 Million - Corridor Planning and Development Funding is necessary to construct an interchange to separate vehicles traveling at freeway speeds on State Route 86 at the intersection with Avenue 52 in Coachella. This is a project has been requested by CVAG to be included in RCTC's annual appropriations request in prior years and does qualify for funding out of the goods movement program known as Borders and Corridors. This and other SR 86/city street at -grade crossings in Coachella enjoy strong support from Congresswoman Bono. SunLine Transit Facility Expansion - $2.5 Million - Bus & Bus Facility To accommodate its growing fleets, expand its hydrogen and natural gas infrastructure, and continue developing a state of the art clean fuels program, Sunline and RCTC are requesting $2.5 million to purchase and improve the adjacent 11 acre parcel of land. French Valley Parkway/I-15 - $3 Million — Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program or Corridor Planning and Development A new interchange on the Interstate 15 at French Valley Parkway in the city of Temecula to relieve congestion at existing interchanges. This funding would be used to fund environmental document preparation and design and engineering costs to make the project "shelf -ready." 000086 AGENDA ITEM 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director -. SUBJECT: State Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the State Legislative Update, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Budget deficit continues to dominate the interest and the activities of the Legislature. While there is little to report in the way of transportation related legislation, two sponsored bills, SB 294 (Soto) and AB 427 (Longville) have been introduced by their respective authors. SB 294, a bill that addresses eminent domain damage awards that may reduce the cost of acquiring property for highway projects is pending a hearing date before the Senate Judiciary Committee. AB 427, a bill that deletes the 20 year term limit for transportation sales tax expenditure plans in order to allow a term longer than 20 years is double -referred to Assembly Local Government Committee and Assembly Transportation Committee. AB 427 has been set for hearing in Local Government Committee on March 26, 2003. Attachment: Legislative Matrix 006087 RIVERSIDE COU NTY TR ANSPORTATION C OMMISSION LEGISLATIVE INFO RMATION 2003 Subject Bill Number Author Description Latest Maj or Action 1/07/03: Referred to followi ng the Senate Committee: Commerce Science & 'Positio n Tra nsportation ` Positio n No Date of Board Approval Rail 5.104 (Hollings -SC) The "National Defe nse Rail Act" would establish a national rail passe nger transportation system, rea uthorize Amtrak, improve security and service on Amtrak, and for other purposes a nd appropriate $515M for 2004. Sectio n 201 requires the Secretary of Tra nsportatio n shall establish the national high-speed ground transportation policy required by sectio n 309(e)(1) of this title no later than December 31, 2003. Section 202 requires Secretary uires the of Transpo rtation shall provide planning assistance to States or group of States a nd other p ublic agencies promoti ng the development of high-speed rail corridors designated by the Secretary under sectio n 104(d) of title 23 .(last updated 2/03/03). Rail H.R. 413 (G reen -TX) The Neighborhood Rail Accou ntability Act requires the Surface Transportation Board to con sidere certain local issues when certifying an additional railroad line, or the con struction of an extension to any railroad. 1/29/03: Referred to Submcommittee on Railroads. No Positio n Sprawl H.R. 748 (Udall -CO) To assist Federal agen cies improve environmental reviews to more adeq uately address urban sprawl, the Council on En vironmental Q uality will st udy 5 cities and submit its fmdin g to the House of Represe ntatives and the Committee on Env ironment and Public Works of the Senate. 2/24/2003: House committee/subcommitte e actions . Status: Exec utive Comme nt Requested from CEQ . No Position Roadway Safety/Congestion Mitigation C: H.R. 288 (In slee-WA ) The "Roadway Safety and Congestion Mitigation Impro veme nts Act" will amend title 23, Un ited States Code, allowing long range planning a nd establish fu nding for rail projects, establish programs to enhance roadway safety and improve tran sportation efficiency in the Un ited States, and for other purposes.$3B for 2004-08, eligible projects include: older driv ers roadway safety enhancments, safety management systems, run -off -road mitigation , speed mgt, pedestrian and bicycle safety, in tersection safety, emergency mgt, seatbelt/alcohol, highway rail crossin g(last updated 1/31/03) 1/08/03: Refd to Committed on Transportation & I nfrastructure; 1/09/03: Referred to the Ho use Subcommittee on Highways a nd Transit. No Position C. Qi V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\04 April\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 1 of 6 3/19/2003 00 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRH ?OR TATION CO MMISSION LEGISLATIVE 1r FORMA TION 2003 Subject Bill Number A uthor A mber Alert Noise H ybrid Vehicles Biodiesel S.121 (H utchison -TX ) H .R.475 (Lowey -NY ) H .R. 243 (Issa-CA) H.R.318 IH (Shimkus-IL) Description Latest Major Action Positio n The "Nation al AMBER A lert Network Act of 2003" will en han ce the operation of the A MBER A lert commu nications network in order to facilitate the recovery of abducted children , to provide for enhanced notification on highways of alerts an d information on such children , an d for other purposes. There are 3 v ersion s of this billing that wou ld each approp. $20M du ring 2004 fo r freeway commun ication systems an d plans an d co ordin ate services between DOT, DOJustice, FBI. (last u pdated 2/03/03) The "Quiet Commu nities Act of 2003" will reestablish the Office of N oise A batement and Con trol in the Environmen tal Protection A gency, and for other pu rposes. Appropriates $21B du rin g 2004-08, will reestablish EPA Office of N oise A batement and Control to provide fun ds, assistance to states for noise programs, "too carry out a nation al noise env ironmental assessment program to identify tren ds in noise exposure and response, ambient levels, a nd compliance data an d to determine the effectiv eness of noise abatement actions, i ncludi ng action s for areas aroun d major tran sportation facilities (such as highways, railroad facilities, and airports" (last u pdated 2/03/03) The "Hybrid V ehicle Incentive Act" will amend title 23, United States Code, relating to the use of high occupancy vehicle la nes by hybrid vehicles. (last u pdated 1/31/03) The "Biofuels Air Q uality Act" will amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the congestion mitigatio n and air q uality impro veme nt program of the extent to which a proposed project or program red uces s ulfur or atmospheric carbon emissions, to make re newable fuel projects eligible u nder that program, and for other p urposes. (last updated 1/31/03) 1/27/03: Referred to the following Commitees: Judiciary and in addition Transportation and Infrastructure 1/29/03: Referred to the following House Committees: Energy & Commerce, Transportation & Infrastructure; 1/30/03: Refd to S ubcommittee on Aviatio n. 1/08/03: Referred to Ho use Committee on Transportatio n & I nfrastruct ure; 1/09/03 Refd to Subcommittee on Highways a nd Transit 1/08/03: Referred to House Committee on Transportatio n & Infrastruct ure; 1/09/03 Refd to Subcommittee on Highways and Tra nsit No Position No Position No Position No Position Date of Board Approval C7) V:\USERS\PREPRINT12003\04 April\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 2 of 6 3/19/2003 RIVE RSIDE C OUNTY TRAI\__ ORTATION COMMISSION LEGISL ATIVE INFORMATIO N 2003 Subject Bill Number Author Description Latest . Major Action P osition ' Date of Board? Approval V ehicle License A. B.19 Leslie ( ) Existing law imposes variouspe nalties on persons convicted of drivi ng while p under the influe nce . Existing law pro vides for a reductio n in the full amount of the vehicle lice nse fee by an offset,as specified.This bill wo uld prohibit persons convicted of a driving while under the influence offense from receiving for 5 years from the date of the con viction the red uction in the full amount of the vehicle lice nse fee by the offset, provided that the person committed the offense 2/06/03: Referred to the No Fee Offset /DUI on or after January 1, 2004 .This bill wo uld create the D .U.I . s ubacco unt in the following Committee: Position Motor Vehicle License Fee Account in the Tra nsportatio n Ta x Fu nd, and would require the increased fees that otherwise wo uld ha ve been offset to be deposited i nto that su baccount. The bill would conti nuo usly appropriate the funds in that subaccount to the California Departme nt of the Highway Patrol . P ublic Safety " Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportatio n a nd local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, to a uthorize or permit exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes for high -occupancy vehicles. This bill would authorize a hybrid vehicle, as defined, to be operated Vehicle A .B.114 (Nakano) u pon an ex clusive or preferential use lane, regardless of the number of occ upants in the by 1/23/03: Referred to No Hybrid/HOV lanes v ehicle, un less specifically prohibited a traffic co ntrol device . The bill also addressed other tran sit vehicles (ie maintenace, s upervisors) that occupy these lan es during emergen cies (ie bus accident,etc). "The provisions of this section regardin g mass transit v ehicles shall only apply if the Director of Committee on Transportation position Transportation determin es that the application will not subject the state to a reduction in the amoun t of federal aid for highways." " Existin g law prov ides that the Departmen t of Tran sportation has full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law establishes a planning a nd Transportation P A .B.139 (Corbett) programmin g process involvin g the department, region al transportation pla nning agen cies, the Califo rnia Transportation Commission 1/21/03: Maybe heard No N eeds Assessmen t and relative to the selection of transportation improvement projects. This bill would declare the intent of the in Committee 2/20/03 Positio n C. Q. C Legislature that a statewide tran sportation n eeds a ssessmen t be conducted every 5 years. " V:\USERS\PREPRINT12003\04 April\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 3 of 6 3/19/2003 RIVERSIDE COUN TY TR ANSPOR TATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE IN FOR MATION 2003 Subject Bill Number Author Description Date of Latest Major Action Position Board ' Approval Tolls Bridges Vehicle Licen se Fee A. B.198 (Nation ) A BX1 4 (Wesson) Ex isting law au thorizes the Department of Transportation to fix the rate of tolls on any toll bridge or toll road and to prescribe any rule and regulation with respect to any toll bridge or toll road within the state. This bill would prohibit the 2/03/03: Referred to department or any specified tran sportation agency from selling or sharing the Committee on actual driv in g patterns of a motorist who uses an electron ic toll payment device to Transportation drive through a toll bridge, toll lan e, or toll highway. (last updated 1/31/03) No Position The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Law establishes an ann ual license fee for any vehicle subject to registration in this state in the amount of 2% of the market v alue of that vehicle an doffsets this amount by 67.5% for V LF's and requ ires the Controller to transfer General Fund moneys to reimbu rse local gov ernmen ts for losses resulting from the vehicle license fee offset. If there are insufficient mon eys in the G en eral Fu nd for the Controller to fully reimburse local governments for losses resulting from the vehicle license fee offset, that the offset amou nt be redu ced in proportion to the shortfall in fu ndi ng to reimburse local governments for those losses.Ex isting law does not desig nate the perso n or agency respon sible for makin g the determi natio n of whether there are s ufficient moneys in the Gen eral Fund to make these reimbursements. This bill would provide that the Director of Finance is required to make the same determination of whether there are insufficient moneys in the General Fun d for the Contr oller to fully reimb urse local governme nts for losses resulting from the vehicle license fee offsets.This bill would clarify that the term "General Fund," as used with refere ncE or other forms of indebted ness. 2/03/03: In Assembly . To E nrollment No Positio n wi V:IUSERSIPREPRINT12003104 April\Budget & ImpllLegis Matrix Page 4 of 6 3/19/2003 RI VERSIDE C OUNTY TR ANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE INFO RMATI ON 2003 Subject Bill Number Author Descripti on i Latest Major Action Positio n Date of Board Approval Sales Tax ACA 7 (Dutra) This measure would a uthorize a co unty, a city a nd county, and a regional transportation agency to impose an additio naltsales a nd use tax for a period of 20 to 30 years, as specified, at a rate of 0.5 % e xclusively for transportation purposes within the j urisdiction of the county, city a nd county, or regional tra nsportation age ncy if the additio nal tax is appro ved by 55% of the voters of the j urisdictio n voting on the proposition to impose the tax.(last updated 1/31/03) 1/15/03: May be heard in Committee February 14: Support Infrastructure Fund ACA 11 Establish the California Twenty -First Ce ntury Infrastruct ure Investment Fund to assure continual funding a nd i ncrease the amo unt of General Fund re venue committed to pay-as- you-go capital outlay projects . To be allocated by the Legislat ure, 50% for state, 50% for local (excluding school a nd community college districts). Begins in 2006-07 fiscal year, tran sfers 1% of General Fund reven ue a nd increases by 0 .3 perce nt a nnually until reaches 3% of General F und re ven ues in 2013-14. Contai ns pro visions to slow a nd accelera te the ann ual amo unt to be transferred depending on the co ndition of the Ge neral Fund. on March 2004 Statewide ballot Support Disability, Access S.B.69 (011er) Existin g law provides that individuals with disabilities are entitled to full and equal access to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges of vario us modes of transportation , and as specified. The bill would set forth the duty of the own er or manager, or other responsible party, to notify the complaints from disabled individu als of planned access improvements, as defined, and to make those improvements within a specified period. (last updated 2/03/03) 1/27/03: Referred to Committee on J ud No Position In tercity R ail S.B.91 (Florez) This bill, effective Jan uary 1, 2004, would transfer all of the duties a nd respon sibilities of the department relativ e to intercity rail passenger service to the High -Speed Rail Authority. The bill would also requ ire the authority to conduct a rev iew of all programmed intercity rail projects that hav e not received an allocation of state fun ds as of that date an d to only proceed with the implementation of projects that are determin ed by the authorityto be complementary to the planned high-speed rail service. (last u pdated 1/31/03) 2/05/03: Referred to Committee on Transportation No Position r CC " V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\04 April\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 5 of 6 3/19/2003 RIVER SIDE COU NTY TRANSPOR TATIO N COMMISSION LEG ISLA TIVE INFO RMATIO N 2003 Subject Bill Nu mber Author D escription Latest Major Action Date of Positio n Board Approval Tran sportation Fin ance i (Committee on SBX 17 Budget and Fiscal R eview) This bill would additionally au thoriz e a loan of TCRF funds to the General Fund through legislation other than the ann ual Budget Act.The bill would cancel any obligation for repaymen t of $100,000,000 lo an ed from the TCRF to the General Fun d in the Budget Act of 2002.(last updated 1/31/03) 2/03/03: Referred to Budget Committee sales Tax SCA2 (Torlakson ) This measure would authorize a city, a county, a city an d cou nty, or a regional transportation agen cy, as defined, with the approval of a majority of its voters voting on the proposition, to impose a special tax for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail that it is otherwise authorized to impose, if the tax is imposed exclusively to fun d transportation projects and services and smart growth plannin g. (last updated 1/31/03) 2/20/03: Amended, Re- referred to Committee on Co nstitutio nal Ame ndment Support if Amended California Freight A dvisory Commission S.B. 924 (K arnette) This bill would create the California Freight Advisory Commission within the department in order to collect in formation about importa nt freight -related tran sportation needs. The commission would consist of 13 members and would advise the department, the California Tran sportation Commission, an d tran sportation planning age ncies 011 those needs an d would recommend projects to address those needs. 2/21/03: Referred to Committee on RLS No Position Local Sales Tax A.B. 427 (Longeville) This bill would delete the 20 -year limit on the duration of a local transportation sales tax under the general provisio ns described abov e an d would in stead provide that the tax shall remain in effect for the period of time specified in the tax ordinance that is adopted by the authority and approved by the voters. May be heard in Committee 3/20/03 No Position Motorist Aid Program S.B. 795 (K arnette) This bill would abolish the Emergency Roadside Assistance Advisory Committee which currently recomme nds traini ng sta ndards for designated providers of emergency roadside services. 2/21/03: Referred to Committee on RLS No Position CO C::: V:\USERS\PREPRINT\2003\04 April\Budget & Impl\Legis Matrix Page 6 of 6 3/19/2003