HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 29, 2001 Budget & Implementation057311
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
• BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDP
RECORDS
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
DATE: Monday, October 29, 2001
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 - Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
VIDEO CONF SITE: City of La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico - Section Room
•
•
...COMMITTEE MEMBERS...
John Hunt, Chair / Jan Wages, City of Banning
Phil Stack, Vice Chair / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage
Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont
Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DeGrandi, City of Cathedral City
Juan DeLara / Lupe Dominguez, City of Coachella
Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio
John Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta
Kevin Pape / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore
Bonnie Flickinger / Frank West, City of Moreno Valley
Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside
John Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside
Jim Venable, District Three / County of Riverside
Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / City of San Jacinto
Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula
... STAFF ...
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
... AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY...
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement
and SB 821 -Bicycle & Pedestrian
Property Management
SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol
and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
•
•
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
3560 University Ave - Riverside, CA 92501 - Conference Room A
PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFF/CE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2001 - 2:30 P.M.
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
City of La Quinta City Hall (Video Conference Location)
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253 - Session Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (August 27, 2001)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will
be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests
separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the
agenda.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS- P. 01
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule
Reports for the month ending September 30, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
w
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 2
•
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT — P. 05
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report
for the months ending July and August 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — P. 07
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for
the quarter ending September 30, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6. STUDY OF CURVE REALIGNMENT ON ROUTE 74 FROM
WINCHESTER ROAD TO WARREN ROAD — P. 15
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a
agreement 02-31-028 with Advanced Digital Maps, Inc.
to perform aerial mapping services along Route 74
between Winchester Road to Warren Road under a single
signature contract for $16,600, and a 20% contingency
amount of $3,400 for a total contract amount not to
exceed $20,000 subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review;
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 3
•
2) Authorize the Executive Director to Approve Task 1,
agreement 02-31-027 to the On -Call Engineering Services
Contract RO-2061 with SC Engineering for a contract
amount of $14,965 with extra work amount of $2,035
for a total not to exceed amount of $17,000; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ALONG THE SAN
JACINTO BRANCH LINE FROM RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN
STATION TO ROMOLAND — P. 28
Overview
•
•
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) Award Contract No. 02-33-026 (Amendment #5 to
Contract No. RO-2128) to STV Inc. to Conduct
Environmental Investigations along the San Jacinto
Branch Line from Riverside Downtown Station to
Romoland for a total amount of $254,320 using a
standard contract amendment, subject to RCTC Legal
Counsel review;
2) Add an additional $40,000 to the existing $62,113 of
extra work authorized in previous amendments for a total
extra work amount of $102,113;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel
review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the
Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 4
8. AWARD AGREEMENT FOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AND .
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARKING LOT EXPANSION PLAN
FOR METROLINK STATIONS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY— P. 35
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Concur with staff's recommendation that the Commission
approve the selection process of Engineering Resources
of Southern California, Inc. to provide Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Services to develop and
implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the Metrolink
Commuter Rail Stations in Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chairman to enter into Agreement #02-33-
029 with Engineering Resources of Southern California,
Inc., to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Services for development and implementation of a Parking
Lot Expansion Plan for a Base amount of $196,295.00
with a 20% Extra Work Contingency of $38,705.00 for a
total amount of, $235,000.00 subject to RCTC Legal
Counsel review; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PASSENGER
STATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEW DOWNTOWN CORONA
METROLINK STATION — P. 49
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Chairman to execute Station Agreement
#02-33-030 with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company (BNSF) for construction of passenger
station and pedestrian overhead crossing improvements
s
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 5
•
•
•
for the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink
Station subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.Forward to
the Commission for final action.
10. AMENDMENT TO FY 2001-03 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT — P. 61
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the FY 2001-03 Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the
City of Palm Desert, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. FY 2002-06 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF INDIO — P. 67
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital
Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the
City of Indio, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE OPERATION
OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM — P. 73
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 6
1) Authorize the Chair to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding, subject to Legal Counsel review, between
the Riverside County SAFE, the California Department of
Transportation and the California Highway Patrol for the
operation of a Freeway Service Patrol program in
Riverside County; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL
TOW TRUCK AGREEMENT WITH HAMNER TOWING, INC. - P.
80
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend, subject to Legal Counsel review, the Freeway
Service Patrol tow truck agreement with Hamner Towing,
Inc., to add one FSP construction vehicle to Beat #4 on
SR -91; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF A
CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ON SR -91 - P.
84
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Chair to execute an agreement between the
State of California Department of Transportation and the
Riverside County SAFE, subject to Legal Counsel review,
for the operation of a Construction Freeway Service Patrol
on SR -91; and
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 29, 2001
Page 7
•
•
•
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
15. PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE (PCL) - TRAFFIC
CONGESTION RELIEF INITIATIVE - P. 92
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Review the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) -
Traffic Congestion Relief Initiative and its potential
impacts to Inland Empire transportation agencies; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - P. 98
Overview
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update
as an information item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
18. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting is scheduled at 2:30 p.m. on
Monday, November 26, 2001.
•
AGENDA /TEl►f 4
•
•
If/NUTES
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, August 27, 2001
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to
order by Chairman John Hunt at 2:30 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100,
Riverside, California, 92501 and at the video conference location in the City
of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta 92253.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present
Chris Carlson-Buydos
Lupe Dominguez*
Bonnie Flickinger
John Hunt
Ameal Moore
Kevin Pape
John Pena*
Gregory Pettis*
Ron Roberts
Phil Stack
Placido Valdivia
Jim Venable
Members Absent
John Tavaglione
Mike Wilson
*Attended meeting via video conference
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests from the public to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 25, 2001
M/S/C (Pape/Venable) to approve the June 25, 2001 minutes as
written.
Abstain: Stack
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 2
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Pape/Venable) to approve the Consent Calendar.
5A. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the
month ending July 31, 2001; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the
months ending May and June 2001; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the
period ending June 30, 2001; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT
1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the period
ending June 30, 2001; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5E. AUDIT REPORTS
1) Receive and file audit reports for Riverside Transit Agency and
Sunline Transit Agency for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000;
and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5F. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE
1) Receive and file the operational statistics for the Riverside
County Motorist Aid Call Box System for the quarter ending
June 30, 2001; and,
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 3
•
•
•
6. OCTOBER COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE CHANGE
Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services/Clerk of the Board,
presented the request to move the October 22nd Budget and Implementation
meeting to October 29`h to allow staff and members of the Commission to
attend the annual meeting of the Self Help Counties Coalition. The Self Help
Counties Coalition annual meeting is scheduled for October 22-23, 2001.
The Commission is a member of the Self Help Counties Coalition, with Eric
Haley, Executive Director, as the Vice Chairman this year. Agenda items
include updates on sales tax measures passed and proposed and review of
future construction projects statewide.
M/S/C (Stack/Pape) to approve moving the October meeting of the
Budget and Implementation Committee from Monday, October 22"d to
Monday, October 29'h
7. STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT - REVISED SCOPE TO
COMPLETE PSR/PDS OF THE REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES NEAR THE
CITIES OF SAN JACINTO AND HEMET BETWEEN RAMONA EXPRESSWAY
AND DOMENIGONI PARKWAY
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the SR 79 Realignment
Project. During a Project Development Team meeting, Caltrans informed the
team that the Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS)
could be used for this project. This alternative document does not require
the same level of engineering and right-of-way development detail at the PSR
stage. This revised scope of work will save a significant amount of time and
resources.
Commissioner Jim Venable asked if the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet
were involved in the project. Hideo Sugita indicated both cities are involved
in the entire project.
Commissioner Chris Carlson-Buydos requested clarification of the differences
in the scopes of work. Hideo Sugita indicated that the traffic analysis has
been eliminated at this point. Staff is negotiating with CH2M Hill to possibly
perform a traffic analysis on three of the alternatives that would constitute a
reasonable effort at the PSR level to forward to the Project Report
Phase/Environmental Study Phase. Commissioner Buydos then asked if the
type of facility has been determined. Hideo Sugita responded that, from
discussions with Caltrans, it has been determined to be a limited access
expressway.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 4
M/S/C (Roberts/Carlson-Buydos) to approve:
1. The Revised Scope of Work for the SR 79 Realignment Project;
and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
8. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. 02-33-025 (RO-2128) TO STV
INCORPORATED FOR EVALUATION OF THREE CONNECTING OPTIONS FOR
THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE BETWEEN RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN AND
HIGHGROVE
Hideo Sugita reviewed Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. RO-2128 to STV
Incorporated for evaluation of three connecting options for the San Jacinto
Branch Line between Riverside Downtown and Highgrove. Staff is
recommending that four options be studied; the cost for one of which is
already covered as part of Amendment No. 2.
M/S/C (Venable/Carlson-Buydos) to approve:
1. Awarding Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 02-33-025 (RO-
2128) to STV for the evaluation of three San Jacinto Branch
Line alternatives for a total amount of $76,536 using a standard
contract amendment, pursuant to Legal Counsel review;
2. Adding an additional $30,000 to existing $32,113 of extra
work authorized in previous amendments for a total extra work
amount of $62,113; and,
3. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
9. APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACT AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-013 WITH
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REAL PROPERTY SERVICES FOR STATE ROUTE 60
HOV PROJECT
Hideo Sugita reviewed the contract with the County of Riverside Real
Property Services to procure parcels and temporary construction easements
necessary to certify right-of-way for the construction of the SR 60 HOV
lanes and sound walls.
Commissioner Bonnie Flickinger asked if the sound walls would be
constructed along the entire length of the project. Hideo Sugita responded
that he would be able to provide that information after the meeting.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 5
•
•
M/S/C (Venable/Stack) to approve:
1. Entering into Contract No. 02-31-013 for real property services
with the County of Riverside General Services Agency - Building
Services division for labor, appraisals, and litigation guarantees
for an amount not to exceed $433,600 with a contingency
amount of $46,400 for a total not to exceed $480,000,
pursuant to Legal Counsel review; and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
10. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE "A" STATE ROUTE 60 HOV WIDENING
PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Hideo Sugita reviewed the need for Construction Management Services for
the Measure "A" SR 60 HOV widening project due to RCTC advertising,
awarding, and administering this project.
M/S/C (Flickinger/Venable) to approve:
1. The preparation and advertisement of a request for proposals
for a consultant to provide construction management services
on State Route 60 HOV Project in the City of Moreno Valley;
and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
11. AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. 02-31-019 (RO-2042) TO
HOLMES AND NARVER FOR TESTING OF AERIALLY DEPOSITED LEAD FOR
THE MEASURE "A" HOV WIDENING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MORENO
VALLEY
Hideo Sugita reviewed the EPA requirement to test for aerially deposited lead
in the construction area at the new sound wall locations and along the
pavement area of the Measure "A" SR 60 HOV widening project.
Commissioner Kevin Pape asked what would happen if exceeding levels of
lead are discovered. Hideo Sugita responded that there are mitigation
measures that would allow sealing it under the asphalt and the primary
reason for lead testing is the safety of the construction worker.
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 6
M/S/C (Venable/Carlson-Buydos) to approve:
1. Awarding Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. 02-31-019 (RO-
2042) to Holmes and Narver for additional testing of aerially
deposited lead in the amount of $64,712;
2. Adding an additional $20,000 to the existing $40,000 of extra
work;
3. Authorizing the Chairman to execute the Contract, pursuant to
Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and,
4. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
12. AWARD CONTRACT NO. 02-31-002 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND
WALL NO. 36, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 91,
BETWEEN MYERS STREET AND HARRISON STREET, IN THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE
Hideo Sugita reviewed the bid process of the construction package for
Sound Wall No. 36.
M/S/C (Moore/Pape) to approve:
1. Awarding Contract No. 02-31-002 for construction of Sound
Wall No. 36, located on the south side of State Route 91,
between Myers Street and Harrison Street in the City of
Riverside, to R. Fox Construction, Inc., for $502,574.00, and a
10% contingency amount of $47,426.00, to cover potential
change orders encountered during construction, for a total
contract amount not to exceed amount of $550,000.00;
2. Authorizing the Chairman to execute the agreement, pursuant
to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission; and,
3. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
13. STATE ROUTE 74 REALIGNMENT PROJECT: STATUS OF USFWS
APPROVAL OF PROJECT, UPDATE ON BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR SEGMENT
1, AND REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO BID SEGMENT 1
CONSTRUCTION
Hideo Sugita reviewed the status of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
approval of the SR 74 realignment project, including an update on the budget
estimate for Segment 1 and a request for authorization to bid Segment 1
construction.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 7
•
•
•
Commissioner Ameal Moore asked for clarification of the increase in the
Water Quality Mitigation line item. Hideo Sugita responded that due to the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board's adoption of Order No. 01-
34, a detention basin is required to be constructed in Segment 1.
Commissioner Phil Stack asked for clarification of the decrease in the Right -
of -Way Acquisition line item because if a detention basin is to be
constructed that this line item should have increased accordingly. Hideo
Sugita responded that the original estimate was derived from a data sheet by
CalTrans that was now determined to have be overestimated.
Commissioner John Pena asked if the increase has been taken out of the
contingency account. Hideo Sugita responded that it had not been taken out
of the contingency account at this point and is dependent on final statement
at the completion of the project.
Commissioner Bonnie Flickinger asked if the entire amount of the increase
was due to the requirement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hideo
Sugita responded that the entire increase was due the adjustments of all line
items, particularly the relocation of utilities.
Commissioner Buydos asked when staff anticipated receiving the amended
Biological Opinion and what caused the significant increase in the cost of the
utilities relocation. Hideo Sugita responded that staff anticipated having the
amended Biological Opinion in approximately one month. He also indicated
that the cost increase was the result of the difference between the projected
CalTrans estimate versus the actual utilities estimate.
M/S/C (Pape/Buydos) to:
1. Receive and file Status of USFWS Approval of Project;
2. Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids of the
Segment 1 construction project;
3. Receive and file the Segment 1 Estimate; and,
4. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 8
14. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 02-45-003 BETWEEN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR THE
OPERATION OF A CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ON STATE
ROUTE 91 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the cooperative agreement
between Caltrans and the Riverside County SAFE. Caltrans will be
performing a pavement rehabilitation project on SR 91. They are requesting
implementation of construction freeway service patrol to help mitigate traffic
congestion using our existing operator.
M/S/C (Venable/Stack) to approve:
1. Entering into Cooperative Agreement No. 02-45-003 between
the State of California Department of Transportation and the
Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies for
the operation of a Construction Freeway Service Patrol on State
Route 91 in Riverside County;
2. Authorizing the Chairman to execute the final agreements,
pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission;
and,
3. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
15. FISCAL YEARS 2002-2006 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES
OF BEAUMONT, CATHEDRAL CITY, HEMET, AND RANCHO MIRAGE
Jerry Rivera briefly reviewed the FY 02-06 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital
Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Beaumont,
Cathedral City, Hemet ,and Rancho Mirage.
M/S/C (Pape/Venable) to approve:
1. The FY 02-06 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement
Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Beaumont,
Cathedral City, Hemet, and Rancho Mirage, as submitted; and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 9
•
•
•
16. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2001 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES
OF CORONA AND DESERT HOT SPRINGS
Jerry Rivera reviewed the amendments to FY 01 Measure "A" Capital
Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of Corona and
Desert Hot Springs. The City of Corona has submitted a revised plan
eliminating one project, adding three new projects, and revising the amounts
for five other projects. The City of Desert Hot Springs has submitted a
revised plan to add one project.
M/S/C (Venable/Roberts) to approve:
1. The amendment of the FY 01 Measure "A" Capital
Improvements Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the cities of
Corona and Desert Hot Springs, as submitted; and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
17. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSIONS
FOR THE CITIES OF BLYTHE, CATHEDRAL CITY, COACHELLA, LA QUINTA,
AND PALM SPRINGS
Jerry Rivera reviewed the extension requests from six cities for their SB 821
program.
M/S/C (Venable/Stack) to approve:
1. Granting the City of Blythe a twelve-month extension to June
30, 2002, to complete the Lovekin-Bernard sidewalk
improvement project;
2. Granting the City of Cathedral City a six-month extension to
December 31, 2001, to complete the Downtown Pedestrian
Bridge project and a three-month extension to September 30,
2001, to complete the Agua Caliente Elementary School
sidewalk project;
3. Granting the City of Coachella a six-month extension to
December 31, 2001, to complete the SR -86 Pedestrian
Enhancement project;
4. Granting the City of La Quinta a six-month extension to
December 31, 2001, to complete the Dune Palms Road and
Westward Ho Drive sidewalk and handicap ramp improvement
project;
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 10
5. Granting the City of Palm Springs a six-month extension to
December 31, 2001, to complete the Vista Chino Sidewalk
Safety project; and,
6. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
18. REQUEST TO REPROGRAM SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM
FUNDS TO THE CITY OF BANNING
Jerry Rivera reviewed the request from the City of Banning to reprogram SB
821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program funds. One project came in under the
estimated cost by $15,037 and another project came in over the estimated
cost. The City of Banning is requesting to reprogram the balance of
$7,518.50 from the first project to the second project to cover the overrun.
M/S/C (Pape/Flickinger) to approve:
1. Reprogramming $7,518.50 in FY 01 SB 821 funds allocated to
the City of Banning; and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
19. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Darren Kettle reviewed the status of SCA 5 (Torlakson), which passed out of
the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and is set for hearing in the
Senate. However, it is not likely that it will be approved.
Eric Haley stated that a letter was received from Congressman Ken Calvert's
office today indicating that the Federal Highway Administration concurred
with his interpretation that improvements to the Highway 71 connector are
part of a previous congressional earmark.
M/S/C (Pape/Pena) to:
1. Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an
information item; and,
2. Forwarding to the Commission for final action.
20. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion.
Eric Haley reviewed the invitation for the Annual Employer Recognition Luncheon
for area employers that go above and beyond in providing rideshare services. This
year, 14 employers from various cities in Riverside County will be honored.
Commissioners are welcomed to attend.
•
•
•
Budget and Implementation Committee Meeting
August 27, 2001
Page 11
• 21. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and
Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. The
next meeting will be at 2:30 p.m., on Monday, September 24, 2001, at the
RCTC offices.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
•
AGENDA ITEfrf5A
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager —
Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Contracts Cost and Schedule Reports
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the
month ending September 30, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached material depicts the current costs 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
September 30, 2001.
Attachments
000001
•
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAWL PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COM MISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH. MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATION TO DATE ALLOCATION 09/30/01 TO DATE COMMIT MNTS TO DATE
ROUTE 60 PROJECTS
Final Design HOV 60/215 to Redlands Blvd. (2042)
(3000)
SUBTOTAL_ ROUTE 60
ROUTE 74 PROJECTS
Engineering/Environ/ROW (R02041 9954,9966,
(R02142) (R02141) (2140)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74
ROUTE 79 PROJECTS
Engin eering/Environ. /ROW
Realignment study & Right turn lanes (R09961)
SUBTOTA L
ROUTE 79
ROUTE 86 PROJECTS
Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 (Segment 2)
Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 (Segment 3)
* (Caltrans Funded Pro jects)
SUBTOTAL ROUTE
•
ROUTE 91 PRO JECTS
Soundwall design and construction
(R0910193379847,98619848983299692043)
(2058) (2144) (2136)
Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Hook Ramp (R09535)
Sndwall Landscaping (R09933,9946,9945,2059)
SUBTOTAL,' ROUTE 91
ROUTE 111 PROJECTS
(R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538)
9540, 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,9629
SUBTOTAL ROUTE 111
$3,029,862
$3,029,862
$12,544,652
$12544,652
$860,000
$860,000
$20,253,000
$33, 860,000
34,113,000.
$11,902,100
$2,300,000
$1,603,450
$15,805,550.
$16,946,856
$16,946,856
$3,009,862
$3,009,862
$12,544,652
$12,544,652 .
$781,818
1781,818
$19,500,000
$33,760,000
$53,260,000. .:'
$10,374,324
$2,300,000
$998,300
$13,672;624
$16,946,856
$16,946,856
Page 1 of 3
99.3%
99.3%
100.0%
100;0%
90.9%
90:9%u
96.3%
99.7%
87 .2%
100.0%
62.3%
86.$%
100.0%
100.05
$0
$0
$40,194
$40.194
!$o
Project Complete
$0
$0
$13,953
$0
13,953:
$O
$680,515
$680,515
$4,949,521
$4 949,521:
$260,887
$260;887
$18,060,000
$30,983,253
$8,794,268
$1,797,708
$757,629
$11,349;605
$10,985,247
$10,985,247
22.6%
:22:6%o
39.5%
5%
33 .4%
33:4%
92.6%
91.8%
84 .8%
78 .2 %
75.9%
0%
64 .8%
64.8%
•
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PR OJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL % COMMITTED EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES
PROJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH . MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST
DESCRIPTION ALLOCATI ON TO DATE ALLOCATION 09/30/01 TO DATE CO MMIT MNTS TO DATE
1-215 PROJECTS
Preliminary Engrg/Environ. (R09008, 9018)
SUBTOTAL 1-215
$6,726,504
$6,726,504
$5,878,173
$5,878;173
87.4 %
87.4%
$5,704,897
$5,704,897
97 .1%
97:1%
INTERCHANGE IMPROV. PROGRAM
Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,9946)
SUBTOTAL INTERCHANGE
PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV.
(RO 2100)
. . ........ ... ...... ... . . ..... .......
SUBTOTAL BECHTEL
PROGRA M PLAN & SERVICES
North/So uth Corridor stu dy (R0 9936)
SUBTQTAI PRCOG.RAM p4AN &
SVCS
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
(R0 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) (2146) (9917)
SUBTOTAL:
PARKIN -RIDE
COMM UTER RA IL
Studies/Engineering
(RO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028)
R0 2031,2027,2120,2029,9937,2128, 3800,3804)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/M aint. Costs
(0000,2026,2056,9929,9845,9953,9957,9932,9972)
SUBTQTAI COM MUTER RAIL, . .
TOTALS
$440,000
$440,000
$2,300,000
$2,300,000 .
$25,000
$25,000
$2,100,814
$2,100,814
$4,318,070
$13,190,402
$17,508,472.
$'132,400,710_
$400,000
$400,000
$2,223,816
$2,22386
$25,000
525,000
$2,100,814
$2,100,814
$3,925,518
$13,190,402
$17,115,52o
$127,959,535
Page 2 of 3
•
90.9%
909%
96.7%
96.7%
100.0%
100 0%
100.0%
90.9%
100.0%
97.8%
96;6%
$0
$0
0:
$0
i0 .
$28,788
;$28,788:
$15,056
$15,056 .
$97;991.
$312,519
$312;519
$253,255
$253,255
so
$384,382
$384,382
$2,692,760
$11,801,617
$14,494;377
$98,41$,45$
78.1%
78.1%
0.0%
18.3%
183%
68.6%
89.5 %
•
RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY/L Ol#TREETS & ROADS PROJECTS
BUDGET REP ORT BY PROJECT
EXPENDITURE FOR TOTAL OUTSTANDING % LOAN BALANCE
PROJECT APPROVED MONTH ENDED MEASURE "A" LOAN OUTSTANDING TO -DATE A GAINST
DESCRIPTION COM MIT MENT 09/30/01 ADVANCES BALANCE COM MIT MENT APPROVED COM MIT.
CITY OF CANYON LAKE
Railroad Canyon Rd Improv ements
SUBTOTAL CANYON LAKE LOAN':
CITY OF CORONA
Smith, Maple & Lincoln Interchanges & (1)
Storm drainage structure
SUBTOTAL CITY
OF CORONA
CITY OF PERRIS
Local streets & road improve ments
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local streets & road improvements
CITY OF TEMECULA
Local streets & road improvements
CITY OF NORCO
Yuma I/C & Local streets and ro ad Imprmts
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
Lo cal streets & road improve ments
CITY OF HEMET
Local streets & roads improvements
TOTALS
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$5,212,623
$5,21
2,623
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$1,500,000
$730,000
$0
$0
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
$5,212,623
55;212,623
$1,936,419
$1,324,500
$5,094,027
$2,139,067
$1,500,000
$730,000
$18,806,636
$18,806,636
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
All values a re for total Proje ct/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
so
$1,071,764
$1,071,764;
$3,308,338
$3,308;338
$1,359,173
$929,667
$3,575,498
$1,501,412
$1,216,402
$248,610
511 745,8s2
$0
so
$0
0
so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Page 3 of 3
67 .0 %
67 0%a
63 .5%
i3
5%
70.2%
70 .2 %
70 .2 %
70.2%
81 .1%
34.1%
62.514
Stat us as of : 9/30/01
•
AGENDA ITEM5B
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Single Signature Authority Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending
July and August 2001.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed through the
months of July and August 2001, under the Single Signature Authority, granted to
the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is
$477,500.
Attachment
000005
O
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2001
Or
•
CONSULTANT
Genlor
AMOUNT USED
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF AUGUST 31, 2001
• •
ORIGIN AL REMAINING
DESCRIPTION CONTRACT EXPENDED CONTRACT
OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
Commuter Assistance Club/Team Ride
Merchant Recruitment
AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2002
Prepa red by Reviewed by
No te: Shaded area represents new contracts fo r July and August.`
f:\users\preprint\dp\sins ig01
$ 500,000 .00
22,500 .00 5,000 .00 17,500;001
0.00
0.00
0.00
22,500.00 5,000.00 17,500.00
$ 477,500 .00 $ 5,000.00 $ 17,500 .00
AGENDA ITEM5C
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Quarterly Financial Statements
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file the Financial Statements for the quarter ending
September 30, 2001; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and
expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed
toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to
present a better outlook by the end of the second and beginning of the third quarters.
The Sales Tax and Interest revenues were 1% higher than projected. At this point, it
is too early to project the significance over the entire year. As a result of recent
events, the country's economy is headed for, or already in, a recession. This will
translate into a recession for the State of California. Due to the economic diversity of
Riverside County, staff believes that the County will not undergo a major recession.
Local economists and staff believe that the County will have no growth or very
minimal growth, however, it will not go into a recession. Staff does not expect a
major recovery until the 3rd quarter of 2002. At mid year, staff will evaluate Sales Tax
revenues and make appropriate adjustments. Federal, State and Local Government
reimbursements and Other revenues are on a reimbursement basis and the Commission
will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and billed.
Most of the expenditure categories are right where they should be for the quarter or
below targets. The only exception is the Office Lease/Utilities category as some of
these expenditures are prepaid. Staff will continue to monitor this category and make
adjustments as necessary. Salaries and Benefits and Streets and Roads categories are
right at target. Intergovernmental Distribution is at 90%. This is due to the one-time
LTF Administration payments made to CVAG and WRCOG.
000007
Due to the change in the economy, staff has begun a review of the expenditures and
is aggressively looking for opportunit;es to reduce costs.
Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the
Commission of any unusual events. Attached is a report from Bechtel Corporation
outlining the Budget Variance Explanations for the Highway and Rail programs.
Attachments
000003
•
•
•
•
Description
REV ENUES
Sa les Ta x Revenue s
Fe d State Local & Other Govern
Inter est In come
Other Re ve nue s
T OT AL REVENUES
EXPEN DIT URES
ADM INISTRATION
Salar ies & Be ne fits
Ge ne ra l Le ga l Ser vice s
Prof Se rvice s (Exc ludes Le ga l)
Office Lease/U tilities
Ge ne ra l Admin Expe ns es
TOTAL A DMINISTRATION
PROGRAMS/PROJECTS
Sa lar ies & Benefits
Ge nera l Legal Ser vices
Pr of Ser vices (Exclude s Legal)
Genera l Pr ojec ts
Highwa y En gineering
Highwa y Constru ction
Highwa ys R OW
Special Studies
Rail Engineer in g
Rail Cons truc tion
Ra il ROW
Commute r A ssis tance
Regional Ar te ria l
Str ee ts & Roads
Spe cial Tra nsportio n\Tr ansit
Pr ojec t Oper ations/Mainte nance
Pr oject Towing
STA Distr ibutions
TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECT S
DEBT SERVICE
Principal
Interes t
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
Qntergove rn Dis tr ibution
Q
ca pital Outlay
CD
111, rsid e C ounty T ransp ortation C ommi ssion
BUDGE T VERSUS ACTUALS-lst Qtr
F or Period E nding: 09/30/01
10/15/01
REMAINING PERCENT
BUDGET ACTU AI,S BALANCE U TILIZATION
97,395,645.00
24,924,300.00
6,474,500.00
8,858,367 .00
20,326,017.00
6,385.34
834,348.70
409,279.77
137,652,812.00 21,576,030.81
1,167,500 .00
77,000.00
1,309,000.00
240,000.00
794,850.00
221,528.36
3,529 .07
149,442 .39
64,852.20
85,661.52
3,588,350 .00 525,013.54
1,364,000.00
623,000.00
882,000.00
2,038,800.00
3,684,121. 00
18,742,317.00
13,134,652.00
3,544,500.00
1,511,000.00
11,010,000.00
921,500.00
1,744,100.00
4,940,000. 00
34,108,000.00
6,900,487. 00
2,408,300.00
1,033,050.00
4,194,019. 00
492,865.89
33,679.43
89,613 .99
16,397 .69
394,117.38
146,083 .07
1,113,610.00
140,872 .92
218,711.55
15,406 .62
5,588 .25
112,418.47
5,095,134.00
8,768,922.89
936,266.00
399,583.10
169,085.28
709,513. 00
112,783,846. 00 18,857,869. 53
24,069,000.00
11,476,200.00
35,545,200.00
602,872.00
117,000. 00
58,939. 00
8,239.00
67,178.00
242,759. 69
0.00
77,069,628 .00
24,917,914 .66
5,640,151 .30
8,449,087 .23
20 .86
0.02
12.88
4 .62
116,076,781 .19 15.67
945,971 .64
73,470 .93
1,159,557 .61
175,147.80
709,188 .48
18.97
4.58
11 .41
27.02
10 .77
3,063,336.46 14.63
871,134.11
589,320.57
792,386.01
2,022,402.31
3,290,003.62
18,596,233.93
12,021,042.00
3,403,627 .08
1,292,288 .45
10,994,593.38
915,911.75
1,631,681.53
(155,134 .00)
25,339,077.11
5,964,221 .00
2,008,716.90
863,964.72
3,484,506.00
36 .13
5.40
10 .16
0 .80
10 .69
0 .77
8 .47
3.97
14 .47
0.13
0.60
6.44
103.14
25.70
13.56
16 .59
16 .36
16.91
93,925,976 .47 16 .72
24,010,061.00 0.24
11,467,961.00 0 .07
35,478,022.00
360,112. 31
117,000. 00
0.18
40 .26
0 .00
Riv erside Co unty Tr ansportation Commissio n
BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-lst Qt r
For P eriod E nding: 09/30/01
10/15/01
REMAINING PERCENT
D, tiption BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATIO N
TOT AL EXPENDITURES
Other Financing Sou rce s/Use s
O pera ting Transfe r In
Ope rating Tran sfe r Out
Bond Proc ee ds
Tota l Othe r Finan cing Sources
/Uses
Exces s(De ficie nc y)of Reve nu es
And Other Financ ing Sources
Over (Under)Expe nditure A nd
Other Financ ing Uses
Fund Ba la nc e July 1, 2001
Fund Ba lance Sept 30, 2001
152,637,268.00 19,692,820 .76
59,174,400.00
59,174,400 .00
0.00
42,445,686.96
42,445,686 .96
0.00
0 .00 0 .00
(14,984,456 .00) 1,883,210 .05
(143,398,055.00) 158,245,877.83
(158,382,511.00) 160,129,087 .88
132,944,447 .24 12 .90
16,728,713 .04
16,728,713.04
0 .00
71.72
71 .72
0 .00
0 .00 0.00
(16,867,666 .05) (12 .56)
(301,643,932.83) (110.35)
(318,511,598.88) (101 .10)
00QT A
•
•
t 1 ['at
I:VENII65
Sales Tax Rev en ue s
Fed Slate Local 6 Other Govern
In terest Inco me
Othe r Rev enu es
TOTAL REVENUES
i1 PEND ITURES
ADMIN/STRAT ION
Sala ries 6 Be nefits
General Le ga l Serv ices
Pr of Services (Exc lude s Le gal)
Offic e Le ase/Utilities
Gener al Admin Expen se s
TOTA L ADMINISTRAT ION
PROG RAM S/PRO JECT S
Salar ies 6 Ben efits
Gene ral L egal Serv ices
Pr of Ser vices (Excludes Le gal)
General Proje cts
Highway Engineerin g
Highway Construc tio n
Highways ROW
Special Studies
Rail Engineering
Rail Cons tru ctio n
Rail ROW
Com muter As sistan ce
Regiona l Ar te ria l
Stree ts 6 Roa ds
Spe cial T rana portion\Trans it
Pr oject Opera tions /M ainte nan ce
Proje ct Tow ing
STA D istribu tion s
TOTA L PRO GRAM S/PROJECTS
DEBT SER VICE
Principa l 0.00
In teres t0.00
Rlvetr,l,l
Tr ansportatio n Commis sion
.S BY FUND 09/30/01 .
For Period E ndi ng; 09/30/01
10/15/01
000BF
GENERAL
STATE Wt'.0r WESTE RN WE STERN COU NTY
FOND F;; I'/SAFE [ 'I IN'I 'Y Y EAS TERN TRA NSIT CVAG
CO UNTYSTRNCT CO MMERCIAL
ASS[S7 'ANCE CONS TRUCTI ON CONSTRUCTION PAPER
2,144,000.00 0.00 12,9)4,212 80 5,007,804 .20
6,385.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0'00 0.00 0 .00
15,6,27 ,790 .00 0 .00 0.00
19,452.71
88,4)6..67 0.00 0.00
121,858.23 287,089 54 )1,589.34 15,552.90 5.35 537,829.14
132. 00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00
.._ .. ___. 0.00 0.00 0 .00
2,487,871.36 306,542.27 13,062,981.47 5 ,041,393 .54
208,995.53 12,532.83 0.00
0.00
3,317.32
211.75 0.00 0 .00
142,308.28 6,959.72 71.66
20 .00
60,961 .08
3,891.12 0.00 0.00
80,521.73 5 ,139.79 0 .00
0.00
496,103 .94 28, 735.21 71.66
26.28
380,235.40 20,785.91 91,451.97 392 .61
1,921.00 525.50 31,232.93 0 .00
44,045.47 7,853.52 37,715.00 0.00
4,235.46 0.00 12,162.23
0.00
0.00 0.00 394 ,117.38 0.00
0. 00 0.00 146,083.07
0 .00
0.00 0.00 1,112,590.00 1,020.00
140,872.92 0.00 0.00
0 .00
0.00 0.00 218,711.55 0.00
0.00 0.00 15,406.62 0.00
0. 00 0.00 5,588.25
0.00
0.00 0.00 112,418.47 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 5,095 ,134.00
0.00 0.00 6,455,462.94 2,313,459 .95
0.00 0.00 305,769.00 630,497.00
174, 475.65 225,107.45 0.00
0 .00
0.00 169,085.28 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
15,552 .90
0.00
0.00
28.67
0 .00
0.00
5.35 537,829.14
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
28 .67 0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
709,513.00
745,785.90 423,357.66 8,938, 709. 41 8,040 ,503.56 709,513.00
TOTAL D EBT SERVICE
Intergovern Distribution
Capital Outla y
0. 00 0.00
0. 00
242,759. 69
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
•
DEBT SERVICE
0.00
0 .00
123,854.78
0.00
C OMBINING
TOTAL
20,326,017,03'
6,385 .34
834,348 .73 .
409,279 .77
0 .00 123,854.78 21,576,030 ,81
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00 0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0 .00
0.00
0. 00 0. 00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
47.78
0 .00
0 .00
221,528.36
3 ,529.07
149,442 .39
64 ,852.20
85,661,52
47.78 525,013 .54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
492,865.89
33,679 .43
89,613.99
16,397 .69
394,117.38
146,083.07
1,113,610 .00
140,872.92
218,711.55
15,406 .62
5,588.25
112,418.47
5,095,134 .00
8,768,922.89
936,266.00
399,583.10
169 ,085 ,28
709,513.00
0.00 0 .00 18,857,869.53
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0 .00
0.00 0.00
58,939 .00 58,939.00
8,239 .00 8,239.00
67,178 .00
0.00
0 .00
67,178.00
242,759 .69
0.00
I ,.1AL EXPENDIT URES
-her Financin g Sources/Ils ,•s
Operating T ran sfe r In
Ope rating Tran sfer Ou t
Bond Pr oc eeds
Tota l Other Finan cin g Sources
/Uses
Riverside County Tran sp ort sthin Commis sio n
AC11AI.5 RV FUND 09/10/01
For Period Endi ng 09/10/01
10/15/01
000BF
STATE WESTERN WESTERN COUN TY
,0F51 Ie 5I , W ES '1'F.P N E ASTERN TRANSIT CVAG C OUN TY COM MERCI AL CO MBINING
"II' 1':: P/SAFE omU1Y rv)IIN TY AS SIST ANCE CO NSTRUCTION C ONS TRUC TION PAPER DEBT SERVICE TOTAL
1,484,649.53 452 ,092 .87 8,918,781.07 8,040,529,84 7 09,541.57 0.00 0.00 0 .00 67,225.78 19,692,820.77
471,600.00 799,900.00 4,454,401. .10 432 ,300.00 471,600.00
471,600.00 799,900.00. 9,535,909.63 2,359 ,612.27 471,600.00
0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00
0.00
8,522,455.58
0 .00
0.00
1 9,498,589 .48
0.00
0 .00 0.00 (5,081,508.531 (1,927,332.27) 0.00 (8,522,455.58) (1.9,498,589.48)
0.00
0.00
0 .00
35,815 ,885.86
786,000.00
0.00
42 ,445,686.9)
42 ,445,686 .97
0 .00
0.00 35,029,885 .86 0 .00
ecess(De ficienc y)of Re venues
And Other Fina ncing Source s
Over(Un der)Expe nditure And
Other Financing U ses 1,003,221.83 (145,550 .60) (957,308 .13) (4,926,468.57) (693,988 .77) (8,522,450.23) (18,960 ,760 .34) 0.00 35,086,514.86 1,883,210.05
vjz
Fu nd Ba lan ce July 1, 2001 5,591,399 40 2,709,140 .40 48,710,889.03 9,279,185.78 3,981,195.88 .8,558,744 03 68,555,030 25 52,807.24 10,727,285 .82 158,245,877.83
Fund Ba lance Sept 30, 2001 6,594,621.21 2,643,789.80 47,753,580.90 4,352,717.21 3,287,207.11 36,293.80 49,594,269.91 52,807.24 45,813,800.68 160,129,087 .88
•
•
Budget Variance Explanations
151 Quarter ending 9/30/01
Highway Engineering
Route 91 - Contract award for the design of the RT 91 HOV project from Mary St. to 7th
Street was recently approved by the Commission but has not started work until a pre -
award audit has been completed by State.
Route 111 - The design contract for the Palm Desert projects was awarded in late July.
Highway Construction
Route 74 - Delays to project initiation have resulted from Edison's relocation design and
obtaining final construction permits from Army Corp of Engineers(ACE). ACE is
awaiting a review of an amendment to the Biological Opinion that is being performed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before issuing their permit. The start of construction
work is now forecasted to start Spring of FY2002.
Route 111 - The Gene Autry Trail project in the City of Palm Springs and the Monroe to
Rubidoux project in the City of Indio are complete, but receipt of final invoices for
incurred expenditures are still pending.
Highway Right of Way
Route 74 - Acquisition activities are nearing completion on Segment I. Bulk of right-of-
way dollars is on Segment II. Appraisals are in progress on Segment II and will start
coming back to the Property Committee for approval in the month of November.
Rail Engineering
Tier II rail stations at Corona Main and Van Buren - Negotiations are continuing with
BNSF, and others on final scope of work. Design is progressing on both station designs
based on agreements obtained to date.
Pedley Station - Awaiting approval from the railroad agency on design features to
proceed with the design of the Pedley station platform.
Rail Construction
Pedley Station - waiting on engineering to be completed. See above.
Tier II rail stations - waiting on engineering to be completed. See above. Start of
construction is forecasted for Spring FY2002
000013
Regional Arterial
CVAG has expended its allocated budget for the current fiscal year. Upon completion of
the audit being performed for FY2001, if additional revenues are available, a budget
adjustment will be made per their request.
00001A
•
•
A GENDA ITEIf 6
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Study of Curve Realignment on Route 74 from Winchester Road to
Warren Road
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a agreement 02-31-028 with
Advanced Digital Maps, Inc. to perform aerial mapping services along Route
74 between Winchester Road to Warren Road under a single signature
contract for $16,600, and a 20% contingency amount of $3,400 for a total
contract amount not to exceed amount of $20,000 subject to RCTC legal
counsel review;
2) Authorize the Executive Director to Approve Task 1, agreement 02-31-027
to the On -Call Engineering Services Contract RO-2061 with SC Engineering
for a contract amount of $14,965 with extra work amount of $2,035 for a
total not to exceed amount of $17,000; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure A Plan approved by the voters of Riverside County in November of
1 988 included four projects along State Highway 74. One of the projects included
curve realignment between Winchester Road and Warren Road in unincorporated
Riverside County near the City of Hemet.
At the July 1991 Commission meeting, the Commission was presented with a
report developed by Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM) and Tudor
Engineering. The report indicated that the existing geometric conditions of the
highway were adequate, did not contribute to a safety problem and realignment of
the curve was not warranted. They did identify four (4) minor safety
improvements, which could improve conditions on Route 74 in areas that may be
contributing to accident "hot spots". At this Commission meeting, Staff
recommended that the Winchester to Warren curve realignment be replaced with
the four- (4) minor safety improvement projects identified in the report.
000015
On February 22, 2001 RCTC received a letter from RCTC Commissioner and Mayor
of the City of Hemet, Robin Lowe (see attached), requesting RCTC to reinstate the
Route 74 Curve Realignment Project between Winchester Road to Warren Road. In
the attached letter, the City of Hemet raised a number of concerns regarding the
deferral of the project at the 1991 Commission Meeting. Based on these concerns
staff agrees that the Route 74 Curve Realignment Project should be reevaluated.
To perform this evaluation, staff recommends that Route 74 between Winchester
Road and Warren Road be aerial mapped to assess the existing alignment; and
issue TASK 1 to the On -Call Engineering Services Contract RO-2061 (Contract 02-
31-028) with SC Engineering to determine various realignment alternatives.
Aerial Mapping
Staff obtained two (2) bids to perform the Aerial Mapping based on the following
Scope of Services:
Aerial Photography consisting of two flight lines with an estimated fourteen (14)
exposures. Compile the information and digital map the alignment conforming to
Caltrans Standards. Provide electronic files and print outs of the digital maps.
A summary of the bids received is as follows:
Aerial Mapping Bid Summary
Firm - Home Office
(in order from low bid to high bid)
Bid Amount
Amount
Over Low Bid
1
Advanced Digital Maps, Inc. -
Irwindale, CA
$16,600
2
Associated Engineers, Inc - Ontario,
CA
$38,053.16
$21,453.16
Staff reviewed the bids, and concurred that Advanced Digital Maps, Inc. low bid
was the lowest responsive bid received for the project.
Task 1 for the On Call Engineering Contract
At the September 2001 Commission Meeting, the Commission awarded contract
RO- 2061 for an amount not to exceed of $300,000 to SC Engineering to provide
On -call Engineering Design Services for small engineering support needs. In
addition, the Commission authorized the Executive Director to issue individual
notices to proceed (NTP) for engineering tasks required to support agency projects
for amounts not to exceed $50,000.
•
•
•
000016
•
•
•
Based on Commission action, SC Engineering will provide the following Scope of
Services for Task 1 under the On -Call Engineering Contract:
Task 1 Scope of Services:
1. Prepare preliminary drawings, which will include location maps, cross
sections, geometric drawings, contour grading/drainage, and pavement
delineation.
2. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates.
3. Coordinate activities, including meetings with Caltrans, City of Hemet,
and other agencies.
Attached is a detailed Scope of Services and Cost estimate.
Staff will review the realignment alternatives developed in the Task 1 report and
return to the Commission for further action.
Attachment:
City of Hemet Letter dated February 22, 2001
Aerial Mapping Bids
SC Engineering Scope Services and Cost Estimate.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 01/02
Source of Funds: Measure A
GLA No. 222 31 81101
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $37,000
Budget Adjustment: Y
Date: 10/22/01
000017
•
From the Office
of the
Ce 01
13UNT8
450 EAST LATHAM AVENUE • HEMET, CALIFORNIA 92543 • (909)765-2303
MAYOR
c Robin Reeser Lowe
February 22, 2001
William G. Kleindienst, Chairman
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Subject: Measure A SR 74 Curve Project
Dear Mr. Kleindienst and Mr. Haley:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Hemet City Council to express our concern and
disappointment over the status of the SR 74 Curve Project (Winchester Road to Warren
Road). We feel that it is appropriate to raise the issue to RCTC's attention once again
as the Commission looks to move forward with the process to reauthorize Measure A.
This safety project was specifically named in the original Ballot Measure approved by
the voters in 1988 (please see attached). We have inquired about its status over the
years, and were advised in 1997 that the project had been dropped from consideration
by the Commission in 1991 based on an engineering study.
The City of Hemet again wishes to restate its strenuous objection to the removal of this
project from the current Measure A Funding cycle, on the following grounds:
1) This project was specifically approved in the Ballot Measure by the voters, and
therefore should not have been subject to discretionary dismissal by the
Commission. To our knowledge, it is the only project specifically called out in the
Ballot Measure which was completely deleted through action of the Commission.
2) This project was unilaterally dropped by the Commission in 1991 without
consultation with the City of Hemet, or the City's knowledge. This was done
under the previous administration of RCTC and prior to the Commissions'
expansion to include representation from all member agencies.
110 / ,(i
00001
3) The project was dropped after an engineering study conducted only three
years into the life of the 20 -year Measure, without forethought as to future traffic
growth and conditions in the San Jacinto Valley. This Valley continues to
experience high levels of traffic growth including new generators such as the
Diamond Valley Reservoir.
4) This was one of the lowest cost projects on the Ballot Measure, estimated at
$2.0 Million. It therefore did not need to be dropped due to funding shortfalls or
economic reasons. This is especially vexing in light of the additional cost which
have been encountered on several other Measure projects, which far exceeded
the cost of this project.
5) This was the only roadway project within the Hemet City Limits included in the
Measure. The other project in the City, the operation of commuter rail on the
San Jacinto Branchline, was significantly downscaled because of the cost, and is
not expected to include operation into Hemet during the current cycle of Measure
A.
The City of Hemet has long supported the Commissions' position that we need to meet
the commitments made to the voters in Measure A before we can reasonably ask thern
to extend this funding source, which has become the transportation life -blood for
Riverside County. We respectfully seek your assistance and support in helping us meet
our collective commitment to the voters of the San Jacinto Valley by re -instating this
popular and needed project.
I look forward to your response and reconsideration of this project, and pledge Hemet's
support to work cooperatively towards its successful completion.
Sincerely' ,1
obin Lowe
Mayor
RL:ag
cc Hemet City Council
Steve Temple, City Manager
Juan C. Perez, Director of Public Works
000019
•
ADVANCED DIGITAL MAPS, INC.
09 October 2001
Carl Sosa
SC Engineering
14318 California Ave Suite #104
Victorville, CA 92392
Dear Mr. Sosa:
Advanced Digital Maps, Inc. is pleased to provide this proposal for digital mapping
and photography for your project, Route 74 Curve Realignment from Winchester
Road to Waren Road approximate distance 2.6 miles.
The project scope of work is to perform aerial photography and digital mapping for
the project site outlined on the project location plans provided. The field control
survey and targeting will be provided by Advanced Digital Maps, Inc.
Technical Procedurgs
The technical procedures for obtaining digital mapping for the project will be as
follows:
a Field Control Surveys and Targeting
Twelve horizontal and vertical field control points (size 4') will be required and
targeted to provide control for the new aerial photography. The survey control
required is marked on the aerial photography control plan attached to this proposal.
b. Aerial photography
Aerial photography (B&W) at a scale of 1"=350' will be obtained covering the
project area. The aerial photography will consist of 2 flight lines with 14 exposures.
16029 E. Arrow Hwy., Suites B & C
Irwindale, Califomia 91706
Telephone: (626) 337-9971 • Fax: (626) 337-3562
www.advanceddigitalmaps.com
000020
000021
c. Digital Map Compilation
The mapping will be performed using ADM's Digicart 40 Analytical Stereo plotters
and ADM's Intergraph computer mapping system. Caltrans data layering convention
will be used unless otherwise requested. Digital files of the mapping will be delivered
in CD-ROM (Intergraph) together with computer paper plots at 1:500.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule for completion of the work and services are:
Aerial photography subject to suitable weather conditions, will be completed
within three working days of completion of targeting.
The digital topographic mapping and digital files will be completed in less than
Twenty one (21) working days following receipt of field control survey data and
the aerial photography.
FEE SCHEDULE
The fee schedule for above described work and services are:
A. Aerial photography at a scale of 1"=350' consisting of
Two fight lines with fourteen exposures.
Digital map compilation, digital files and final plots at
a scale of 1:500 with, .5m' contours Caltrans standards
The amount of $16,600.00
The fee quotation is good for a period of 30 days. Payment is due within 30 days
of invoice which will be issued monthly for services rendered.
Advanced Digital Maps, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and
would be pleased to provide any additional information if required.
Approved Go -Ahead By:
•
•
•
•
•
•
tlik
3311 E. SHELBY STREET. ONTARIO, CA 91764-4672 (90S) 980-1962 FAX (909) 941.0891
Associated Engineers, Inc.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
October 19. 2001
Mr. Carl Sosa
SC Engineering
14318 California Avenue
Suite 104
Victorville, CA 92392
Re Cost Proposal for Topographical Mapping
SR 74 - Hemet, California
Dear Carl.
Post -It' Fax Note 7671
yet°I 0 -2.2-01 as°pis
To ecr.A
From 5 pc1..—
CoJD•pt.
Co.
Phone*
Phone*
Fax 'lciA"7in..?IQ6
Fait
We are p"eased to offer this proposal to provide aerial mapping for that portion of SR
74 identified in your -fax transmittal dated 10/17/01. We will provide the following work.
• Recover, convert to metric and verify existing Control.
• Set Ground Control Targets tor Aerial Flight.
• Tie targets to existing Control and furnish data to Landata Airborne Systems Inc.,
our mapping sub -consultant.
• Receive Metric Mapping and DTM from Landata.
• Perform 0 A. spot checks of Mapping and DTMs.
• Furnish results to SC Engineering.
We estimate our fee as follows:
Flying. Photography, Mapping and DTM
- Landata Airborne Systems
• Recover existing Control Set and tie
Ground Control Taraets
- Associated Engineers
Total Fee
PR;Wc,e!,nl •Pza-OPS7 E
'+GNEERINGO7. 1f, 70Cf.Jc;
PLANNING DESIGNING
$ 23,820.00
$ 14 33.16
S 313,053.16
SURVEYING
000023
October 19, 2001
Mr. Carl Sosa
SC Engineering
Re: Ccst Proposal for'cpographical Mapping
SR '4 - Hemet, CA
Pagf • 2
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. I` we can be of further
assistance or if you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
ASSId49ATED - GIN
iorski
-President
JJI/poe
( 7
Attachment: Lendata Proposal
P208-01
•N:N;K.JwD"".IIMPI3001J2011. ;1°C NIG1flEllfiG.M- 9.?CO da
0000211
LANDATA AIRBORNE SYSTEMS, INC.
October 18, 2001
Mr. Jim Imbiorski
Associated Engineers, Inc.
3311 East Shelby Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Imbiorski:
HEE
ASSOCIATED ENGINi,:r:S
Job
Proposal for Photogrammetric Mapping
Route 74, Hemet, California
LAS Proposal No. P01-229
LANDATA
We arc pleased to submit this proposal for photogrammetric surveying services consisting of
the following: flying, black & white photography, photo lab work, analytical aerotriangulation,
digital mapping production as necessary to create 1:500 planimetric mapping with a 0.5m
contour interval covering the area as outlined in your fax of 10/17/01. The total area to be
mapped is 350 acres. New black & white aerial photography consisting of two (2) flight lines,
17 exposures & 15 stereo models, will be acquired at a scale of 1:3600.
Deliverables will be:
• One (I) set of black & white 9"x9" contact prints
• One (1) CD-ROM containing topographic data in format
Digital mapping data will be delivered in retteE'A�711??(W. format using the Landata
Standards & Symbols for design mapping by photogrammetric methods for 1:500 mapping.
We understand that Associated Engineers will be responsible for establishing the ground control
for the aerial surrey. A total cf 12 targets with horizontal and vertical coordinates are needed to
control this project. Target sizes should be in the order of 4" wide & 4' tip to tip. A control
layout diagram has been attached which is made apart of this proposal.
Our fees to complete this project arc as follows:
171!1 A0471000 AV[NYI
MINI, CA 114/4.5721
Task
Fee
Flying and B/W Photography
51,157.00
•
Photo Lab Work
$455 00
f
Analytical aerotriangulanor
51,168.00
Stereo Compilation
S13,230.00
CADD. Processing & QC
S7,230.00
Project Management. Mtsc.
5580.00
Total
523,820.00
711.610017011
444.7114.4100
11AX WwW,LANDATA.COM
444.764.4101
000025
Mr. Jim lmbiotski
Associated Engineers, Inc.
October 18, 2001
Page 2
Landata Airborne Systems, Inc. is prepared to commit the resources necessary to complete this
project within three (3) weeks from the completion of photography date or receipt of control
which ever is later. We propose to bill for our services monthly, based upon estimated
percentage of work completed. Payment is expected within 30 days of receipt of our invoice.
All work will be performed under the supervision of a Photogrammetric Surveyor and
Consulting Engineer licensed to practice in and by the State of California.
This proposal will remain effective for 60 days after the date of this letter. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. And thank you for inviting our firm to
submit this proposal.
Sincerely,
LANDATA AIRBORNE SYSTEMS
Paul Hamilton -Rivers
Vice President of Photogrammetry
Enclosed: Model & control layout
000026
•
•
•
TRANSPORTAflON- TRAFRC— OV1L ENGINEERING
PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
•
•
•
Friday, October 19, 2001
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Mr. Bill Hughes
Program Manager
Subject: Proposal — Route 74 -Curve Realignment
Dear Mr. Hughes:
SC File: RCTC-00-01
On -Call Services
Per your request, outlined below is a brief Scope of Work and Cost Proposal to prepare preliminary geometric
drawings for the curve realignment between Winchester Road (Route 79) and Warren Street.
Scope of Services will include:
1. Prepare preliminary geometric drawings that include:
a. Title Sheet/Location Map
b. Typical Cross Sections
c. Preliminary geometric drawings
d. Preliminary contour grading/drainage drawings
e. Preliminary pavement delineation drawings
f. Preliminary construction cost estimate
2. Coordinate activity, including meeting attendance, with Caltrans, the City of Hemet, and other agencies
as required.
Outlined below is the estimated cost of serves:
TASK
Estimated
No. of Sheets
Estimated
Hours/Sheet
Estimated
Hours
Firm
PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC DRAWINGS
Title Sheet/Location Map
Typical Cross Sections
Preliminary Geometric Plans (1:1000 Scale)
Preliminary Contour Grading/Drainage
Preliminary Pavement Delineation
Construction Cost Estimates
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
6
32
8
4
12
4
6
128
32
16
12
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TOTAL
198
SC
Cost
$302
$453
$9,675
$2,419
$1,209
$907
$14,965
Once again. we look forward to working with RCTC in solving transportation congestion problems in Riverside
County. Should you have any question, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712.
Sincerely,
SC ENGINEERING
Sal Chavez, PE
Principal/Project Manager
Headquarters
14318 California Avenue, Suite 104
Victorville. CA 92392
Serving the Transportation Needs of the Inland Empire and High Desert
760-955-7712 ♦ 760 -955 -6130 -FAX
Field Construction Office
3750 Bedford Canyon Road
Corona, CA 91719
000027
AGENDA ITEPI 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
-
Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Environmental Investigations Along the San Jacinto Branch Line
from Riverside Downtown Station to Romoland
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Award Contract No. 02-33-026 (Amendment #5 to Contract No. RO-
2128) to STV Inc. to Conduct Environmental Investigations .along the
San Jacinto Branch Line from Riverside Downtown Station to
Romoland for a total amount of $254,320 using a standard contract
amendment, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review;
2) Add an additional $40,000 to the existing $62,113 of extra work
authorized in previous amendments for a total extra work amount of
$102,113;
3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute
the Contract on behalf of the Commission; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO-
2128 with STV Incorporated (STV) for a base contract amount of $166,187 with
an extra work amount of $16,613 for a total amount of $182,800. The scope of
work for this contract is to perform preliminary engineering that will result in
improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line for a new commuter connection
between Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris.
At the February 13, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #1 to
STV to provide additional mapping of the San Jacinto Branch Line for $40,636
with an extra work amount of $5,000 for a total amount of $45,636.
000023
At the April 11, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #2 to STV
to provide alternative analysis using the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Riverside
Branch Line to connect to Riverside Downtown. The alternative analysis study was
to provide a more direct connection to the Riverside Downtown Station from the
San Jacinto Branch Line for a base amount of $ 1 04,1 70, with additional extra
work of $10,500 for a total amount of $114,670.
At the June 25, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #3 to STV
to provide advanced Project Planning and to complete the New Starts Application
for a base amount of $157,730.
At the September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment #4 to
STV to study four alternatives to determine the best manner in which the San
Jacinto Branch Line can be connected to the Riverside Downtown station by using
the BN&SF railway system. The cost to study the four alternatives was for a base
amount of $76,536, with additional extra work of $30,000 for a total amount of
$106,536.
In order to be able to complete the evaluation of the benefits of each of the
alternative connections to the Riverside Downtown Station using either the UP or
the BN&SF rail roads, it will also be necessary to understand the environmental
impacts of each of the alternatives. STV has estimated that the cost to proceed
with the environmental investigations is for a base amount of $254,320. The
environmental documentation of the project is also necessary prior to the
finalization of any right of way acquisition. STV's cost proposal and scope of work
is attached.
Additionally, Staff is recommending that an additional $40,000 be added to the
existing $62,113 of extra work for a total extra work amount of $102,113. This
additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract value to $799,579 with a
not to exceed value of $901 ,692. The extra work will be authorized by the
Executive Director. A standard RCTC amendment will be used.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 1/2 Amount: $ 294,320
Source of Funds: STA Budget Adjustment:
GLA No.: 221 33 81101
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 10/22/01
Attachment:
Contract 02 33 026
000021
•
•
•
STV Incorporated
1055 want Seventh Street, Suite 3150
Los Angeles, California 00017.2577
(213)482-9444 fau:(213)482.5278
•
October 22. 200 1
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
Proiect Coordinator
Bechtel Infrastructure Group
3560 University Ave., Suite I00
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Environmental Documentation
Dear Gustavo:
Please find attached an estimate of cost work sheet to provide Environmental
Documentation for the proposed commuter start up between Perris and Riverside Station
in the amount of S254,317.05. Please find below an outline of the proposed scope of
work.
•
•
Scope of Services
Environmental Documents for the RCTC San Jacinto Branchline Commuter Start
Up
Key Assumptions: Preparation of a CEQA Initial Study Checklist (IS) and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and documentation for a federal Categorical Exclusion.
Documents will address impacts of the proposed new commuter rail line on present UP
right-of-way, and alternate new connection near Citrus on the BNSF mainline to
Riverside, and the rehabilitation of the San Jacinto Branchline for commuter rail
operations between the Riverside connection and Romoland,
Assumptions:
• Four new stations on the San Jacinto Branch Line, each with parking.
• Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND will be handled by RCTC.
• Printing and distribution of documents and placement of advertisements and noticcs,
etc. by RCTC.
• STV will provide mailing lists for agencies required to receive notices and copies of
documents, and draft copy for advertisements.
• FTA is the federal lead agency and that FTA will concur that a CE is the appropriate
NEPA document.
• Minimal resource agency coordination.
E r e n e e r s i A r e. i t• c f s/ p l a n n e r s/ C o n s t r u c t i o n Managers
000030
STV Incorporated
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
December 18, 2000
Page 2
• Sufficient Section 106 agency coordination (on behalf of FTA) with the State Historic
Preservation Officer to assure no adverse impacts to historic resources, but no
negotiation or preparation of agreement documents.
• No contamination -related sampling or water quality sampling will be performed.
• Permit applications arc not included in the scope of work, but technical reports will
be prepared and formatted to support future permit applications.
Document Preparation (IS/MND &CE)
• Complete a CEQA Initial Study Checklist (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and documentation for a federal Categorical Exclusion. Draft and final
documents will be prepared. Documents will incorporate information obtained as
part of the studies described in the task element reports described in subsequent
subsections.
Coordination Meetings
• Coordination 'meetings will be conducted with RCTC, FTA, SHPO, resource
agencies.
• Project team will participate in two public meetings.
Air Quality Analysis
• Coordinate with California Air Resources Board regarding procedures, data, vehicle
mix sources.
• Obtain region vehicle miles traveled, ridership, and related information.
• Perform mesoscale analysis to document project's impact to regional air emissions .
• Prepare narrative report documenting procedures and results of the analysis.
Archeology
• Define the Area of Potential Effect (APE), typically the ROW and construction
staging areas.
• Identify prehistoric and historic archaeological resources that have been recorded in
or near the APE through a records search of the California Historical Resources
Information System and other appropriate databases.
• Contact State of California Native American Heritage Commission and local
historical societies.
• Identify any properties eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP and CRAP.
• Prepare report documenting methodology, findings, and impacts and providing
recommendations.
000031
STV Incorporated
•
•
•
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
December 18, 2000
Page 3
Biological Resources
• Search the California natural Diversity Database to identify any federal or state
threatened or endangered species and Significant Ecological Areas within or
proximate to the project alignment.
• Contact federal and state wildlife agencies.
• Perform field reconnaissance in areas of natural communities.
• Prepare report documenting methodology, findings, and impacts and providing
recommendations.
• Recommend mitigation measures.
Hazardous Materials (Phase I ESA)
• Obtain and review state and federal database information regarding known
contamination sites and facilities that utilize hazardous materials within the project
corridor.
• Obtain recent and historical aerial photographs and Sanborn maps and review with
respect to potential contamination sources.
• Perform field reconnaissance of alignment and make observations with respect to
conditions or potential conditions of waste -related impact.
• Review state files as necessary to obtain additional information an facilities
proximate to the alignment that are known or suspected to be sources of soil and/or
groundwater contamination.
• Prepare a Phase I Environmental Corridor Assessment report in accordance with
ASTM El 527. Report will include findings, conclusions, and recommendations for a
Phase II sampling program if conditions warrant.
Noise & Vibration
• Survey project area initially using aerial photographs and topographic mapping and
then by field reconnaissance to select representative locations for noise and vibration
monitoring.
• Perform field monitoring including instantaneous and measurements and 24 -hour
continuous monitoring at selected, representative locations.
• Obtain available noise information associated with active trainsets in use in active
portions of the commuter rail system.
• Perform impact analysis to develop project -related noise and vibration levels and
identify potential impact areas.
• Reconunend specific locations for more detailed analysis and
system design. y potential mitigation
• Prepare report describing methodology, findings, impacts, and recommendations.
000030
STV Incorporated
Mr. Gustavo Quintero
December 18, 2000
Page 4
Traffic
• Obtain and review traffic volume data for Ramona Expressway (I-215) at and near
station location exits and at roadways adjacent to station locations.
• Assess potential station area traffic impacts associated with the project.
• Prepare report describing findings, impacts, and recommendations.
• Recommend mitigation measures.
Water Quality
• Obtain water quality data and classifications for streams and drainage ways parallel
and perpendicular to the alignment.
• Obtain groundwater aquifer information.
• Establish condition of railbed drainage ditches.
• Obtain information on construction equipment, techniques, lay down and storage
areas and other areas and operations that may contribute to stormwater runoff. •
• Assess impacts of construction and operation on local and regional surface water and
groundwater quality.
• Prepare report describing findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
• Recommend mitigation measures.
Please contact me if you have any questions pertaining to the above information.
Sincerely,
S ' • .ORPORATED
/r
vi• . Borger, PE
Senior Vice President — Western Region
Attachment (Cost estimate work sheet)
cc: R. Walker
D. Baer
A. Robinson
S. Brooks (Myra Frank)
B. Cardenas (file)
File: 06-10533-15.00
00003;
•
•
C ost Estimate - Envir onme ntal Doc ument s f or the RCTC Commuter Start Up
ST Y Staff
..7W'07:: A:AAM/3net:::' :RseindA
2 24 28
2 32 95
2 32 88
Air Ou a. Analysis
Water Qua 1Y_
Me ehnsm
__ Sub T old Ho urs:
Avg. Labor RaleIl'i
Sub Total Labor C ost:
To tal Direct Labor:
Trav eVlodging
Reproduction
Mileage
Vista Da ta Base Search
Sanbom Insurance Maps
Sub To ta l:
Sub Consukan t,
M Frank
Ka tz Okitsu
Total Su bs:
8
8
4 4
4 4
4
340
..$; #!.tit.:
278
138
4
4 � 4 _. _ 2 _ _ 32 88 278 4
8 _ .__. _
4
16 16 8 120 281 356 278 --_- 278 -_- 136 _ 20
512/ 6170 6147 572 8155 [ 8104 1
_585 1 051. T 5109-_ . T 848
55.424 52 ,069 82,712 j 61,179 f 58.603 643.541 538,889 023,518 $14,187 614 ,810 3957
18
31
ii90
153,807 05 N ote include new audited r at e 6 salary rale i ncreas e
10,000 00
400 00
100 00
4,100 00
3.000 00
171,767.05
55,000 00
25,000 00
80000. 00
3% subs 5 2,400 00
Postage s 150 00
Other
Ex tra Wor k Tota l: $ 254,317.05
210
427
482
400
68
1499
1639 .47
$153 .867
22952 58
4687025
5049588
43719.2
7213.668
0
109 298
Frn ria arrtl 16 1' Olaee
AGENDA ITEfrI 8
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Award Agreement for Development and Implementation of a
Parking Lot Expansion Plan for Metrolink Stations in Riverside
County
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Concur with staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the
selection process of Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc.
to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services to
develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for the Metrolink
Commuter Rail Stations in Riverside County;
2) Authorize the Chairman to enter into Agreement #02-33-029 with
Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., to provide
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Services for development
and implementation of a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for a Base amount
of $196,295.00 with a 20% Extra Work Contingency of $38,705.00
for a total amount of, $235,000.00 subject to RCTC Legal Counsel
review; 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, also submitted to the Commission at the same meeting.
One of the main findings of the draft Station Management Plan was that by 2010,
five out of the six, existing and proposed, Metrolink stations are forecasted to have
parking deficits. Staff recommended that this new Ad Hoc Committee address the
development of the following policy issues for subsequent consideration for
adoption by the Commission:
000035
• Recommend a policy approach for future station development;
• The development of guidelines to support TOD's or "Transit Villages" at the
stations to help offset the financial costs associated with expanded parking
Tots,
• Perform cost benefit analysis of Pierce Street vs. additional investments in
Riverside -La Sierra;
• Pursue changing the temporary parking lot and crew facility at Riverside -
Downtown to a permanent facility;
• Pursue a parking expansion plan with recommendations for funding and
phasing;
• Explore ways to increase bus transit connections at all of the Metrolink
stations for weekday and weekend service and the corresponding funding
source; and
• Explore ways to identify a dedicated revenue source to sustain rail
operations.
In conjunction with direction from both the Commission and the newly formed Ad
Hoc Committee, staff is currently negotiating with several entities for the possible
expansion of existing and proposed parking for 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 Preliminary Engineering
and Environmental Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion
Plan. The proposed calendar of events were as follows:
Advertise Request for Proposals
September 12, 2001
Request for Proposals Submittal Deadline
October 4, 2001
Shortlist top qualified firms
October 10, 2001
Interview top qualified firms
October 18, 2001
Recommendation back to Committee
October 29, 2001
Committee Recommendation to Commission
November 14, 2001
Anticipated Contract Award and Notice to Proceed
December 3, 2001
0000313
•
•
•
•
•
•
On October 4, 2001, RCTC received one proposal from Engineering Resources of
Southern California, Inc., based in San Bernardino, CA., in response to RCTC's
Metrolink Parking Lot Expansion Plan RFP.
It is RCTC's usual desire to have at least three proposals, from prospective
consultants or contractors, for all services that require the expenditure of funds
greater than $1,000. Staff immediately contacted a sampling of consultants who
had previously shown an interest in responding to the RFP but did not submit a
proposal. Five prospective consultant firms were contacted and all had different
reasons for not responding, During this same time period, staff made a review of
the Engineering Resources proposal and concluded that the Engineering Resource
Team was a very qualified and competent team, and had all the relevant experience
as required by the RFP.
Because; (1) there is an immediate need to provide engineering support for the
current ongoing negotiations, with several entities, for the possible expansion of
existing Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations Parking Facilities, and (2) because the
one proposal submitted by the Engineering Resources Team was qualified and had
the relevant experience to accomplish the work, staff is recommending that the
Commission concur with staff's recommendation to select Engineering Resources
of Southern California, Inc., to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Services to develop and implement a Parking Lot Expansion Plan for Metrolink
Stations in Riverside County.
Staff has concluded its negotiations with Engineering Resources and is in
concurrence with the attached scope of work and cost of services for a Base
amount of $196,295 with a 20% Extra Work Contingency of $38,705.00 for a
total amount of $235,000 to provide Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Services, for development and implementation a Parking Lot Expansion Plan.
Staff will use the standard agreement format, pursuant to Legal Counsel review.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 01/02 Amount: $ 235,000
Source of Funds: STA
GLA No.: 221 33 81 101
Budget Adjustment:
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/22/01
Attachment
000037
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Parking Lot Expansion at Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink Stations
RCTC Agreement #02-33-029
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services identified herein is the complete scope of services and is supported by our
qualifications as contained in our proposal.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SCOPE DEFINITION -
We will meet with RCTC towards the development of a clear. well developed, written scope of services. In
ueneral. we will seek to identify the stakeholders their expectations as to the quality and size of facilities,
amenities. overall planning and design schedule and overall project budget. We will sit with RCTC to
identify initial expectations. minimum design criteria. and other project factors. which are known at the outset
recognizing that they may change with time). Potential or real conflicting objectives between RCTC and
stakeholders can be identified. discussed and. hopefully. resolved at these meetings.
We will establish required RCTC approvals. SCRRA input, Caltrans input. the City of Riverside permitting
requirements. and the BNSF criteria. A project directory. overall schedule. submittal milestones. and plan
check and approval process will all be established.
MEETINGS-
Trend ;Meetings - We anticipate up to six Trend Meetings with RCTC Staff to review overall project
progress. schedule. budget. 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
Monthly Progress Reports - Monthly reports will be submitted to RCTC each month.
Deliverables: Monthly Status Reports
Design Team Meetings - Based on a three month Phase I duration and a six month Phase II duration. we will
hold periodic design team meetings where our design team meet to coordinate our progress, refine the design
and resolve any potential conflicts.
Deliverables: Meeting Minutes
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 and the structural
engineer will provide sketches of the parking structure.
Deliverables: Colored drawings and sketches
In 19 Hi
1
000033
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 and subconsultant correspondence. as required
PHASE I - CONCEPT DESIGN
RESEARCH & DATA COLLECTION -
We will research applicable records. existing utilities. local regulations. permit requirements. etc. with the
City of Riverside. BNSF. and Caltrans that will establish the design parameters and the permit requirements.
Deliverables: List of collected documents
SITE RECONNAISSANCE -
Several members of our design team will re -visit the Downtown and La Sierra Station sites to visually review
various site constraints and opportunities. identify_ potential expansion sites. and access points to the site for
field invest►eation requirements.
Deliverables: Copies of photo -documentation
CONCEPTUAL EXPANSION PLANS AND ESTIMATES -
Our team will prepare preliminary base sheets of the project sites and develop conceptual layouts of parking
spaces and modification required for the existing sites. Alternatives will be prepared to study the possible
use of a parking structure at the Downtown Station. 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-
Ow- environmental staff will prepare a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form, in consultation with
RCTC. the City of Riverside. and Caltrans. 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 a
Caltrans Environmental Checklist. 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 Phase I work program.
Deliverables: Copies of all pertinent applications and reports
""`'0'0003fl 2
•
•
•
PLAN REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDATION -
The parking expansion layouts and cost estimates will be reviewed with RCTC and others as requested.
After completion of the review period a letter will be prepared with our recommendations for each of the
project sites.
Deliverables: Recommendation Letter
PHASE 11 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND APPROVAL PROCESS
PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE -
Once the site expansion layouts have been selected. our team will provide assistance to RCTC, as requested.
to aid in the acquisition of needed parcels (if any). These services could include meetings. reviews of
aw-eements and easements. and preparation of legal descriptions and plats.
Deliverables: As Requested
SURVEYS. UTILITIES AND BASE MAPPING_
Our project team will undertake the collection and review of legal descriptions and title reports (as provided
b� RCTC) to establish the project boundaries. A base map will be prepared for each project site from record
data Concurrently. we will set control points and arrange to have the project site flown for 1 "=40' scale
aerial topoLrraphlc mapping. Collection of utility and public right of way and roadway record drawings will
facilitate the plotting and locating of all existing utilities.
Deliverables: Hardcopy and digital files of base and topographic mapping
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS-
Preliminan geotechnical report will provide data on the existing site conditions and present
recommendations for site design. The report will include field test data. descriptions of the existing soil
conditions and design recommendations as they relate to the proposed construction.
Deliverables: (4) copies of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -
Our traffic staff will undertake traffic studies to address the existing and projected increase to traffic
movements at the project sites. Coordination with Caltrans and the City of Riverside will establish
requirements for turning movements and signal improvements. Design criteria will be established at this
time.
I i i I'� nl
Deliverables: (4) copies of the Traffic Analysis Report
3
000040
PRELIMINARY SITE EXPANSION DESIGN -
We will advance the conceptual plans approved by RCTC in Phase I 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 with RCTC and-SCRRA regarding minimum parking objectives and project signage.
Coordination meetings with RCTC and RTA to verify existing and proposed bus circulation patterns.
Coordination with the City of Riverside as to specific needed improvements to the public rights of way
fronting the project sites. zoning requirements, etc. Verification of zoning and general plan designations.
minimum landscaping. handicap accessible routes, lighting, signage permitting requirements. etc.
Prepare a preliminary hydrology drainage study to identify the amount of storm run-off arriving at the site
( using local drainage criteria), estimating the additional run-off generated by the new improvements, and
identifying new facilities required to handle project run-off in accordance with local requirements.
Coordination with City of Riverside police and fire departments regarding minimum standards to optimize
security and requirements for onsite fire hydrant and fire lane circulation.
Prepare Cite of Riverside development applications and process plans. The anticipated plans required for the
city process included: Preliminary Site Plan with parking layout, Preliminary_ Grading Plan. Preliminary
Parkinu Structure Plans (if planned), and Preliminary Landscape Plans.
Prepare and process environmental documents leading to a negative declaration.
Attend coordination meetings with City staff and required cite approval meetings.
Deliverables: (10) blueline sets plus (1) reproducible of each of the application package.
000041
Hi IC, 11
4
•
•
•
RCTC
PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT
RCTC Agreement #02-33-029
ESTIMATED FEE PROPOSAL WORKSHEET
CLIENT:
RCTC
COMPANY:
ENGINEERING RESOURCES
PROJECT:
PARKING LOT EXPANSION
ERSC LABOR
DATE:
10/22/01
MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY
PLANNING & PS & E
REV:
PERSONNEL
Project Manager
Project Engineer/Planner
Senior Civil Engineer
Civil Engineer
Land Surveyor
Civil Designer
CADD Technician
Admin. Assistant
TOTAL HOURS I
SUBCONSULTANTS (INCLUDES 10% MARK-UP)
Pnzm Group - Surveys
Ninyo & Moore - Geotechnical
LCI-Landscape
Frame Design Group
Inland Aerial Surveys
HOURS AVG RATE AMOUNT
305 125.00: $ 38,125.00
479 95.00 $ 45,505.00
210 90.00 $ 18,900.00
152 80.00 $ 12,160.00
35. 95.00. $ 3,325.00
178' 75.001 $ 13,350.00
16 60.00 $ 960.00
132 35.00 $ 4,620.00-
1,507 I TOTAL ERSC LABOR
$ 12,000.00
$ 16.000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 11, 000.00
$ 7,500.00
$ 136,945
ESTIMATED REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES
Mileage
Telephone / Fax
Bluepnnting
Reproduction/Photos
Postage & Handling
ITEM QUANTITY
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
UNIT
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS
UNIT COST
500.00
100.00
1500.00
1000.00
200.00
$ 56,500
AMOUNT'
500.00
100.00
1500.00
550.00
200.00
ESTIMATED REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES $ 2,850
ESTIMATED DESIGN COST
$ 196,295
•
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, Fee
10/22/01, 7:44 AM
000042
RCTC
PARKING LOT EXPANSION PLAN
RCTC Agreement #02-33-029
NO.
A
Al
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
TASK
PROJECT M ANAGEMENT
SCOPE DEFINITION
MEETINGS
PROJECT M ANAGEM ENT/COO RDINATION
ESTIMATED HOURS - MANAGEMENT
PHASE - CONCEPT D SIGAf:::
RESOURCE ALLOCATION MATRIX
PERSONNEL HOURS PER TASK
PR OJE CT PROJECT SR CIVIL CIVIL LAND CIVIL CADD ADMIN 2 -MAN HOURS
MANAGER EN GINEER ENGINEER ENGINEER SURVEYOR DESI GNER TECHNICIAN ASSISTANT SURVEY CREW BY TASK
12
58
68
138
16
66
64
146
0
16
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
0
0
0
0
8
26
28
62
0
0
0
0
RESEARCH & SITE RECONNAISSANCE
CO NCEPTUAL PLANS 8 ESTIMATES
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONM ENTAL ASSESSM ENT
REVIEWS & APPROVALS OF CO NCEPT PLANS
ESTIMATED HOURS - PHASE I
$ IiAS1:1I.,. R LfMINARV O ..... ..............
PROPERTY ACQUISTION ASSISTANCE
SURVEYS, UTILITIES AND BASE MAPPING
PRELIM INARY GEOTE C HN ICAL INVESTIG ATIONS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
PRELIM INARY SITE EXPANSION DESIGN
ESTIM ATED HOURS - PHASE II
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, LABOR
•
14
54
2
20
90
14
7
4
6
46
77
28
64
22
26
140
12
13
8
36
124
193
12
44
0
0
56
0
22
0
8
108
138
0
36
4
0
40
0
24
0
16
72
112
0
0
0
0
0
8
27
0
0
0
35
0
40
0
0
40
8
20
2
8
84
122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
16
4
12
6
6
28
4
10
2
6
20
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
166
176
ESTIMATED
COST
$ 3,300
$ 15,870
$ 16,760
3781 $ 35,930
58
250
34
52
394
46
123
16
80
470
0:
735
TOT AL ESTIMATED ERSC SERVICES
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
1
I S 136,945 I
1.1, 747 AM
•
NO .
A
Al
A2
A3
a
81
B2
i sheC
PARKING imp EXPANSION PLAN
RCTC Agreeme nt #02-33-029
RES OURCE ALLOCATION MATRIX - WORK SHEET
PERSONNEL HOURS PER TASK
TASK
PROJECT MANAGE MENT
SCOPE DEFINITION
M EETINGS WITH RCTC S. OTHERS
PREPARE SCO PE AND SCHEDULE
MEETINGS
TREND M EETING (6)
TEAM M EETINGS (12)
PUBLIC MEETINGS (2)
PRO JECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATIO N
COORDINATION WITH SUBCONSULTANTS
MO NITOR SCHEDULES & BUDGETS
REVIEW & PREPARE MO NTHLY INVO ICES
MEETINGS WITH RCTC & OTHERS
PHASE I - CONCEPT DESIGN
RESEARCH & SITE RECONNAISSANCE
RESEARCH (CITY, SCRRA, BNSF & CALTRANS)
PRELIMINARY UTILITY CONTACT
---- -- ------ ----
REVIEW DO CUMENTS AND APPLICATIONS
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
CO NCEPTUAL PLANS & ESTIMATES
ESTABLISH EXPANSION REQUIREM ENTS
•
PR OJECT PROJE CT SR CIVIL CIVIL LAND CIVIL CADD ADMIN
MANAGER ENGINEER ENGINEER ENGINEER SURVEYOR DESIGNER TECHNICIAN ASSISTANT SURVEY CREW BYOURS ASK
8
4
12
18
24
16
58
8
24
4
32
68
4
2
4
4
14
8
8
16
18
24
24
66
16
16
8
24
64
12
4
8
4
8
28
16
16
16
8
4
0
8
8
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, CALCS
Page 1 of 4 Pages
4
4
6
12
8
4
-4
12
8
8
2
2
4
20
16
0
36
42
76
.da
180
36
44
32
64
0
<1'
18
16
12
12
58
10/22/01, 7 49 AM
28
RCTC
PARKING LOT EXPANSION PLAN
RCTC Agreeme nt #02-33-029
NO. TASK
B3
B4
SITE C OMPARISONS
PREPARE LAYOUT C ONFIGURATIONS
PREPARE PARKING GARAGE OPTIONS
PREPARE COST ESTIMATES FOR EACH PLAN
COMPARE OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
M EETINGS WITH RCTC & OTHERS
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SITE REVIEWS
G ATHER DATA AND DESIGN INFORMATION
PREPARE PES FORM
REVIEWS & APPROVALS OF CO NCEPT PLANS
MEETINGS WITH RCTC & O THERS
COORDINATION WITH SCRRA, BNSF AND CITY
PREPARE RECO MM ENDATIO N LETTER
C PHASE II - PRELIMINARY DESIGN & APPROVALS
C1 PRO PERTY ACQUISTION ASSISTANCE
C2
M EETINGS WITH RCTC
REVIEW AREAS AND AG REEM ENTS
PREPARE LEGAL DESCRIPTION & PLATS
SURVEYS, UTILITIES AND BASE MAPPING
PR OJECT
MANAGER
12
8
6
4
8
8
54
2
2
8
6
6
20
8
4
2
PR OJE CT SR CIVIL CIVIL LAND
ENGINEER ENGINEER ENGINEER SURVEY OR
24
12
8
44
4
24
8
CIVIL
DESI GNER
24
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ERSCDesign Cost Estimate 102201, CALCS Pa* 4 Pages
16
CADD ADMIN 2 - MAN H OURS
TECHNICIAN ASSISTANT SURVEY CREW BY TASK
2
2
2
2
10•,749AM
•
NO. TASK
C3
C4
C5
RESEARCH AT CITY & C OUNTY
UTILITY LETTERS & COORDINATION
AERIAL TARGET CONTROL
DESIGN & TOP OGRAPHIC SURVEYS
REVIEW TITLE DOCUMENTS & EASE MENTS
PREPARE BASE MAPPING
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATI ONS
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
RECOM MENDATIONS 8 REPORT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
ESTABLISH TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS
REVIEW OF EXISTING TRAFFIC DATA
COLLECT TRAFFIC DATA
RECOM MENDATIONS 8 REPORT
PRELIMINARY SITE EXPANSION DESIGN
PREPARE BASE SHEETS FOR PLANS
PRELIM INARY HYDROLOGY STUDY
PREPARE SUBM ITTAL APPLICATIONS
PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL DO CUMENTS
COORDINATION WITH UTILITY COM PANIES
PRELIM INARY EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS _ _
PREPARE SITE PLANS
gliFCTC
PARKING LW EXPANSION PLAN
RCTC Agreement #02-33-029
•
PR OJECT PROJECT SR CIVIL CIVIL LAND CIVIL CAD D AD MIN 2 -MAN HOURS
MANA GER EN GINEER EN GINEER ENGINEER SURVEYOR
2
2
2
1
7
4
1
2
2
4
13
8
2
4
8
22
8
8
8
24
8
3
8
4
4
27
DESIGNER TECHNICIAN ASSISTANT SURVEY CREW BY TASK
4
16
20
2
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
6
6
2
8
8
4
16
36
4
4
12
4
2
2
2
4
8
4
4
4
24
2
2
24
8
16
8
12
40
.1
12
4
8
32
2
8
16
12
8
24
ENGIN EERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, CALCS
Page 3 of 4 Pages
8
8
0
2
2
6
28
22
4
24
12
33
123
10
6
:77:77 .7.7
14
10
16
40
6
4
4
2
10/22/01, 7 49 AM
50
26
32
40
18
10
138
RCTC
PARKING LOT E XPA NSIO N PLAN
RCTC Agreement #02-33-029
NO .
TASK
PREPARE PRELIM INARY GRADING PLANS
COORDINATE PARKING STRUCTURE PLANS
COORDINATE LANDSCAPE PLANS
MEETINGS WITH RCTC & OTHERS
ATTEND CITY DESIGN REVIEW M EETINGS
ESTIMATED PROJECT HOURS
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, CALCS
•
PROJECT PROJECT SR CIVIL CIVIL LAND CIVIL CADD ADMIN 2 -MAN H OURS
MANA GER ENGINEER ENGINEER ENGINEER SURVEY OR DESIGNER TECHNICIAN ASSISTANT SURVEY CREW BY TASK
4
4
4
8
8
12
12
16
12
124
305
479
16
8
210
16
152
35
8
e
8
178
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
16
4
132
0
1507
Pa 4 Pages 1.1, 7 49 AM
RCTC
Agreement #02-33-029
Parking Lot Expansion Project
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE
PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT ENGINEER/PLANNER
SENIOR CIVIL/TRAFFIC ENGINEER
CIVIL ENGINEER
LAND SURVEYOR
CIVIL DESIGNER
CADD TECHNICIAN
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
2 -MAN SURVEY CREW
$ 125.00
$ 95.00
$ 90.00
$ 80.00
$ 95.00
$ 75.00
$ 60.00
$ 35.00
$ 175.00
ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
10/22/01 7 52 AM
ERSC Design Cost Estimate 102201, Hourly Rates
000043
AGENDA ITEflf 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve Agreement for Construction of Passenger Station
Improvements for the New Downtown Corona Metrolink Station
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Chairman to execute Station Agreement #02-33-030
with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) for
construction of passenger station and pedestrian overhead crossing
improvements for the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink
Station subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC's existing Metrolink stations: Riverside -Downtown, Pedley, Riverside -La
Sierra and West Corona, are referred to as the Tier I stations, that were necessary
for the beginning levels of commuter rail service on both the Riverside Line to Los
Angeles and the inland Empire/Orange County Line.
The second phase of Riverside County stations, referred to as the Tier II stations,
has been envisioned as necessary to accommodate future growth on the existing
commuter lines, caused in a major part by, the inception of Metrolink service
through Corona and Fullerton to Los Angeles.
A Tier II Station Study was requested by the Commission, prepared By Carl
Schiermeyer Consulting Services, completed and presented to the Commission at
the April 1999 Commission Meeting. The conclusions of the study recommended
that two additional Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations be constructed, one in
Riverside at Van Buren Blvd. and Route 91, and one in Downtown Corona, near
Main Street and Route 91.
000043
At the April 14, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Tier II
Station Analysis and Recommendations Report. The Commission also directed
staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Preliminary
Engineering, Environmental Clearance, and Final Design Services, for each of the
two new proposed Metrolink Commuter Rail Stations.
At the November 10, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission awarded
Contract No. RO-2027 to Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall (DMJM), for the
Phase I Conceptual Studies, for the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink
Station.
DMJM worked cooperatively with RCTC, Caltrans, BNSF, SCRRA, and the City of
Corona, to develop of a master plan for the new Downtown Corona Metrolink
Station.
At the December 13, 2000 Commission meeting, the Commission concurred with
the proposed master plan for the new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station and
awarded Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2027 to DMJM, for Final Design of
the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station.
For the past 1-1/2 years, DMJM has been working cooperatively with BNSF to
ascertain exactly what modifications were required to the existing BNSF rail
facilities, in order to obtain BNSF's approval of, and accommodate the construction
of, the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station. BNSF has agreed to the
proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station under the conditions as set
forth in the attached Station Agreement #02-33-030. The highlights of the
agreement are as follows:
1. RCTC will fund all costs associated with the relocation of the existing
Locomotive Storage Facility to the Porphyry "Y"
2. RCTC will fund all costs associated with the relocation of the existing track
and the rework of existing grade crossings and signals to accommodate the
construction of the proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station.
The total estimated costs for the required rail improvements to accommodate the
proposed new Downtown Corona Metrolink Station is $5,200,000.
Staff and Legal Counsel have reviewed the Station Agreement and are in general
concurrence with the major points of the agreement. The remaining RCTC Legal
Counsel comments are handwritten on the attached agreement for your
information.
The current schedule to start operation of a new Metrolink service from Riverside
through Fullerton to Los Angeles is set for August of 2002. The Corona Main
Metrolink Station must be substantially completed by that date to accommodate
the projected service start-up.
000050
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 01 / 02 Amount: $ 5,200,000
Source of Funds: STIP Budget Adjustment:
GLA No.: 221 33 81 101
•
•
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 10/22/01
Attachment
000051
44414 44 [September 13], 2001 Draft
•
•
•
AGREEMENT FOR PASSENGER STATION AND
PEDESTRIAN 4034ERCROSSA4C4 [OVERHEAD CROSSING] IMPROVEMENTS
BNSF Secy. Contract No:
Corona Main Street Passenger Station and Pedestrian
Overhead [Crosswalk]
This AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2001, between THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referenced
as "BNSF", and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a political subdivision of
the State of California, hereinafter referenced as "RCTC".
RECITALS:
BNSF owns and operates its San Bernardino Subdivision rail line and rail corridor through the City of
Corona, County of Riverside, State of California. RCTC desires to construct a new rail passenger station
and grade separated pedestrian crossing over BNSF's San Bernardino Subdivision main line tracks, to be
referenced herein as "Corona Main Street Passenger Station", and "Pedestrian Overhead," respectively.
The Pedestrian Overhead pedestrian crossing is designated as California Public Utilities Crossing No.
and D.O.T. No. . The Pedestrian Overhead is being constructed
between the north and south passenger platforms of the Corona Main Street Passenger Station.
Construction of the Corona Main Street Passenger Station requires BNSF: (i)
to construct certain tracks, realign
certain track, add two turnouts and rehabilitate certain ties; ((iii)}[(ii)J to remove certain tracks, turnouts
and cross -oven and renew two at -grade street rail crossings; and ((iv)} KW)] to add turnout tracks, fencing
and lighting, remove a crossing, certain tracks and turnouts, and realign other tracks to replace the Porphyry
industry trackage near this station site. This work required by BNSF, as described in- detail in Article I,
Section 2 hereof, is referenced collectively herein as "Track Work".
The term "Project", as used in this Agreement, shall include all work of every kind and character required
in connection with the Track Work and construction of the proposed (Corona Main Street Passenger
Station and] Pedestrian Overhead including, but not limited to, any and all changes to signal,
communication and electrical lines and appurtenances, all temporary and permanent track work, grading
and drainage facilities, all as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, as well as
preliminary and construction engineering, and contract preparation.
The parties hereto desire to express in writing their understanding and agreement with respect to the Project
and maintenance of the Pedestrian Overhead.
AGREEMENT:
ARTICLE I
1. BNSF shall grant to RCTC, its successors and assigns, upon and subject to the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, a license to enter upon and use that portion of BNSF's San Bernardino
Subdivision rail corridor as necessary to construct the Project, and to maintain thereafter the Pedestrian
Overhead.
2. BNSF shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment for all flagging and other
work to be performed by BNSF in connection with the Pedestrian Overhead, and for all Track Work. A
detailed list of all work to be performed by BNSF under this Agreement, and the estimated cost thereof, is
shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Track Work shall consist of: (i)
1
00005
construction of about 1450 feet of No. 1 Main track and about 4120 feet of siding track, both with concrete
ties, including one #20 power turnout, and one #11 hand throw turnout to serve Ganahl Lumber, {{aii}}{(ii)]
realigning about 4300 feet of track in vai ious phases (rehabilitating the track as required) to rehabilitate
about 1300 feet of No. 1 Main track and realign it to new No. 2 Main track alignment; {-iw}}{(iii)]
removing about 2300 feet of siding track, about 1400 feet of switching lead track and about 2000 feet of
No. 2 Main track, including removal of one #10 mainline cross -over and control point; one #10 hand throw
cross -over, two No. 8 siding turnouts and one industry turnout; {Rv}}[(iv)] renewing street —railroad at -grade
crossings at Joy Street and Sheridan Street (with new concrete crossing material), including construction of
an additional siding track through Sheridan Street; {{vii}}[(v)] replacing about 400 feet of industry track;
plus ((viii)) [(vi)] doing the following work in connection with replacing the displaced switching lead track
at Corona to the Porphyry yard:
Construct one No. 11 turnout and two No. 9 turnouts, plus about 1200 feet of track with
39 foot track panels ard relay with secondhand 136 -pound continuous welded rail, plus
install fencing and lighting for new industry track area and renew an at -grade street -
railroad crossing
Remove one No. 10 turnout in siding and replace it with three 136 -pound track panels
and relaid second-hand 136 -pound continuous welded rail, plus remove about 150 feet of
115 -pound track
Realign about 200 feet of existing industry lead track (the 3M lead track)
The Project shall be designed and constructed to maintain 21 -foot track centers between all tracks, and shall
include installation of a fence at and near the station between the No. 1 Main track and the No. 2 Main
track.
If construction of the Project has not commenced within six (6) months from the effective date of this
Agreement, BNSF, in its sole and absolute discretion, may revise the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit B.
In such case, BNSF shall provide for RCTC its revised cost estimates, highlighting all changes that are
made. Any item of work to be performed by BNSF that is incidental to those items listed in Exhibit B, but
not specifically mentioned therein, may be included as part of the Project, upon written approval of RCTC
except in cases of emergency. Construction of the Project shall include the following principle elements of
work by BNSF:
(f)
Preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation related to the Project;
Furnishing of such watchmen and nagger as may be necessary for safety and the
operation of BNSF's trains during construction of the Project;
Furnishing of engineering and inspection as required in connection with the
construction of the Project;
Construction of the Track Work;
Any signal work or changes to communications or electrical facilities, including
pole line relocation or removal, on the rail corridor that are required by construction of
the Project; and
Any bridge modifications, culvert extensions, drainage work, headwalls or other
work required by BNSF's Structure Department to accommodate the track modifications
and additions set forth in this Section 2.
3. BNSF shall do all work provided in Article 1, Section 2 above with its own employees
working under Railroad Labor Agreements, or by contractor(s) if necessary, on an actual cost basis.
000053
2
•
•
•
4. RCTC shall reimburse BNSF for work of an emergency nature caused by RCTC or
RCTC's contractor, in connection with the Project which is reasonably necessary for the immediate
restoration of railroad operations, or for the protection of persons or BNSF property. Such work may be
performed by BNSF without prior approval of RCTC and RCTC agrees to reimburse BNSF the reasonable
cost for all such emergency work.
5. BNSF shall submit to RCTC periodic statements for payment covering the cost of the
work performed by BNSF, and upon completion of the Project, a detailed statement of final cost of such
work, segregated as to labor and materials for each item shown on Exhibit B. All invoices are due within
thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice. If any invoice is not paid within such thirty (30) day period, then
RCTC also shall pay interest from the end of such period, at an annual interest rate equal to the lesser of: (i)
the greater of twelve percent (12%), or, for the period January 1 through June 30, the prime rate last
published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding December, plus 2.5%, and for the period July 1
through December 31, the prime rate last published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding June, plus
2.5%; or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by law.
6. BNSF shall provide flaggers and other necessary support within five (5) days of request
by RCTC or its construction contractor to allow construction activities not impacting the BNSF main line
to continue with little or no delay. Except in cases of emergency, as described in Article III, Section 4,
such flaggers and related support shall remain on site for the Project until released by RCTC or its
construction contractor.
ARTICLE II
/��
1. RCTC shall furnish to BNSF plans and specifications for the Project, which —rp
shall include construction of the Pedestrian Overhead and removal of BNSF's existing engine tie up track
and dock on RCTC's station parcel. Four sets of these plans and specifications, together with two copies of qj. %/
calculations, and two copies of specifications, shall be submitted to BNSF for approval prior toi
-65
commencement of construction pursuant to the process set forth in Article 6 of the Shared Use Agreement JA
(San Bernardino Subdivision) between BNSF and RCTC. After having been approved by both RCTC andcir 1)7(.„./...0
BNSF, such plans and specifications are hereby adopted and incorporated into this agreement by reference.
x // J
[The parties recognize that certain portions of the Project, for safety /.')7t.
`t�
reasons, will require the Main tracks to be shut down for brief periods of time not to exceed (J ��
hours at any one time. RCTC or its Contractors shall notify BNSF in advance before performing
any such work and RCTC shall schedule such work only at times acceptable to BNSF. ru.u.rr
BNSF may cancel any scheduled work window where there is an eme ency or where BNSF
determines that work during that work window ould cause more than insignificant delay' any 1 `�
trains operating on the San Bernardino Subdivision. RCTC acknowledges that, due to BNSF's (I1°O
customer service obligations during the Fourth Quarter of each year, Project construction activities V G
that might impact BNSF train operations will not be permitted between September 30 and January
RCTC shall make application to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California (hereinafter referenced as "Commission") for an order authorizing construction of the Project.
RCTC shall furnish to the Commission plans for the construction of the Project, approved by BNSF,
together with a copy of this Agreement.
3. RCTC shall fumish to BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects written
authorization to commence the work to be performed by BNSF, as described in Article I, Section 2.
4. RCTC shall provide for and maintain minimum vertical clearances, as required
by the Commission.
5. RCTC shall acquire all property rights from third parties that are necessary for
the construction of the Project.
3
000051
6. RCTC shall make any and all arrangements to secure the location or relocation
of wire lines, pipe lines and other facilities owned by third parties which may be found necessary to relocate
due to construction of the Project.
7. RCTC shall construct the Project and do all work provided for in the plans and
specifications for the Project, except such work that BNSF herein agrees to do. Principal elements of work
to be performed by RCTC in the construction of the Project are as follows:
(g)
Station]
station parcel;
and D.O.T. No.
Overhead; and
[Construction of the Corona Main Street Passenger
Construction of the Pedestrian Overhead;
Removal of the engine tie up track and dock on RCTC's
Necessary grading and paving;
Providing suitable drainage, both temporary and permanent;
Displaying the Commission's Crossing Number
in a conspicuous location on the Pedestrian
Construction of fencing, located between tracks, a sufficient
distance to assure use of the Pedestrian Overhead by all station patrons and other
people in the vicinity of the station.
8. RCTC shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment in performing the
work it agrees to perform herein. All construction work with respect to the Project which RCTC is
responsible to { egrwss.} [perform] under the terms of this Agreement shall be undertaken by RCTC, or
RCTC's contractor, and shall be performed at such times as shall not endanger or interfere with the safe
and timely operations of BNSF's trains, tracks and other facilities.
9. RCTC shall require its contractor(s) to notify BNSF's Roadmaster prior to
commencing work on BNSF property or near BNSF's tracks, and to request a BNSF nagger in accordance
with the requirements of Exhibit C attached hereto, in order to protect BNSF from damage to its trains and
property.
10. RCTC shall require its contractor(s) to furnish BNSF's Director of Structures,
for approval, four copies of plans and two sets of calculations of any shoring or cribbing proposed to be
used over, under, or adjacent to BNSF's tracks. The use of such shoring or cribbing shall conform to the
standard size clearance set forth in the Commission's requirements which govern such clearance. In case
the use of such shoring will impair said clearance, RCTC will ensure that application is made to the
Commission for approval of such impairment during the period of construction of the Project.
1 1. BNSF's and RCTC's contractor have entered into an agreement shown in
Exhibit C and C-1, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
12. Except as hereinafter otherwise provided, all work to be performed hereunder by
RCTC in the construction of the Project shall be performed pursuant to a contract or contracts to be let by
RCTC as follows:
(a) All work performed thereunder, within the limits of BNSF's
rail corridor shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, and in
00005►
4
•
•
•
(b)
(c)
accordance with plans and specifications approved by BNSF. Those changes or
modifications during construction that affect safety or BNSF's operations shall
also be subject to BNSF's approval;
No work shall be commenced within BNSF's rail corridor
until each of the prime contactors employed in connection with such work shall
have executed and delivered to BNSF a letter agreement in the form of Exhibit
C-1, and shall have delivered to, and secured BNSF's approval of, the required
insurance;
If, in RCTC's opinion, it shall be for its best interest, RCTC.
may direct that the construction of the Project by done by day labor under the
direction and control of RCTC, or if at any time, in the opinion of RCTC, the
contractor has failed to prosecute with diligence the work specified in and by the
terms of said contract, it may, in the manner provided by law, terminate the
contractors control over said work and take possession of all or any part thereof
and proceed to complete the same by day labor or by employing another
contractor(s), provided that all such contractor(s) shall be required to comply
with the obligations in favor of BNSF herein above set forth and, provided
further, that if such construction is performed by day labor, RCTC, at its
expense, shall procure and maintain on behalf of BNSF the insurance required
by Exhibit C-1.
13. BNSF shall have the right to request that any RCTC employee, any RCTC
contractor, or any employee of a RCTC contractor who performs any work within BNSF's rail corridor and
which affects BNSF's operations or facilities, be removed from the Project for incompetence, neglect of
duty, unsafe conduct or misconduct. In the event RCTC or its contractor elects not to honor such request,
BNSF may stop all work on the Project within the rail corridor until the matter has been fully resolved to
BNSF's satisfaction. The party whose employee has been asked to leave the Project will indemnify the
requesting party against any claims arising from such removal. BNSF shall exercise its rights under this
section in a reasonable manner, provided that both parties recognize that there may be safety concerns
which will require BNSF to act quickly.
14. RCTC's employees, agents, contractors, representatives and invitees shall wear
Personnel Protective Equipment ("PPE") when on the BNSF's rail corridor during construction of the
Project or subsequent maintenance of the Pedestrian Overhead. The PPE shall meet applicable OSHA and
ANSI specifications. Current BNSF PPE requirements are listed on the web site:
www.contractororientation.com, and include the following: (i) safety glasses , permanently affixed side
shields, no yellow lenses; (ii) hard hats with high visibility orange cover; (iii) safety shoes with hardened
toe, above the ankle lace up and a defined heel; and (iv) high visibility reflective orange vests, which are
required as specified by BNSF's representative responsible for individuals present on BNSF's rail corridor-,
and also hearing protection, fall protection and respirators as required by applicable state and federal
regulations. RCTC acknowledges that PPE requirements will be amended from time to time and that
RCTC's employees, contractors, representatives and invitees are responsible for complying with then
current PPE requirements as set forth in the referenced website.
15. RCTC shall advise BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, in writing, of the
completion date of the Project within thirty (30) days after such completion and to notify BNSF's Assistant
Director Public Projects, in writing, of the date on which RCTC and/or its Contractor will meet with BNSF
for the purpose of making final inspection of the Project.
ARTICLE III
5
000056
1. All work on the Project shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner
by BNSF and RCTC and each portion shall be promptly commenced and diligently prosecuted to
conclusion in its logical order and sequence. Furthermore, any changes or modifications during
construction that affect BNSF shall be subject to BNSF's prompt consideration and approval prior to
commencement of such changes or modifications.
2. All work on the Project shall be done in accordance with detailed plans and
specifications approved by BNSF and subject to the Commission's approval, with minimum clearances of
not less than those specified by the Commission, or as otherwise authorized by the Commission for BNSF's
tracks at this location.
3. RCTC and BNSF, to the extent reasonably practicable, shall adhere to the
construction schedule for all Project work. The parties agree that BNSF's failure to complete the Track
Work in accordance with the construction schedule by reason of inclement weather, unforeseen railroad
emergencies, or other conditions beyond BNSF's reasonable control, will not constitute a breach of this
Agreement nor subject BNSF to any liability or responsibility for added expense to the RCTC.
4. In the event of an unforeseen railroad emergency, and regardless of the
requirements of the construction schedule, BNSF reserves the right to reallocate all or a portion of its labor
forces assigned to perform the Track Work when BNSF believes that such reallocation is necessary to
provide for the immediate restoration of efficient railroad operations of BNSF or to protect persons or
property on or near any BNSF owned property. BNSF will reassign such labor forces to again perform the
Track Work when, in its sole opinion, such emergency condition no longer exists. BNSF shall not be liable
for any additional costs of the Project resulting from any such reallocation of its labor forces. The parties
further agree that such reallocation of labor forces by BNSF and any direct or indirect results of such
reallocation shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement by BNSF or RCTC.
5. If any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work contrary to the plans
and specifications for the Project or if any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work in a manner
BNSF deems to be hazardous to its property, facilities or the safe and expeditious movement of its freight
traffic, or the insurance described in said Exhibit C-1 shall be canceled during the course of the Project,
then BNSF shall have the right to stop all work on the Project until the acts or omissions of such RCTC
contractor have been fully rectified to the satisfaction of BNSF's Division Engineer, or additional insurance
has been delivered to and accepted by BNSF. Such work stoppage shall not give rise to or impose upon
BNSF any liability to RCTC, or to any RCTC contractor. The right of BNSF to stop all work on the
Project is in addition to any other rights BNSF may have which include, but are not limited to, actions for
damages or lost profits. In the event that BNSF shall desire to stop work, BNSF agrees to give RCTC
immediate notice thereof in writing to the address provided in Section 20 of this Article III.
6. RCTC shall supervise and inspect the operations of all RCTC contractors to
assure compliance with the plans and specifications for the Project, the terms of this Agreement and all
safety requirements of BNSF, including completion of BNSF's online contractor orientation program by all
individuals who will enter onto BNSF's rail corridor. If at any time during construction BNSF determines
that proper supervision and inspection is not being performed by RCTC personnel, BNSF shall have the
right to stop all work on the Project (within or adjacent to its rail corridor) and to request that RCTC correct
the situation before construction is allowed to proceed. If BNSF believes the situation is not being
corrected in an expeditious manner, BNSF immediately shall notify RCTC's Executive Director so that the
RCTC can take appropriate corrective action. BNSF shall exercise its rights under this section in a
reasonable manner, provided that both parties .recognize that there may be safety concerns which will
require BNSF to act quickly.
7. RCTC shall bear the entire cost and expense incurred in connection with the
construction of the Project.
8. RCTC shall reimburse BNSF in full for the actual cost of all work performed by,
or on behalf of, BNSF pursuant to this Agreement.
•
•
•
1
000057 6
•
•
9. No construction of any portion of the Project and no future normal or routine
maintenance of the Pedestrian Overhead, which could impact BNSF's scheduling or operation of trains
shall be permitted during the Fourth Quarter of any calendar year. Subject to prior notification to BNSF's
NOC in Fort Worth, Texas, telephone number 817-234-2350, emergency work will be permitted. It is
understood that trains cannot be subjected to delay for construction of the Project or for normal or routine
maintenance during this time period.
10. After completion of construction of the Project:
(a)
(b)
(c)
RCTC shall own and, at its sole cost and expense, shall
maintain the [Corona Main Street Passenger Station and) Pedestrian
Overhead;
RCTC, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove or obliterate
graffiti on the Pedestrian Overhead as required; and
RCTC shall keep the gates that secure any pedestrian at grade
crossing locked at all times except for emergencies. Prior to opening the gates
RCTC shall notify BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, Texas, telephone number (817)
234-2350 for notification of trains en route.
1 1. RCTC shall furnish BNSF one set of as built plans, at no cost to BNSF, prepared
in U.S. Customary Units, as well as one set of computer diskettes, contained as built CAD drawings of the
Structure identifying the software used for the CAD drawings. The "as built plans" shall depict all
information in BNSF engineering stationing and mile post pluses. The "as built plans" shall also include
plan and profile, specifications, and drainage plans. All improvements and facilities shall be shown.
12 Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article III, Section 9, RCTC shall notify
BNSF's Division Engineer before entering upon BNSF's rail corridor to maintain the Pedestrian Overhead,
in order to obtain prior authorization to enter BNSF's property. If such work is contracted, RCTC shall
require its prime contractors) to comply with the obligations in favor of BNSF, set forth in Exhibits C and
C-1 and accepts responsibility for compliance by its prirne contractor(s). BNSF may revise the content of
Exhibits C and C-1 to reflect changes in federal or State regulations and standards or reasonable increases
in insurance amounts or to incorporate other reasonable changes, provided that BNSF shall not, without
RCTC's consent, make any change to either Exhibit which would impose one or more requirements which
are not substantially similar to those then agreed to 1) between BNSF and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for similar agreements and 2) between BNSF and its contractors on similar
projects. The requirements of this Section 13 shall not apply to any contracts related to the Project for
routine maintenance, janitorial services, landscaping services, and graffiti removal.
13. The terms of allocation of liability between BNSF and RCTC, and the liability
insurance obligation of RCTC, as set forth in Article 8 and Article 9, of the Shared Use Agreement (San
Bernardino Subdivision) between BNSF and RCTC, shall govern all activities and the presence of RCTC
and any of its contractors, or their invitees, in connection with the construction or maintenance of the
Corona Main Street Passenger Station and the Pedestrian Overhead.
14. If BNSF shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future, in the performance of
its duty as a common carrier, to raise or lower the grade or change the alignment of its tracks or to lay
additional track or tracks or to build other facilities in connection with the operation of its railroad, BNSF,
at its expense, shall have the full right to make such changes or additions, provided such changes or
additions do not change or alter the Pedestrian Overhead (which shall be constructed at RCTC's expense to
accommodate construction of a third Main track {su t )- at this location) and provided
further, however, that should it become necessary or desirable in the future to change, alter, or reconstruct
the Pedestrian Overhead to accommodate railroad projects, other than construction of the third Main track
at this location, the cost of such work, including any cost incidental to alteration of
7
00005r3
railroad or drainage facilities, shall be divided between BNSF and RCTC in such shares as may be
determined between them, subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
15. If RCTC shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future to alter or reconstruct
the Pedestrian Overhead, it shall have the full right to do so, the cost of which shall be born by the RCTC;
provided however, that such alteration or reconstruction shall not encroach further upon or occupy the
surface of BNSF's right of way to a greater extent than is contemplated by the plans and specifications to
be approved by BNSF pursuant to Article II, Section 1 hereof, without the prior written consent of BNSF,
and the execution of a supplement to this Agreement or the completion of a separate agreement. —
16. The books, papers, records and accounts of the parties hereto, insofar as they
relate to the items of expense for labor and material or are in any way connected with the work herein
contemplated, shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection and audit by the agents and authorized
representatives of the parties hereto for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment.
17. All the covenants and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, except that no party may assign any
of its rights or obligations hereunder without the period written consent of the other party hereto.
18. In the event that construction of the Project has not begun for a period of three
(3) years form the date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become null and void.
19. Any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement shall be in writing and be
deemed sufficiently given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the
following addresses:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
The Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway Company:
Riverside County
Transportation Commission:
BNSF's Vice President -Engineering and
Mechanical
2600 Lou Menk Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76131
BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects
740 East Carnegie Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571
Telecopy No: (909) 386-4479
BNSF's Director of Structures
4515 Kansas Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66106
Telecopy No: (913) 551-4099
BNSF's Division Engineer
740 East Carnegie Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571
Telecopy No: (909) 386-4070
Executive Director
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone No: (909) 787-7141
Telecopy No.: (909) 787-7920
20. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto
affecting this Agreement, and that this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiation,
arrangement, agreement, and understanding, if any, between the parties with respect to the Project, and none
000n5;,�
8
•
•
•
shall be used to interpret this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual
consent of the parties hereto, solely by a written amendment executed by BNSF and RCTC.
21. Installation of fiber optic lines for the Project shall be permitted in accordance
with Article 13 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated October 30, 1992. Prior to commencing
installation, RCTC shall provide BNSF with plans showing the location of the fiber optic lines. Within
thirty (30) days, BNSF shall approve the initial plans or provide comments thereon. BNSF shall provide
subsequent reviews of plans within seven (7) days.
22. RCTC shall construct the rail passenger platforms on the north side of the No. 1
Main track, and on the south side of the No. 2 Main track with allowances for a third Main track to be
constructed at this location.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and
attested by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
By:
By:
Councilman Jack F. van Haaster John Shurson
Chairman
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
Enc Haley, Executive Director
REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:
B
Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Assistant Director Public Projects
N:\Iaw.mkg\dww\contracts\corona pedestrian +exersreasing+ 'overhead crossing] rev {2} [bbl[
9 000060
AGENDA ITE/vi 10
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Amendment to FY 2001-03 Measure "A" Capital Improvement
Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the FY 2001-03 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for
Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Desert, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the
cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area
of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual
certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting
the calculation.
The City of Palm Desert's Measure "A" Plans were approved by the Commission at
its July 11, 2001 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted Plan must be returned to
the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Desert has submitted a revised Plan
for FY 2001 reducing the funding for the Hovley Lane road widening and drainage
improvement project by $700,000 due to a revised lower cost estimate. They are
also adding one project in FY 2002 at $150,000, and increasing the funding for
another project in FY 2003 by $550,000. Staff recommends approval of the City's
request as submitted.
Attachment
000061
•
•
Li l i ur r n � i�i u t�t n i
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
inioP palm tr.org
October 1, 2001
Mr. Jerry Rivera
Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3580 University Avenue
Riverside, California 92507
Q5E982
SENT VIA FAX
(909) 787-7920
Subject: Amendment No. 2 to the City of Palm Desert's Capital Improvement
Program (Measure "A")
Dear Jerry,
Staff recently reviewed our Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Measure "A" project
funding. We have determined a change in funding for our projects and are requesting that the
following amendments be posted to the City of Palm Desert's Measure "A" Program:
Revise the following (reducing funds by 700):
Item
No.
7
Project Name/Limits
FY 2000-2001
AND PRIOR YEARS
Hovley Lane — Water Way
to Oasis Country Club
Project Type
Total
Cost
Roadway widening and drainage
improvements
1,000
Allocate funds as follows (adding project at 150 and increase existing project by 550):
FY 2001 — 2002
Item
No.
4.
Project Name/Limits
Measure
'A' Funds
1,000
Highway 74 at Silver Spur
Mobile Manor
Project Type
Right turn lane addition
Total
Cost
150
Measure
'A' Funds
150
Item
No.
1
Project Name/Limits
FY 2002 — 2003
Frank Sinatra Drive —
Cook Street to Gerald Ford
Last punted 10/012001 2 57 PM
Project Type
Roadway widening and drainage
improvements
Total
Cost
1,400
Measure
'A' Funds
1,400
G \PubWorka\Sonja De La Fuentelly Doc u enWRCTMLtr J Rivera re Amendment 2 to CIP Program - Measure A doc
p.
000062
teener. Jerry mivera
Amendment No. 2 to City of Palm Desert CIP
October 1, 2001
Page2of2
We have enclosed the revised RCTC Measure "A" Local Funds Program forms with the above -
noted changes for your records.
As always, we appreciate the cooperation and coordination that RCTC has shown the City of
Palm Desert. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do nothesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
JSG/sd
Enclosure
Joseph S. Gaugush, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
Richard J. Folkers, Assistant City Manager for Development Services
Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance/City Treasurer
J. Luis Espinoza, Finance Operations Manager
Michael Errante, Engineering Manager
DIV Of PRIM O ESE RI
Last onnted 10/012001 257 PM
•
•
•
G:\PubWorksZonta De 1.2 FuenteWy DocumentatRCTC\,tr J Rivera re Amendment 2 to CIP Program . Measure &doc
000063
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR PORTATION COM MISSION
MEASURE "A" LO L FUNDS PROGRAM
C ARRYOVER PROJECTS
FY 2000 — 2001
AND PRIOR YEAR(S)
Agency: City of P alm Desert
Prepa red by: J oseph S. Gaugush, P .E .
Phone No.: 760/346-0611 ext. 566
Date: May 16, 2001
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL COST
MEASURE A
($000'S)
FUNDS ($000'S)
1.
Highway 111 and Highway 74/Monterey
Avenue
Intersection widening,
drainage improvements, and
traffic signal modifications
1,000
917
2.
Magnesia Falls Drive Bridge/Street Project -
M onterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road
Bridge construction, street
widening, and traffic signal
modifications
800
800
3.
Fred Waring Drive - Highway 111 to Fairhaven
Drive
Bridge and roadway widening,
drainage improvements, and
traffic signal modifications
50
50
(design)
4.
Gerald Ford Drive - Portola Avenue to Cook
Street
Roadway widening and
drainage improvements
690
690
5.
Highway 111 — Larkspur Lane to Indian Wells
City Limit
Roadway and intersection
widening, and traffic signal
modifications
3,000
3,000
6.
NB'Portola Avenue — San Marino Circle to El
Cortez Way
Roadway widening and
drainage improvements
1,650
1,650
7.
Hovley Lane — Water Way to Oasis Country
Club
Roadway widening and
drainage improvements
1,000
1,000
8.
Hovley Lane West/Portola Avenue
Traffic Signal Installation
150
150
9.
El Paseo/Larkspur Lane
Traffic Signal Installation
150
150
10.
Shadow Mo untain Drive/Portola Avenue
Traffic Signal Installation
150
150
10!101 - G:\PubWorks\Sonja De La Fuente\My Do cu men t\RCTC\RCTC Funds Propam Form - FY 00-01 Carryovers doc - sd
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2001 — 2002
Agency:
Prepared by:
Phon e No.:
Date:
City of Palm Desert
Joseph S. Gaugush, P .E .
760/346-0611 ext. 566
May 16, 2001
Page 1 of 1
ITEM
NO.
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
PROJECT TYPE
TOTAL C OST
($000'S)
MEASURE A
FUNDS ($000'S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Fred Waring Drive — Highway 111 to Fairhaven
Drive
Kansas Street/Hovley Lane East/Oasis Club
Drive
Highway 111 @ Desert Crossing/Toys "R " Us
Intersection
Highway 74 @ Silver Spur Mobile Manor
Bridge and Roadway
widening, drainage
improvements, and traffic
signal modifications
Intersection realignment and
traffic signal installation
Intersection realignment and
traffic signal modifications
Right turn lane addition
1,500
1,400
350
150
1,500
1,400
350
150
•
.10/1/01 - G :\PubWorks\Sonja De La Fuen le/My Documenls\RCTCIRUC Fu nds Program Form - FY 01-02 'doc•sd
•
Agency:
Prepared by:
Pho ne No.:
Date:
ITEM
NO.
1.
2.
RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TR PORTATION COMMISSION
MEASURE "A" L L FUNDS PROGRAM
FY 2002 — 2003
City of Palm Desert
Joseph S. Gaugush, P .E.
760/346-0611 ext. 566
May 16, 2001
PROJECT NAME/LIMITS
Page 1 of 1
•
Frank Sinatra Drive — Cook Street to Gerald
ford Drive
Gerald Ford Drive — Cook Street to Frank
Sinatra Drive
PROJECT TYPE
Roadway widening
Roadway widening
TOTAL COST
($000'S)
1,400
475
MEASURE A
FUNDS ($000'S)
1,400
475
10/1/01- G \PubWo rks\Sonja De La Fuen te\My Do cuments\RCTC\RCTC Fu nds Pr ogram Form • FY 02-03 (revised) doc - sd
•
AGENDA ITEfrI I I
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for
Local Streets and Roads for the City of Indio
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of:
1) The FY 2002-06 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for
Local Streets and Roads for the City of Indio, as submitted; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Measure "A" Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to
annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be
expended in order to receive their Measure "A" disbursements. In addition, the
cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area
of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual
certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting
the calculation.
On April 25, 2001, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure "A"
revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the
required Five -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to
submit their Plans by June 15 for submission to the Budget and Implementation
Committee at its June 25, 2001 meeting and to the Commission on July 1 1, 2001.
To date, the Commission has approved the Plans for all cities with the exception of
Indio and Coachella. We have received the required Plan, MOE certification, and
supporting documentation from the City of Indio and recommend approval as
presented.
We have informed city staff from Coachella that no disbursement of Measure "A"
funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents
are received and approved by the Commission.
Attachment
000067
Cr)
CD
•
Agency: CITY OF INDIO
Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI
Date: AUGUST 20, 2001
•
RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSI ON
MEASURE "A" L OCAL FUNDS PROG RAM
FY 2001-2002
Page 1 of 5
•
Item
No .
2
3
4
5
6
Pro ject Name/Limits
Highway 1 I I (Monroe St. to Rubidoux St.)
Jefferson Street (Ave 54 to Highway 111)
Iefferson Street (Highway 1 1 1 to Indio Blvd. )
Jefferson /1-10 Interchange
Jefferso n Street Realignment(Ave 40 to Ave 38;
Monroe St. (Miles Ave to 1-10)
Project Type
R .O.W., Construction
Engineering, Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R .O .W ., Construction engineering and
Construction
Final design, R.O .W Construction
Engineering, Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O. W. , Co nstruction engineering and
Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O. W. , Construction engineering and
Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R. O.W., Construction engineering and
Construction
TO TAL
Total Cost
($1,000's)
$ 200
$3,000
$3,000
$1,200
$ 850
$1,500
5 9,750
Measure "A"
funds ($1,000's)
$ 100
$ 270
$1,000
$ 300
$ 350
$ 375
$2,395
RIVERSIDE C OUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGR AM
FY 2002-2003
Agency: CITY OF IN DIO
O
Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI
CD Date: AUGUST 20, 2001
0)
Page 2 of 5
Item
No.
Project Name/Limits
Project Type
Total Cost
($1,000's)
Measure "A"
funds ($1,000's)
2
Jefferson Street (Ave 54 to Highway III)
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R .O .W ., Construction engineering and
$3 ,000*
$ 270
C onstructi on
3
Jefferson Street (tlighway I I I to Indio Blvd. )
Final design, R .O.W Construction
$3,000
$750
Engineering, Construction
4
Jefferson /1-10 Interchange
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O. W., Construction engineering and
$1,000
$ 100
Constructio n
6
M onroe St.(Miles Ave to 1-I0)
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O.W., Construction engineering and
$2,500
$ 625
Construction
TOTAL
$9,500
$1,745
* Debt Ser vic e
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agency: CITY OF INDIO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP ORTATION C OMMISSI ON
MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PR OGRAM
FY 2003-2004
Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI
D ate: AUGUST 20, 2001
Page 3 of 5
Item
N o.
Project Name/Limits
Project Type
2
Jefferso n Street (Ave 54 to Highway 111)
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O.W., C onstructi on engineering and
Construction
3
Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd. )
Final design, R .O .W Construction
Engineering, Construction
4
Jefferso n /1-10 Interchange
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O. W. , Construction engineering and
Co nstruction
6
Monroe St.(Miles Ave to 1-10)
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R. O. W., Construction engineering and
Co nstruction
TOTAL
* Debt Service
T otal Cost
($1,000's)
$3,000*
$1,600
$3,000
$2,000
$9,600
Measure "A"
funds ($1,000's)
$ 270
$ 150
$ 200
$ 230
$ 850
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION
O MEASURE "A" LOCAL, FUNDS PR OGR AM
FY 2004-2005
Agency: CITY OF INDIO
-�I
r--, Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI
Date:. AUGUST 20, 2001
Page 4 of 5
Item
No.
2
3
4
6
Project Name/Limits
leff'erson Street (Av e 54 to Highway 111)
Jefferson Street (Ilighway 1 1 1 to Indio Blvd.)
Jefferson /1-10 Interchange
Monroe St. (Miles Ave to 1-10)
* De bt Service
•
Project Type
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R .O .W., Constructi on engineering and
C onstruction
Final design, R .O.W Construction
Engineering, Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R. O. W. , Construction engineering and
Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R. O. W., Construction engineering and
Construction
TOTAL
Total Cost
($1,000's)
$3,000*
$1,500
$3,000
$2,185
$9,685
Measure "A"
funds ($1,000's)
$ 270
$ 100
$ 150
$ 350
$ 870
•
•
Agency: CITY OF INDIO
Prepared by: AMIR H. MODARRESSI
Date: AUGUST 20, 2001
•
RIVE RSIDE C OUNTY TRANSP ORTATI ON COMMISSI ON
MEASURE " A" LOC AL FUNDS PR OGRAM
FY 2005-2006
Page 5 of 5
•
Item
No.
2
3
4 Je
6
Project N ame/Limits
Jefferson Street (Ave 54 to Highway 111)
Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd.)
fferson /I-10 Interchange
Monro e St.(Miles Ave to 1-10)
Project Type
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R .O .W ., Construction engineering and
C onstructi on
Final engineering, R .O .W Construction
Engineering, C onstruction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O. W. , Construction engineering and
Construction
Preliminary engineering, final design,
R.O.W., Construction engineering and
Construction
TOTAL
Total Cost
($1,000's)
$3,000*
$ 100
$9,800
$ 315
*13,215
Measure " A"
funds ($1,000's)
$ 270
$ 100
$ 200
$ 315
$ 885
* De bt Servic e
AGENDA ITEfrI 12
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Memorandum of Understanding for the Operation of a Freeway
Service Patrol Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Chair to execute a Memorandum of Understanding,
subject to Legal Counsel review, between the Riverside County SAFE,
the California Department of Transportation and the California
Highway Patrol for the operation of a Freeway Service Patrol program
in Riverside County; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
• BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
•
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation
for over eight years and operates 13 roving tow trucks on five beats along portions
of SR -91, I-215/SR-60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon commute hours.
The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees
(20%). The program operates Monday through Friday during peak commute hours,
5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Annually, the program
provides approximately 25,700 assists to stranded motorist along Riverside county
freeways. The program's day-to-day field supervision is handled by the California
Highway Patrol.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California
Department of Transportation, the California Highway Patrol and Riverside County
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies constitutes an operational guide to the
obligations, responsibilities, and goals of the parties involved. It is not intended to
authorize funding, nor is it a legally binding contract.
000073
A similar MOU was approved by the Commission at its September 9, 1992
meeting. The new revised MOU more accurately reflects the roles and
responsibilities of the parties as they presently exist (e.g. CHP, not Caltrans, is
responsible for dispatching FSP vehicles and auditing contractors' monthly
invoices).
Attachment
000071
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
and
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
MEMORANDUM. OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE
PATROL PROGRAM
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this 1S` day of October 2001, by and
between the State of California, as represented by and through the Department of
Transportation (hereinafter Caltrans), and the California Highway Patrol (hereinafter CHP),
and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (hereinafter RC SAFE).
GENERAL
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pertains to the operation of a Freeway Service
Patrol (FSP) program in the Riverside County area as related to the State of California's
congestion management strategies. FSP will assist in transportation system management
efforts, provide traffic congestion relief, reduce traffic accidents and expedite the removal of
freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of improving air quality.
The FSP activities shall be integrated with the existing incident and traffic management
operations to maximize public benefit.
Section 2401 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the Commissioner of the
California Highway Patrol shall make adequate provisions for patrol of the highway at all
times of the day and night. This section is interpreted to mean that the Commissioner is given
broad discretion in determining the means of providing adequate patrol, including the use of
FSP vehicles.
Section 21718(a)(7) of the CVC is a provision which specifically allows the CHP to be
responsible for FSPs stopping on freeways for the purpose of rapid removal of impediments to
traffic.
Article 3, Section 90, of the Street and Highway Code, states that Caltrans shall have
possession and control of all state highways.
Article 3, Section 91, of the Street and Highways Code, states that Caltrans has the
responsibility to improve and maintain the state highways. Caltrans also has the responsibility
for traffic system management and removing impediments from the highways.
1
00007h
Article 3, Section 92, of the Streets and Highways Code, states that Caltrans may do any act
necessary, convenient or proper for the construction, improvement; maintenance, or use of all
highways which are under its jurisdiction, possession, or control.
Together, the CHP and Caltrans have agreed to operate jointly Transportation Management
Centers (TMC) and FSP programs to improve the efficiency of the transportation system and
to expedite the removal of vehicles that are stranded or disabled on urban freeways.
RC SAFE and Caltrans have entered into a fund transfer agreement which includes provision
for the transfer of funds to RC SAFE to help fund the FSP contracts.
This MOU constitutes an operational guide to the obligations, responsibilities, and goals of
the parties involved. It is not intended to authorize funding, nor is it a legally binding
contract. Funding commitments are covered by the above referenced fund transfer agreement.
I. CALTRANS RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. Caltrans shall provide a portion of funding for the Riverside County FSP program,
as provided in the Caltrans/RC SAFE fund transfer agreement, and the resources
needed by the CHP to carry out CHP responsibilities.
B. Caltrans shall supply all reasonable information required for evaluation of the FSP
effectiveness in reducing congestion, accidents, and improving air quality.
II. CHP RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. CHP shall be responsible for all necessary daily field supervision and oversight of
the quality of the tow contractors' services.
B. CHP shall dispatch FSP vehicles based on information regarding the need for
services received at the CHP Inland Communications Center and within the FSP
contractors' scope of services and shall record the information on the Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.
C. CHP shall provide training to all FSP contractors and operators. This shall include
training materials. The FSP contractors and operators shall be trained prior to
providing FSP service, with training updates occurring on an as needed basis.
D. The CHP shall investigate complaints from the public regarding FSP
contractor/operator conduct and operation and will further report to RC SAFE and
Caltrans via the Technical Advisory Committee (See Article IV.C.1) its findings
and appropriate action taken.
000076
•
•
•
2
•
•
•
E. CHP shall perform all necessary driver's license and background checks on all FSP
owners and operators.
F. CHP shall inspect all tow trucks prior to the start of a new contract and will
perform inspections on a periodic basis during service.
G. Within 10 working days of receipt, CHP shall audit contractors' monthly invoices
for accuracy and transmit the invoices to RC SAFE for payment.
III. RC SAFE RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. RC SAFE shall provide a portion of the funding for the FSP program as provided
in the Caltrans /RC SAFE fund transfer agreement, including any later
amendments.
B. RC SAFE shall develop, advertise, award and administer the FSP contracts for the
Riverside County FSP Program.
C. RC SAFE, using data supplied by Caltrans and the CHP, shall periodically provide
FSP statistics for use by all three agencies.
IV. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. Caltrans, RC SAFE, and CHP shall jointly and cooperatively define the FSP
program, as well as the appropriate FSP level of service and the equipment
requirements necessary to operate and manage the program.
B. CHP and Caltrans may only use the FSP program system within the limits of the
FSP operators' contracts and resources available for traffic system management
purposes, as described in this agreement. The prime purpose will be for incident
removal and service.
C. Caltrans, RC SAFE and CHP shall provide representation for the FSP Technical
Advisory Committee which will guide program development, implementation,
operation, evaluation and public relations.
1. The Technical Advisory Committee shall consist of representatives
from RC SAFE, CHP, Caltrans and when appropriate, nonvoting
representatives from the FSP contractors. The Technical Advisory
Committee shall meet every two months or on an as needed basis.
000077
3
V. CROSS INDEMNIFICATION
A. Neither CHP or Caltrans (STATE) nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible
for any damage or any liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be
done by RC SAFE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction
delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that,
pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RC SAFE shall fully defend, indemnify
and save harmless the STATE, all officers and employees, from all claims, suits or
actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on -account of injury (as
defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by RC SAFE under or in connection with any work, authority, or
jurisdiction delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement.
B. Neither RC SAFE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
any liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE
under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE
under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the RC SAFE,
all officers and employees, from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and
description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section
810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or
in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
Agreement.
000079
4
•
•
•
V. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS.
This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, and when all the
parties have signed such counterparts, it shall constitute a duplicate original.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR
FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BY: BY:
Chairman CALTRANS District Director
REVIEWED AND
RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL:
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL:
BY:
BY: CHP Division Commander
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY:
Best, Best & Krieger
Counsel to Riverside County
Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies
000079
5
AGENDA ITEfrI 13
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Contract Amendment to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck
Agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend, subject to Legal Counsel review, the Freeway Service Patrol
tow truck agreement with Hamner Towing, Inc. to add one FSP
construction vehicle to Beat #4 on SR -91; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program currently contracts with
three tow truck companies, Hamner Towing, Pepe's Towing, and Tri-City Towing,
to provide roving tow truck service on five segments or beats of SR -91, I-215/SR-
60, and 1-15. The agreements cover the normal days and hours of operation,
reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements of the
program.
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved a cooperative
agreement between the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and RCTC to fund an additional vehicle on SR -91 during the construction/pavement
rehabilitation project period. The project limits are from the Mary Street overpass
to the SR -91/60/I-215 interchange, which is currently covered by Beat #4 of the
FSP program. The agreement provides for 100% reimbursement to RCTC for the
hourly cost of the vehicle, miscellaneous operating expenses, and RCTC's overhead
costs not to exceed $300,000.
The contract with the existing tow truck operator, Hamner Towing, must now be
amended to include the additional vehicle at a cost of $111,265 for the balance of
fiscal year 2001-02. RCTC will not incur any additional cost as a result of this
contract amendment.
• Attachment
000080
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2001-02 Amount: $111,265.00
Source of Funds: State of California
GLA No.: 201-45-81014
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Budget Adjustment: Yes
Date: 10/22/01
000081
•
•
Agreement No. 02-45-027
•
•
AMENDMENT NO. 6
TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT WITH
HAMNER TOWING, INC.
1. Parties and Date. This Amendment No. 6 is made and entered into this th
day of , 2001 by and between the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway
Emergencies ("SAFE"), a public entity and Hamner Towing, Inc. ("Contractor").
2. Recitals.
2.1 SAFE and Contractor have entered into an agreement dated June 3, 1996
for the provision of freeway service patrol on behalf of SAFE (the "Master Agreement").
2.2 SAFE has now requested and Contractor has agreed to the following
amendments to the Master Agreement as described herein.
3. Terms.
3.1 Effective November 19, 2001, the Agreement shall be amended to include
four (4) trucks on Beat No. 4 at $42.50 per hour, for a total of $342,234.00.
3.2 Except as provided by this Amendment No. 6 and earlier amendments, all
provisions of the Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity insurance provisions,
shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this
Agreement.
00008^
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR
FREEWAY EMERGENCIES
HAMNER TOWING, INC.
By: By:
William G. Kleindienst, Chairman
(Title)
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED
FOR APPROVAL:
By:
Eric A. Haley, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best, Best & Krieger
Counsel, Riverside County Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies
000083
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEfrf 14
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications
SUBJECT:
Cooperative Agreement for the Operation of a Construction
Freeway Service Patrol on SR -91
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Authorize the Chair to execute an agreement between the State of
California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County
SAFE, subject to Legal Counsel review, for the operation of a
Construction Freeway Service Patrol on SR -91; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program operates one of its five
beats on a segment of SR -91, between Magnolia Avenue and the SR -60/91/I-215
interchange with three roving tow trucks during the morning and afternoon
commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and
local SAFE fees (20%).
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be constructing Auxiliary
Lanes and upgrading the Fiber Optic System at selected locations through
downtown Riverside from Magnolia Avenue to Brockton Avenue on SR -91.
It is Caltrans' desire to implement a construction freeway service patrol during the
construction period to assist in transportation system management efforts, provide
traffic congestion relief and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of
which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents and improving air quality in
the construction zone. Furthermore, Caltrans would prefer to use the existing
RCTC FSP contractor to not only better coordinate service but also eliminate any
duplication of service and/or problems that could arise if there were two different
operators. The existing contractor, Hamner Towing, has agreed to perform the
service at their current hourly rate of $42.50 per truck per hour.
000084
The attached agreement provides for State funding for the construction period
estimated to begin in December 2001 and terminating upon completion of the
project, on June 30, 2005, in the amount of $ 100,000. The agreement will cover
all costs associated with the additional truck and RCTC's administrative overhead
costs.
Attachment
000085
•
•
•
08-Riv-91-KP 11.9/34.9
(PM 7.39/21.69)
Freeway Service Patrol
in Riverside County
08303 - 4353U1
District Agreement No. 8-1157
FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, entered into on , is between the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as
"STATE", and
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY,
FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, a public
entity, referred to herein as "RC SAFE".
RECITALS
(1) Under Streets and Highways Code Section 114, STATE and RC SAFE may enter into a
Cooperative Agreement for maintenance of State highways within the County of
Riverside.
(2) STATE and RC SAFE currently have Service Patrol during commute hours and have
determined that, due to the nature of the construction project, an additional
Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP) is necessary to assist in transportation
system management efforts, provide traffic congestion relief, and expedite the removal
of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents
and improving air quality within the construction zone.
(3) STATE and RC SAFE mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in this
additional CFSP, and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the
CFSP is to be financed and conducted.
1
OOOO8
District Agreement No.8-1157
SECTION I
STATE AGREES:
(1) To define or specify, in cooperation with RC SAFE, the State highway segments to be
served by the CFSP as well as equipment, if any, that will be funded under the CFSP
contract. The CFSP will be funded under STATE Project EA 4353U1. The proposed
project consists of Constructing Auxiliary Lanes and installing and connecting CCTV,
VDS and RMS to Fiber Optic System at selected locations through downtown Riverside
from Magnolia Avenue to Brockton Avenue.
(2) To deposit with RC SAFE for CFSP within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing
therefor (which billing will be forwarded fifteen (15) days prior to RC SAFE
contracting with its CFSP contractor), the amount of $100,000 which figure represents
STATE's total obligation for said anticipated CFSP contract costs under this
Agreement, and shall not exceed the amount of $100,000, except that STATE, at its
sole discretion, in writing, may authorize a greater amount.
SECTION II
RC SAFE AGREES:
(1) To develop, advertise and award, in cooperation with STATE, the CFSP contract for
the selected locations of freeway within the construction project, using existing RC
SAFE Freeway Service Patrol Towing Contractors. The existing towing contractors
have been chosen as a result of RC SAFE's standard contract process for competitive
bid process for Freeway Service Patrol. The contract awarded was based on price and
qualifications of each contractor.
(2) To contract competitively for the necessary communications system and related
equipment which may include voice, data, and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)
terminal and affiliated software.
(3) To submit billing in the amount of $100,000 to STATE 15 days prior to RC SAFE's
bid advertising date for RC SAFE Freeway Service Patrol Towing Contractors.
(4) To submit CFSP operational contract invoices and receipts of actual expenditures to
STATE at the completion of construction and prior to acceptance of the construction
project under STATE PROJECT EA 4353U1.
000087
2
•
•
•
(5)
District Agreement No.8-1157
To deposit all STATE funds transferred to RC SAFE into an interest bearing account
whereby the principal and interest earned shall be available for the CFSP. The CFSP
fund must be a unique CFSP fund, separate from other RC SAFE funds.
(6) Upon completion of the construction project, to furnish STATE with a detailed
statement of the total direct costs for CFSP contract to be borne by STATE. RC SAFE
thereafter shall refund to STATE (promptly after completion of RC SAFE's final
accounting of CFSP contract costs), any amount of STATE's funds remaining after
actual final costs to be borne by STATE have been deducted, or to bill STATE for any
additional amount required to complete STATE's financial obligation pursuant to this
Agreement, subject to the limitations of STATE's funds as stipulated in said Section I,
Article 2.
SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:
(1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this
Agreement.
(2) All obligations of RC SAFE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to
authorization and allocation of resources by RC SAFE.
(3) RC SAFE and STATE shall jointly define the scope of the CFSP as well as the
appropriate level of CFSP funding recommendations and scope of service and
equipment required to provide and manage the CFSP. No changes shall be made unless
mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement.
(4) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations
to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of
either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the
maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law.
(5) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RC SAFE under
or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RC SAFE under
this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
Section 895.4, RC SAFE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of
California, all officers and employees, from all claims, suits or actions of every name,
kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government
3
000082
District Agreement No.8-1157
Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RC
SAFE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RC
SAFE under this Agreement.
(6) Neither RC SAFE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under
or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under
this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code
Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RC SAFE from
all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on
account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason
of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any
work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement.
(7) Each of the contracting parties shall be subject to examination and audit for a period of
three (3) years after final payment under the Cooperative Agreement in accordance with
Government Code Section 8546.7. In addition, RC SAFE and STATE may be subject
to the examination and audit by representatives of either party. The examination and
audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of the contract
including, but not limited to, the costs of administering the contract.
(8) The actual costs of the CFSP referred to in this Agreement shall conform and comply
with provisions and/or regulations contained in Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-87. "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments" (Federal Acquisitions Regulations 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, Subpart
31.602). RC SAFE also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with
49 CFR, Part 18, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments". Any costs for which payment has been
made to RC SAFE that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under
OMB Circular A-87, or 49 CFR Part 18, are subject to repayment by RC SAFE to
STATE.
000089
4
District Agreement No.8-1157
•
•
•
(9)
This Agreement may be terminated by STATE or RC SAFE at any time by giving
thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. If terminated by STATE, STATE
shall reimburse RC SAFE for all mutually agreed upon costs associated with this
Agreement for services already performed. If terminated by RC SAFE, RC SAFE
shall reimburse STATE for all mutually agreed upon costs associated with this
Agreement for services already performed. Unused and uncommitted funds shall be
refunded to the appropriate party.
(10) This Agreement shall terminate on completion of the project. EA 4353U1, unless
earlier terminated or on June 30, 2005. Upon termination, any unexpended STATE
funds, plus accrued interest in those funds, in the possession of RC SAFE, shall be
returned to STATE. All equipment purchased with STATE funds shall be returned to
STATE.
NOTE: Signatures are on Page 6
5
•
000090
District Agreement No.8-1157
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY
EMERGENCIES
JEFF MORALES
Director of Transportation By:
William G. Kleindienst
Chairman
By:
ANNE E. MAYER
District Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
PROCEDURE:
REVIEWED AND
RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL:
ERIC HALEY
Attorney, Executive Director
Department of Transportation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS:
By:
District Budget Manager Steven C. DeBaum
Best, Best and Krieger
CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL
TERMS AND POLICIES:
Accounting Administrator
000091.
6
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 15
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Planning and Conservation League (PCL) — Traffic Congestion
Relief Initiative
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Review the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) — Traffic
Congestion Relief Initiative and its potential impacts to Inland Empire
transportation agencies; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Planning and Conservation League earlier this year sponsored two pieces of
legislation to transfer the State's share of sales tax on new and used car sales,
generating an estimated $2.7 billion to a new transportation account that would
then be distributed into 16 different categories. Neither bill made it out of the first
committee so the PCL has opted to proceed with an initiative tentatively scheduled
for the November 2002 ballot. The attached discussion document details the
initiative and how it potentially impacts the Inland Empire transportation agencies.
Attachment
•
•
Discussion Document
Planning and Conservation League
Traffic Congestion Relief Act Initiative
RCTC/SAN BAG
The Traffic Congestion Relief Act (TCRA) sponsored by the Planning and Conservation
League (PCL), is a statewide initiative that is tentatively scheduled for the November
2002 General Election. According to PCL briefing material for the TCRA, the TCRA
allocates 30% of the State's share of the sales tax on motor vehicles (cars and trucks),
approximately $870 million, to "transportation improvements." The TCRA distributes the
revenues on a percentage basis to 14 "transportation" project categories.
It is important to note that PCL has modified the TCRA on several occasions. Initially,
the TCRA allocated the State's entire share of the sales tax on motor vehicle sales and
leases and sales tax on gasoline totaling nearly $4 billion to 16 categories. The first
revision of the TCRA maintained the 16 categories but called for "off the top" funding for
a number of high priority projects. With the State Legislature passing a Constitutional
Amendment to be considered by the California voters to dedicate the sales tax on
gasoline to transportation, PCL dropped that element from the latest revision to the
TCRA, which, based on current sales tax on motor vehicle fuel revenue estimates
should reduce the total amount available from the sale and lease of vehicles to
approximately $2.9 billion. Also, PCL reduced the sales tax on motor vehicles to 30% of
the State's share, leaving approximately $870 million (according to PCL briefing
material) available for the remaining 14 categories and kept many of the high priority
projects, albeit at far lesser allocations. Another revision was released on the PCL
website on September 18, 2001 that includes a change in one of the 14 categories and
the elimination of several "off the top" high priority projects.
Furthermore, it has been speculated that a contributing factor to the reduction to 30% of
the State's share of the sales tax is because of what special interests, including local
government, public employee unions, law enforcement, among others, thought would be
an extreme impact on the State General Fund. The concern being that in spite in the
inclusion of intent language within the TCRA that no interest group should be negatively
impact should the measure pass, any loss in state revenues would need to be recovered
at some point and that recovery may come at the future expense of any one of the
above mentioned interests. This concern is reduced commensurately with the reduction
to 30% of the State's share of motor vehicle sales tax revenue but does not go away
entirely as the State has a history of balancing the State budget at the expense of local
government.
Additionally, PCL has crafted the TCRA so that when the State's General Fund revenue
does not grow adequately to cover the cost of the TCRA program, the allocations to the
categories are suspended. Theoretically, this clause was included to protect local
government, education, law enforcement, among other interests from experiencing
reductions in order to keep the TCRA whole. However, this requirement may prove to
be problematic, particularly for large multi -year construction projects or on -going
programs that require an annual allocation in order to continue construction or operate
transit services.
Finally, while the title of the initiative is the Traffic Congestion Relief Act, even a liberal
interpretation of the measure's 14 expenditure categories, shows that only 60% of the
000093
$870 million in revenues may be used for traffic congestion relief while the remaining
40% must be used for environmental or safety purposes or for special public transit. If
you consider highway improvements specifically the number drops to only 24% of the
total expenditures. It is not that the non -traffic congestion relief categories are not
important, but by calling the measure the Traffic Congestion Relief Act a voter might
assume that the entire $870 million is to be dedicated to traffic congestion relief.
As a comparison, if the $870 million were distributed on the 40% STIP, 20% city, 20%
county, 20% PTA; formula as prescribed in ACA 4, the sales tax on gasoline
constitutional amendment, Riverside and San Bernardino counties would receive an
estimated $7.3 million and 7.9 million annually, respectively, for local streets and roads.
Riverside County cities and San Bernardino County cities would receive an estimated
$5.7 million and $7.3 million annually respectively for city streets and roads. RCTC and
SANBAG, as the transportation programming agencies could anticipate $13 million and
15.6 million annually in added programming capacity. Cumulatively, under the 40%,
20%, 20%, 20% formula, each county would receive in excess of $25 million annually.
The following is a summary of the 14 categories and the funding that may be received by
San Bernardino County and Riverside County jurisdictions.
Congestion Bottlenecks: 16% - $139 million/year - This funds road or public transit
improvement projects in urban areas that increase the flow of traffic along existing roads
with priority going to projects that were included in the Traffic Congestion Relief Program
as part of AB 2928.
After taking funding off the top for several "priority" projects, the California Transportation
Commission is responsible for granting the balance of the funds and must comply with
existing law of allocating 60% of the funds to southern California and 40% to northern
California. The TCRA does not include a requirement to ensure that counties receive a
"county minimum" as is the case in the State Transportation Improvement Program
process, so to assume that each County will receive its' fair share is not accurate. Due
to population density requirements included in this section of the TCRA, all cities in the
San Bernardino County high desert, and the City of Big Bear, are not eligible recipients
of these funds as is the case for 4 western Riverside County and 6 CVAG cities.
Transit Operations: 16% - $139 million/year - This category dedicates a substantial
revenue source to all forms of public transit. This can include operations costs for bus
service, light rail, commuter rail, and funds needed to maintain and rehabilitate transit
equipment and facilities.
These funds are distributed consistent with current Public Transportation Account
methodology that dictates 50% of the revenues go to the state for transit programs, such
as Inter -city rail and transportation planning and the other 50% to transit operators based
on population and revenue miles. Riverside County operators and San Bernardino
County operators could anticipate receiving $1.8 million and $2 million respectively.
Transit Capital: 21% - $183 million/year - This money can be used to make station
improvements, increase access for cyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled to bus
stations and lines, as well as buy buses, train sets, rail cars, construct new rail lines,
improve existing lines, make seismic retrofit repairs, make track and signal
improvements, and purchase rail rights of way.
000094
The California Transportation Commission allocates funding based on a cost-
effectiveness criteria to be adopted by the CTC and consistent with 60/40 south -north
split. The TCRA lists several high priority projects that receive funding off the top
including 3 northern California projects receiving a total of $20 million for the first several
years of the program leaving approximately $160 million to be split 60/40 with no county
minimum guarantees.
Seniors and Disabled/Dial-a-Ride: 3% - $26 million/year - This is a major expansion of
operating and capital funding for the transit -dependent and other individuals. The
program could fund several types of services, including dial -a -ride, dedicated service,
jitneys, and more. It would enhance mobility and access for California's elderly
population.
PCL is currently considering a population based formula that allocates these funds to
regional transportation planning agencies that are then used to fund claims from transit
operators for qualifying services. The allocations to RCTC and SANBAG are estimated
at $1 million to each agency.
Rail/street Grade Separations: 3% - $26 million/year - This program provides money to
expand the state's significantly under funded grade separations programs. Grade
separations improve traffic flow, freight flow, passenger rail, and air quality, and reduce
noise.
High priority projects receive $15 million for the first four years of the program with the
balance of funds being allocated to the Public Utility Commission to fund grade
separation projects on a PUC priority list. There is no south/north split requirement.
Grade separation construction projects range from $15 million to in excess of $30
million. RCTC and SANBAG have identified an estimated $1 billion in grade separation
needs.
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation: 10% - $87 million/year - This fund
mitigates the impact of transportation systems on the environment. It can fund the
acquisition and creation of a wildlife corridor and related trail systems to mitigate for
transportation's effects on wildlife migration. Eligible projects also include the
preservation of land, pedestrian, bicycle, and wildlife crossings, flood control
improvements relating to transportation facilities, and landscaping, forestation and
recreational improvements to public park lands near major transportation corridors.
This funding is allocated to the State Resources Agency to award grants to public
entities and non-profit organization to undertake environmental enhancement and
mitigation activities. Riverside County is the recipient of one of this section's high priority
projects in the amount of $2 million/year for 19 years for implementation of the Riverside
County Integrated Plan. High priority projects receive $22.5 million annually for the first
10 years of the program leaving $64.5 million to split on the 60/40 south -north split.
There is no county minimum requirement.
Water Quality Transportation Enhancements: 2% - $17 million /year - This mitigation
fund is specific to the effect that transportation systems have on water quality.
The funds in this account are allocated to the State Water Resources Control Board for
capital outlay projects and grants. There is no south/north split requirement.
000095
Clean Fuel Bus/Heavy Duty Engines: 3% - $26 million/year - This category creates a
permanent, ongoing funding source for the Carl Moyer program. Aimed primarily at
reducing diesel exhaust, these monies can fund the incremental cost difference between
natural gas buses and diesel buses, purchase particulate traps for older diesel trucks
and buses, repower truck and bus engines (replacing diesel engines with natural gas
engines), and finance the full purchase of natural gas buses.
These funds are allocated to the California Air Resources Board and Air Quality
Management Districts to fund grants as part of the Carl Moyer program.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure and Safety: 4% - $35 million/year - This fund
provides infrastructure money for bicycle and pedestrian projects, including bike lanes,
pedestrian and bike paths, and signals. It provides money to law enforcement to enforce
speed limits and pedestrian safety laws in heavily used pedestrian and bike routes. This
money can also be used for paratransit needs at school bus stops. (3 separate
programs: bikes, pedestrians, enforcement).
Of the $35 million, 75% or $26 million is allocated to Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies on a per capita basis to be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The
Riverside County Transportation Commission would receive $1.17 million and the San
Bernardino Associated Governments would receive $ 1.3 million annually. The
remaining 25% or $9 million is allocated to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for
grants to law enforcement agencies for increased speed limit enforcement along heavily
used bicycle and pedestrian routes. This section includes a 60/40 south -north split but
no county minimum requirement.
Intercity Rail Capital and Operations: 4% - $35 million/year - This money can go
toward the operation of intercity and commuter rail service, such as the San Diegan, San
Joaquin, ACE train, the Capitol Corridor program, Metrolink, the Coaster, and Caltrain. It
can acquire rolling stock, construct new rail lines, and improve existing lines to benefit
passenger rail service. Placing the intercity rail projects in their own category means that
bus and light rail projects will be more competitive in the transit capital and transit
operations categories.
Riverside County, specifically the Coachella Valley, is the beneficiary of the single high -
priority project designated for funding in this section of the TCRA, a seven-year
allocation of $15 million annually for a total of $105 million to implement intercity rail
service from Los Angeles to Indio. These funds must first be expended on passenger
station construction at two locations in the Coachella Valley with a combined estimated
price tag of $15 million, then two 5-car/1-locamotive train sets at an estimated cost of
$36 million, and finally track and signal improvements stretching from Los Angeles to
Indio. The likelihood is that the allocation will suffice for 2/3rds of the capital cost
associated with starting this service but there is no other source of funding identified for
the balance of capital costs nor is there a certainty of operating funds being available
due to competition from the San Diegan and Capitol Corridor inter -city services which
would have priority pursuant to the TCRA because these corridors parallel far more
congested highway corridors.
The TCRA requires that this section be split 40%, or $14 million, for commuter rail
service and 60% or $ 21 million for inter -city service.
00009E
Rural Public Transit: 2% - $17 million/year - This fund provides services for the transit -
dependent that live in rural areas. Dial -a -ride, dedicated service, and jitney service could
be funded here in order to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and other health
problems, seniors, students, and persons with low incomes who do not drive motor
vehicles. It can also fund bus and other transit services for those without transit
dependency.
Riverside County and San Bernardino County do not qualify under this program as -the
TCRA cites State statute that specifically identifies the rural counties that are eligible to
receive this funding and Riverside and San Bernardino are not among them.
Transit -Oriented Development Incentives: 3% - $26 million/year This category will
support mixed use development within 1/3 of a mile of transit hubs, including affordable
housing, office space, retail that shares parking with the transit station, day care centers,
and libraries.
The Secretary of the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency allocates this
funding to Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) with populations in
excess of 1,000,000 and densities of 1000 persons per square mile. One interpretation
of the TCRA is that an RTPA must pass both of these tests to receive an allocation. If
that is the case, and the Southern California Association of Governments being the
RTPA for the six -county southern California region that has a population density of
approximately 450 persons per square mile, the SCAG region does not qualify to receive
these funds and thus could not award funds to Riverside or San Bernardino County
jurisdictions. If one or the other test is met, specifically the 1 million population, local
jurisdictions within the two counties would be eligible for grants to fund capitol outlay
projects to develop public use facilities associated with rail and bus transit stations.
Traffic Safety Improvements: 5% - $44 million/year — This section provides funding to
the California Transportation Commission for allocation to projects which improve
highway safety and is to be allocated strictly on the basis of the potential of the project to
reduce motorist, bicyclist, and pedestrian fatalities and injuries.
The Office of Traffic Safety and CALTRANS shall advise the CTC on the development of
this program.
This section replaces the Native American Road Safety program that was included in
prior versions of the TCRA.
School Bus Replacement: 8% - $70 million/year - This program replaces unsafe and
highly polluting school buses, and provides funds so that school districts can provide
safe student transportation, reducing the need for parents to drive their children to and
from school, thus reducing congestion.
These funds are allocated to the State Department of Education for a competitive grant
program to replace old, polluting school buses. There is no south -north split requirement
nor is there a requirement that these funds only be allocated to local school districts in
severe air -quality non -attainment areas although presumably the California Air
Resources Board would recommend this as one criteria for receiving these funds.
000097
AGENDA ITEfrI 16
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
October 29, 2001
TO:
Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM:
Darren Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
State and Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and File the State and Federal Legislative Update as an
information item; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Update
The last day for the Governor to act on bills presented to him by the Legislature
was October 14, 2001. As was reported at the September Budget and
Implementation Committee and Commission meetings, the significant
transportation measures, specifically ACA 4, were concluded earlier in the year and
were not subject to the annual "11' hour" onslaught of bills being considered by
the Legislature. The Governor received several hundred bills from the Legislature
during the last week of the session. Staff will verbally report on actions on bills as
necessary.
Federal Update
As the federal government begins the 2001-02 fiscal year, Congress is keeping the
government operating by passing a series of Continuing Resolutions that fund
federal government agencies at prior year levels. The Transportation
Appropriations bill is still pending consideration by the House/Senate Conference
Committee with no schedule set for convening the committee and the Senate not
yet appointing conferees. Staff will provide a verbal report should the Conference
Committee convene and conclude deliberations prior to the Budget and
Implementation Committee meeting.
Attachment
00009'�
• RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMIS/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCI ATED GOVERNMENTS •
POSITIONS 0 ATE LEGISLATION
Legislation/
Author
Description
Bill
Stat us
Position
Dat e of Board
Adoption
AB 33
(Romero)
In the event of a lab or dispute, this bill w ould establish the LACMTA
Lab or Relations Trust Funds as a c ontinuously appropriated fund in the
State Treasury and would require the m oney in the fund to be
appropriated to the State Audit or .
This bill is dead.
No position
take n.
AB 37
(Strickland)
This bill would exempt mot or vehicle fuel and diesel fuel from sales tax .
This bill is dead .
OPPOSE
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
AB 132
(Horton)
This bill would amend the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to provide that a
public agency shop agreement may apply to management, confidential,
or supervisory employees.
Signed by the
Govern or 9/8/01 .
No position
taken.
AB 133
(Alquist)
This bill would authorize RTPA's to include other factors of l ocal
significance as an element of the RTP .
Signed by the
Governor 7/23/01 .
No position
taken.
AB 227
(Longville)
This bill would ex tend indefinitely the period during which the Controller
would be required to make the quarterly transfers from the General
Fund to the TIF, and thereby would make an appropriation.
Two -Year Bill.
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 3/7/01
RCTC: 3/14/01
AB 257
(Longville)
Existing law authorizes a county, and cities within the county, to create
a service authority for freeway emergencies for the purpose of
establishing and implementing an emergency motorist aid system on
po rtions of the Califo rnia Freeway and Expressway System located
within the county in which the authority is established. Existing law
allows the autho rity to contract with the Departme nt of the California
Highway Patro l or a private entity to respond to th ose calls. This bill
would make technical changes in that law.
Two -Year Bill.
•
No p osition
taken.
AB 321
(Vargas)
This bill wo uld require the State Board of Equalization to inform the
Controller of the amount and would require the Controll er to transfer
the amount to the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust Fund, which
the bill would establish in the State Treasury.
This bill is dead .
No p ositi on
taken .
AB 381
(Papan)
This bill would require that an unspecified percentage of the money in
the account be available to the department for the purpose of providing
incentives to local governmen ts, local transit providers, private
developers and financial lenders fo r the citing and construction of
transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development within o ne -quarter
mile of an existing or planned transit station.
Tw o -Year Bill.
No position
taken .
AB 403
(Bates)
This bill would authorize the funds transferred as specified to cities,
c ounties, and cities and counties to be expended to fund transportation
services for the elderly, as defined, if all of certain conditions are met.
The bill thereby wo uld make an appropriation by ex panding the
purposes for which continuously appropriated funds may be expended.
This bill is dead.
No position
taken.
F:\users\preprin t\js\legmat. doc
Legislation/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
P ositio n
Date of Board
Adopti on
AB 419
(Dutra)
O
This bill w ould authorize, until January 1, 2010, certain transp ortatio n
authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on transportation
projects, including a requirement that certain information be verifi ed
under oath. Because a verification under oath is made under penalty of
perjury, the bill would impose a state -mandated local program by
changing the definiti on of a crime .
Two -Year Bill .
No positi on
taken .
CAB 608
`Ct ickerso n)
J
This bill pr ovides that, if a transportati on projects contract award
amount is more than 20% below the project c ost estimate, the
California Transportation Commission could adjust county share funding
allocations to reflect the savings, thereby increasing the funds available
for (re)programming in the affected county or counties. The bill
authorizes an increase in the percentage of a region's transp ortati on
funds, which can be used for project administrative expenses . The
percentage increase would vary among agencies, depending on whether
the agencies receive federal planning funds .
On the Go vern or's
Desk .
AB 631
(Oropeza)
This bill would require the CTC, in conjuncti on with the department and
state's regional transportation planning agencies, to prepare and submit
to the Governor a comprehensive statewide transportation needs
assessment containing specified information regardi ng unfunded
transportation needs every 5 years beginning on 12/1/03. This bill
would require the needs assessment to include, to the e xtent possible,
a list compiled by the department and the regi onal agencies
participating in the needs assessment prioritizing their top 10 unfunded
pro jects.
Vet oed by Governor
10/10/01.
No p osition
taken .
AB 710
(Chavez)
Existing law requires the DOT to develo p contract specifications to
conduct a statewide study of techn ically feasible and available cost-
effective means to reduce 4- and 5 -axle truck traffic from congested
urban freeways during commute hours. This bill would delete the
provisions of the existing law.
This bill is dead.
No position
taken.
AB 860
(Negrete-
McLeo d)
"Spot Bill" that includes Legislative intent language to fund
transportatio n projects that will mitigate the impacts of local traffic
impacts caused by the construction of the Alameda Corridor.
Two -Year Bill .
SUPPORT
WITH
AMENDMENTS
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
AB 1039
(Oro peza)
This bill wo uld eliminate the $1 millio n cap on funding received by the
Southern California Association of Go vernments from RCTC, SANBAG,
OCTA, and LACMTA to be used for transportatio n planning.
This bill is dead.
WATCH
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
AB 1091
(Pacheco)
This bill would prov ide that any provision in a contract for the design,
construction, maintenance, or operatio n of a transportatio n facility,
entered into between a state entity and private party, is vo id if the
pro vision purports to limit the authority of the state to exercise its
jurisdiction ov er the state highway system, or any other transportation
system that is subjec t to state jurisdictio n, in order to minimize
competitio n with the transportation facility.
Vetoed by the
Governor 10/9/01.
No position
take n.
F:\users\preprint\js\legrnat.doc
•
•
•
Legislation/
A
Descripti on
Bill
Status
Position
to of B oard
*Adoption
AB 03
(Hollingsworth)
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislaturthat alternative
routes that may be used to tra vel from Ri verside County to Ora nge
County be evaluated and considered.
Two -Year Bill.
No position
taken .
AB 1396
(Lon gville)
This bill w ould creat e the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety, and
Modernizati on Program Subacc ount to the Public Transp ortati on
Account and appr opriates $100,000,000 from the State General Fund
to the subaccount to be used f or commuter and light rail impr ovement,
modernization and safety projects.
Referred to Assembly
Appropriations
Committee . In
Committee, held
under submission
5/31/01 .
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
AB 1463
(Longville)
Existing law requires a c ourt in an eminent domain action to award the
defendant his or her litigation expens es whenever the proceeding is
wholly or partly dismissed or when the final judgment is that the
plaintiff cannot acquire the property s ought . This bill would specify that
the court is required to award the defendant his or her litigation
expenses whenever the proceeding is wholly or partly dismissed,
provided that the defendant owned or had an interest in the property
that is the subject of the litigation .
Signed by the
Governor 8/13/01.
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 1/8/01
RCTC: 1/10/01
AB 1587
(Pacheco)
Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to improve
and maintain the state highways . This bill, contingent upon an
appropriation in the annual Budget Act f or the purposes of the bill,
would require the County of Riverside, in consultati on with a steering
committee comprised of representatives fr om Orange County, the
Orange Co unty Transportation Authority, the Transportation C orridor
Agencies of Orange Co unty, the City of Riverside, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, the City of Corona, and Districts 8 and 12
of the department, to complete and submit to the Legislature, not later
than July 1, 2003, a study and route alignment to de vel op and gain
legislative approv al for an alternative to the State Highway Route 91
transpo rtation corrido r fro m Riverside County to Orange County . The
bill would require the study to address the issues of the jobs and
housing balance in the area, the movement of goods and services, and
environmental protections.
Two -Year Bill .
SUPPORT
RCTC: 5/9/01
SB 10 (So to)
Existing law requires the DOT, in consultation with the California
Highway Patro l, to establish and administer a "Safe Ro utes to School"
constructio n program pursuant to authority granted under specified
federal law and to use federal transportatio n funds for construction of
bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic calming projects. This bill
would delete an obso lete study and reporting provision and the January
1, 2002 repeal date, thereby extending the program indefinitely. .
Signed by the
Go vernor 10/7/01.
No position
taken .
SB 18
(Alarcon)
Existing law provides for the membership of the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority. This bill would require that 6 of
the members of the autho rity be elected and would otherwise
substantially revise the membership of the authority.
This bill is dead .
No position
taken .
F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc
Legislation/
Author
Description
Bill
Status
Position
Date of Board
Adoption
SB 106
(Sher)
3
3
Existing law authorizes the establishme nt of a service authority and the
importance of a $ 1 service fee in a county if the county b oard of
supervisors, by a 2/3 vote, and a maj ority of the cities having a
majority of the inc orp orated population within the cou nty, ad opt a
resolution establishing the authority and the imposition of a service fee
on vehicles, as specified . This bill would limit the authority to suspend
the ser vice fee to abateme nt pr ograms that ha ve been in existence for
at least 2 full fiscal years and would require e very service authority that
imposes a service fee to issue a fiscal year end report, as specified, to
the Controller on or before October 31 of each year. The bill would
require each ser vice authority that fails to submit the report by
November 30 of each year to ha ve its fee suspended for one year .
Signed by the
Governor, 8/12/01 .
No positi on
taken.
SB 116
(Kuehl)
This bill would prohibit a state or local agency from c onstructing, or
approving the construction of any public r oad, or from making any
impro vement to an existing road that substantially increases vehicular
traffic capacity in or through any pr operty under jurisdiction of the
State Department of Parks and Recreati on .
Two -Year Bill .
OPPOSE
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
SB 127
(Jo hnson)
Under existing law, certain local entities are authorized to use design-
build pro curement fo r specified types of projects . This bill w ould
require the Legislative Analyst to c onduct a study and report to the
Legislature on the appropriateness of expanding the number of local
government entities that may use design -build procurement.
This bill is dead .
No position
taken.
SB 171
(McClintock)
This bill would authorize a transportation gridlock emergency to be
declared for the purpo se of relieving traffic c ongestion on any highway
or segment of highway for the DOT has determined that the average
daily vehicle hours of delay, excluding weekends, exceeds 3,000
vehicle hours.
Tw o -Year Bill .
No position
taken .
SB 618
(Margett)
This bill would require expenditures fo r retrofitting s oundwalls included
on Caltrans priority list to be funded prior to making state transportation
funds available for interregio nal and regional capital impr ovement
projects in the STIP.
This bill is dead.
OPPOSE
SANBAG: 4/4/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
SB 759
(Murray)
Existing law requires that a regional or local receiving an allocation from
the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund certify that it will sustain its level of
expenditures of transportation purposes at a level that is consistent
with the average of its annual expenditures during the 97/98, 98/99,
and 99/00 fiscal years. This bill would make technical, non -substantive
changes in this provision
Signed by Governor
10/14/01.
No position
taken.
SB 790
(Karnette)
This bill would specify that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation that removes restrictions on county share advances from the
State Transportation Improv ement Pro gram process to promote efficient
use of transportation funding.
Tw o -Year Bill.
No p osition
taken.
SB 829
(Karnette)
This bill extends indefinitely the transfer of mo tor v ehicle fuel sales tax
revenues from the State General Fund to the Transpo rtation
Improv ement Fund.
This bill is dead.
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 5/9/01
F:\u sers\preprin t\js\legmat.doc
•
•
Legisla 'on/
Au
SB 10
(Dunn)
SB 956
(Ackerman)
ACA 2
(Vargas)
ACA 4
(Dutra,
Longv ille)
A CA 9
(Dutra)
ACR 81
Descripti on
This bill wo uld pro vide that, in any acti on filed on or a rr
January 1, 2002, challe nging the validity of a h ousing element, there
shall be a rebuttable presumption of n onvalidity of the element or
amendment if the department has found that the elem ent or
amendme nt does not substantially comply.
Existing law provides for the funding of state, local, and regional
highway projects. This bill would declare th e intent of the Legislature
to appropriate $500,000,000 annually from the General Fund for the
purpose of funding the annual maintenanc e cost of, and to begin to
address a backlog in deferred maintenance for, local streets and roads .
This measure would imp ose c ertain conditions upon a loan to the
General Fund of funds in the Congestion Relief Transportation Trust
Fund in the State Treasury, which fund would be created separately by
statute, or the Transp ortation Investment Fund in the State Treasury, or
any successor to either of those funds. Contains other related
provisions.
This measure wo uld lock in, f or transportation purposes, the dedication
of the state's sales tax revenues collected at the gas pump that
heretofore hav e accrue d in the State General Fund.
Amended to a non -transportation related activity, pro visi ons are now
part of ACA 4.
Bill
Status
Two -Year Bill.
This bill is dead.
This bill is dead.
Expected to be placed
on March 2002 v oter
ballot .
SCA 5
Assembly Con current Resolutio n urging the California Department
of Transportatio n, RCTC, and OCTA to facilitate the establishment of
an alte rnative transpo rtation corridor between Riverside and Orange
Counties.
Assembly Flo or . Tw o -
Year Bill .
Senate Co nstitutional Amendment to dedicate the sales tax on gasoline
to transportatio n purposes an d set a simple majority vote requirement
for local transportation sales tax measures.
Tw o -Year Bill.
F:\users\preprint\js\Iegmat.doc
Position
Oa of Board
doption
OPPOSE
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 4/11/01
No position
tak en .
No p ositi on
taken.
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 5/2/01
RCTC: 5/9/01
SUPPORT
SANBAG: 5/2/01
SUPPORT
SANBAG:
7/11/01
RCTC:
7/11/01
SUPPORT
SANBAG:
7/11/01
RCTC:
7/11/01