Loading...
01 January 9, 2019 CommissionComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, January 9, 2019 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMISSIONERS Chair – Chuck Washington Vice Chair – Ben J. Benoit Second Vice Chair – Jan Harnik Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2 Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5 To Be Appointed / Art Welch, City of Banning Lloyd White / Nancy Carroll, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe Larry Smith / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Randall Bonner / Vicki Warren, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / To Be Appointed, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Megan Jacinto, City of Coachella Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet Dana Reed / To Be Appointed, City of Indian Wells Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee Victoria Baca / Ulises Cabrera, City of Moreno Valley Scott Vinton / Randon Lane, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Jon R. Roberts, City of Palm Springs Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Matt Rahn, City of Temecula Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar Janice Benton, Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 9, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three-minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 12, 2018 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda January 9, 2019 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. 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. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2018. 7B. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY FOR THE RELOCATION OF A BRINE LINE FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 10 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-149-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 18-31-149-00 with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) for additional costs related to the relocation of a brine line for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of $11,000, for a total amount not to exceed $86,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda January 9, 2019 Page 3 7C. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 FOR PROJECT APPROVAL/ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PHASE OF THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT - SOUTHERN EXTENSION Page 16 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-032-00, a cooperative agreement between the Commission and the California Department of Transportation, District 8 (Caltrans) for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project-Southern Extension (I-15 ELPSE); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute all future necessary non-funding interagency agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7D. POLICY FOR COMMISSION-FUNDED LANDSCAPE AND AESTHETICS Page 40 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 19-001, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Policy for Commission-Funded Landscape and Aesthetics”; and 2) Adopt a policy on the appropriate level of landscape and aesthetics costs for Commission-funded projects. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 MID-YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Page 44 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the mid-year Fiscal Year 2018/19 revenue projections of $192 million for Measure A revenues, $96 million for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, and $24 million for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues; 2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to Measure A revenues of $5 million and expenditures of $2,075,000 to reflect the revised Measure A projections; Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda January 9, 2019 Page 4 3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF revenues of $2 million and transfers in of $315,000, and expenditures and transfers out of $394,000 to reflect the revised LTF projections; and 4) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $3 million to reflect the revised TUMF projections. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 REVENUE PROJECTIONS Page 50 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the projections for Measure A revenues of $193 million for Fiscal Year 2019/20; 2) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment of $97 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2019/20; and 3) Approve the projections for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $25 million for FY 2019/20. 10. STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT FUNDING, ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 18-31-146-00 to Skanska USA Civil West (Skanska) to construct the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project (Project), in the amount of $95,994,000, plus a contingency amount of $10,047,705 for potential change orders and supplemental work during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $106,041,705; 2) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-038-00 with the state of California for an amount not to exceed $1,040,070 for California Highway Patrol (CHP) Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services; 3) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-027-00 with Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for compensatory mitigation for the Project in the amount of $413,400, plus a contingency amount of $10,000 to cover administrative fees, for a total amount not to exceed $423,400; 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be required for the Project; and 5) Authorize Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda January 9, 2019 Page 5 11. 2019 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND PREVIEW Page 117 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the Commission’s 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform; and 2) Receive and file a report on State and Federal Legislation for 2019. 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 14. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission Workshop is scheduled to be held on Thursday and Friday January 31-February 1, Temecula Creek Inn, Temecula, CA. AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Dana Reed at 9:32 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Andrew Kotyuk* Steven Hernandez Victoria Baca Linda Krupa V. Manuel Perez Rusty Bailey Bob Magee Ted Weill Ben J. Benoit Lisa Middleton Michael Wilson Brian Berkson Michael Naggar Russell Betts Dana Reed Randall Bonner Adam Rush Mark Carnevale Wes Speake Joseph DeConinck Syed Raza Kathleen Fitzpatrick John F. Tavaglione Berwin Hanna Michael M. Vargas Jan Harnik Chuck Washington Jim Hyatt Art Welch Jonathan Ingram Lloyd White Kevin Jeffries Bill Zimmerman *Arrived after meeting was called to order 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Clerk of the Board Lisa Mobley led the Commission in a flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Executive Director Anne Mayer, Chair Reed, Vice Chair Chuck Washington, and Second Vice Chair Ben J. Benoit joined departing Commissioner Tavaglione to honor and present him with an award. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 2 Commissioner Tavaglione expressed gratitude for being involved with the Commission, the leadership roles of the Commission, and how the Commission is an important agency not just for this County but also for the region for handling the bigger projects in the state. Chad Willardson, Elected City Treasurer for the City of Corona, expressed concern on how the Commission can protect and preserve the safety of people traveling on the toll lanes. He discussed when his wife and daughter were traveling home from Orange County in the FastTrack lanes on the SR-91 eastbound and a car cut across the barriers in front of his wife and caused a 10-car accident about a year ago due to safety concerns. A photo of the accident was depicted. He requested to consider investing into the safety of the Commission’s toll roads. Chair Reed expressed being grateful that Mr. Willardson’s family was not seriously harmed and hopefully no one was harmed in that tragic accident. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 14, 2018 M/S/C (Vargas/Bonner) to approve the November 14, 2018 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Carnevale, Hanna, Speake, and Welch 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There are no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Vargas/Ingram) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. 7A. PROPOSED 2019 COMMISSION/COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE Adopt its 2019 Commission/Committee Meeting Schedule. 7B. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE APPENDIX OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Adopt Resolution No. 18-019, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix of the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974”. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 3 7C. FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 COMMISSION AUDIT RESULTS 1) Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2017/18 a) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); b) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Financial and Compliance Report; c) State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund Financial and Compliance Report; d) State of Good Repair (SGR) Fund Financial and Compliance Report; e) Proposition 1B Rehabilitation and Security Project (Proposition 1B) Accounts Financial and Compliance Reports; f) Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Account Financial and Compliance Reports; g) Single Audit Report; h) RCTC 91 Express Lanes Fund Financial Report; i) Auditor Required Communications Report; j) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Appropriations Limit Calculation; k) Agreed-Upon Procedures Report related to the Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) incentives; and l) Management certifications. 7D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2018. 7E. REVISED EXPRESS LANES PRIVACY POLICY Adopt Resolution No. 18-017, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Express Lanes Privacy Policy”. 7F. AGREEMENT WITH FALCON ENGINEERING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT 1) Award Agreement No. 18-31-164-00 to Falcon Engineering to provide construction management (CM), materials testing, construction surveying and environmental monitoring services for the State Route 60 Truck Climbing Lanes project, in the amount of $15,920,498, plus a contingency amount of $1,592,050, for a total amount not to exceed $17,512,548; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 4 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. 7G. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 19-33-004-00 BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 19-33-004-00 between the Commission and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for the construction of the Riverside Layover Facility Improvement project (Project) for an amount not to exceed $156,200, plus a contingency amount of $15,800, for a total amount not to exceed $172,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the cooperative agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of a contingency, as may be required for these services. 7H. AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT TRIENNIAL AUDIT 1) Award Agreement No. 19-62-009-00 to Michael Baker International, Inc. for audit services for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Triennial Audit for a three-year term, plus one two-year option, in an amount not to exceed $220,815; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview for the revised annual Investment Policy. At this time, she introduced Dan Wiles, Principal with Fieldman, Rolapp, and Associates, to comment on the Commission’s due diligent process to update the policy. Dan Wiles explained annually the Commission goes through a process of reviewing investment policy updating and approving it, which is required by the California Government Code. He discussed the general process of how the Commission receives input from its investment advisors, they do a consultation and go through the investment policy and determine whether changes are warranted given where the market stands. The primary goal is to protect the funds the Commission has, which is the safety element of it and to protect the liquidity of those funds, and to try to enhance yield with having as Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 5 little impact as possible. Mr. Wiles discussed why the proposal was made consistent with California Law to add super nationals. In response to Chair Reed’s inquiry if other jurisdictions and other governmental entities are making these same changes, Dan Wiles replied some of them are and some of them are not. Every investment policy is always a reflection of the risk tolerance and sometimes the amount of funds. Theresia Trevino explained last week the County Treasurer’s Office amended its investment policy for the County and the Commission’s investment managers approached the Commission a few years ago to add super nationals. Based on discussions with the County the Commission and the County were not ready to do that. She discussed having a seat at the County’s Investment Oversight Committee based on a recent meeting there was discussion about the County adding the super nationals so she gained the comfort that these were appropriate investments to add an eligible investment type. Commissioner Jan Harnik stated this was discussed at Budget and Implementation Committee and expressed appreciation staff changed surplus funds to the Commission’s funds. She referred to the Investment Policy under III – Delegation of Authority and read the portion of the Executive Director may delegate these duties to his designee and she suggested changing that to gender neutral. Theresia Trevino replied it was changed to a designee. M/S/C (Benoit/Harnik) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 18-018, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy”; and 2) Adopt the revised annual Investment Policy. 9. 91 EXPRESS LANES TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY UPDATE Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, stated that he and Sheldon Mar the Consultant Project Manager with Stantec will jointly present this item. They will summarize the recent work to update the revenue and traffic study for the Commission’s 91 Express Lanes. Mr. Blomquist provided details of the presentation, highlighting the following: • Background – 2012 Traffic and Revenue Study: o Key element of successful 91 Project financing in 2013 o $1.06 billion total borrowing o $598 million paid back by tolls o Rating agencies and capital markets Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 6 • 2018 Traffic and Revenue Study update: o Passage of six years o Need for current toll revenue impact analysis o Inform future Commission decision o May 9, 2018 Commission approval • Worked performed since May – Updated Data: o Employment, population, household formation o Regional transportation projects o Regional land development o Updated corridor traffic volumes o Actual RCTC 91 Express Lanes traffic and revenue results o Actual RCTC 91 Express Lanes capacities o Base case results o Sensitivity case analyses (what-if scenarios) At this time, Michael Blomquist stated Sheldon Mar will present and review the key components of the study including existing performance and traffic in the express lanes as wells as the key projections of future express lane usage and revenue. Sheldon Mar presented the 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Revenue Study, highlighting the following areas: • 91 Express Lanes Performance o Revenues are higher than originally anticipated o Average daily traffic: 40,000 vehicles per day o More congestion than anticipated, lower toll sensitivity o A chart that depicts the revenue distribution by day of week and time of day o Westbound lanes heavily utilized during morning o Eastbound lanes see lower utilization than westbound lanes, but demand is strong • Existing traffic for the westbound and eastbound general purpose lanes • Existing Traffic: Origins and destinations on the westbound and eastbound SR-91 • Economic growth expectations o Inland Empire to continue growing by 2040 o A long term forecast o Tied to regional expectations o An in-depth view of the local economy • Traffic and revenue forecast o FY 2025 revenue $73.6 million o Revenue 54 percent higher than FY 2018 levels, +6.3 percent/year from 2018 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 7 o Revenue grows +6.7 percent/year through 2040, +4 percent/year through 2066 o 15/91 ELC, Eastbound Extension, 241/91 EDC, SR-71 improvements in near term (2022) o Assumes County Line widened by 1-lane per direction in 2035 o Revenue to continue exceeding prior forecast by approximately $30 million/year through 2035 – below original forecast by 2058 • Impact of constructing Option “4M” and impact of accelerating ultimate project to 2028 o Option “4M” – add westbound general purpose lane o Toll revenue loss compared to 2018 base case o Toll revenue gain compared to 2012 forecast • Impact of charging HOV3+ half-toll on westbound express lanes, 5:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. o OCTA and RCTC 91 Express Lanes are toll-free to HOV3+, zero-emission vehicles, disabled vets, and disabled persons except 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. on eastbound express lanes (50 percent toll) o Premise – eastbound express utilization is high, tolls needed to control traffic o RCTC westbound express traffic at or near eastbound express levels from 5:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m., tolls near $20 o Implementing a half toll from 5:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. would: Reduce HOV utilization by 40 percent from 5:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.; Reduce full toll rates and increase full toll traffic; Increase revenue by 0.2 percent in 2025, and +2.2 percent in 2040; and charging HOV half-toll may reduce HOV violators • Summary of findings – Base case revenue would continue to exceed original expectations; Option 4M: Widening of the westbound 91 general purpose lanes would reduce 2018 base case revenue, but still exceed original 2012 expectations; Accelerated ultimate project: widening both the eastbound and westbound 91 general purpose lanes at the County Line would reduce revenue; and implementing 50 percent discounted toll from 5:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. would reduce HOV-3+ traffic, reduce overall tolls, and increase revenue At this time, Mr. Mar stated Mr. Blomquist will discuss the use of the toll revenue. Michael Blomquist stated there are several major categories that describe the Commission’s use of the toll revenue, he highlighted the following: • Use of Revenue: o Prescribed by 91 Project debt financing agreements (2013): Annual operations and maintenance; lifetime repair and replacement of pavement and toll technology; Toll bonds and TIFIA loan; and early payback of TIFIA loan Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 8 • Any remaining funds (surplus) prescribed by California statute: Used for any transportation purpose; spent within the corridor from which it was generated; and the Commission to approve use of surplus funds In response to Commissioner Wes Speake’s inquiry the borrowing and the payback is based on the 2012 study, Michael Blomquist confirmed that is correct. In response to Commissioner Speake’s clarification about the expenses and if they are coming in near where they were projected in 2012, Michael Blomquist replied they are in fact slightly less, so the Commission is doing well on the expense side. In response to Commissioner Speake’s inquiry about the I-15 Connector project and asked if there is a percentage of vehicles identified of what is going to pull from the general purpose lanes to the toll lanes, Michael Blomquist clarified for example taking the SR-91 eastbound to I-15 northbound and using the new toll connector versus a general purpose lane connector. Mr. Blomquist stated staff does not have those numbers but it is something that can be provided. Commissioner Speake stated he wondered how that would lessen the use of the general purpose lanes. Michael Blomquist explained those projects that Sheldon Mar mentioned including the I- 15 Connector project are in fact part of the study results, so all the data and all the traffic operations result reflects that project being built in the next couple of years. In response to Commissioner Speake’s inquiry when the Commission is discussing resetting this baseline to 2018 and the expenses are lower is the Commission going to be engaging new projects against this 2018 revenue baseline, Michael Blomquist replied that would be up to the Commission on how to use the baseline. Staff is proposing to adopt the study results and therefore establish a new revenue baseline going forward. Commissioner Brian Berkson referred to the Existing Traffic: Origins and Destinations slide and stated as far as adding that sixth general purpose lane is obviously the right approach. He explained this is a great example at Serfas Club Drive it is at 14 percent and at Green River Road it is 12 percent, which is about 25 percent of the traffic being added. He noted with that sixth lane 20 percent is being added so it is still not recouping the extra traffic. He expressed that area is one of the biggest congestion points right after Serfas Club Drive up to the SR-241. Commissioner Berkson expressed the Commission needs to be cost effective for the Commission’s obligations but also this needs to be affordable to all the residents that use it. He discussed the HOV3+ lane issue with the violators and suggested staff look at options. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 9 Chair Reed replied this is going to be on the agenda at the Commission’s Annual Workshop in January 2019. Commissioner Berkson expressed appreciation and stated perhaps staff can bring these things to the Commissioners at that time. He referred to the eastbound toll lane as there is some infrared type device and asked if staff could present at the workshop what this device does and how it can be utilized to issue citations in the mail. Michael Blomquist replied as part of the I-15 Express Lanes project staff chose to look at piloting an infrared HOV detection system. Staff took the advantage the Commission operates the 91 express lanes and implemented on that testing ground in order to come back and provide an update to what that looks like and what has been done at the Annual Commission Workshop. Commissioner Berkson expressed appreciation and questioned the legalities as to whether the Commission can issue citations, which he is requesting staff to bring that to the workshop as well. He also suggested if the Commission could line up about 20 California Highway Patrol Officers and all the vehicles that went through the HOV3+ was slowed down and issued citations then those people would not repeat that bad behavior. Chair Reed reiterated these topics can be discussed at the Annual Commission Workshop. Stanley Hill, a Corona resident, explained doing calculations associated with the traffic and during a three-hour period in the morning in the general purpose lanes the Commission is spending the resident’s time at a rate of about $100,000 to $200,000. He expressed those funds should be considered in any kind of economic analysis that is being prepared. At this time, Commissioner Randall Bonner stepped out of the meeting. John Donaldson, a Corona resident, explained being familiar with what Stanley Hill spoke about. He referred to the 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Revenue Study and stated the study had immense amount of detail, the charts and graphs help understand that challenge especially for those commuters that do not drive in that area regularly. He suggested the study should include what is the average income of employer/employees that are stuck on the freeway and the cost per hour for lost productivity and their quality of life issues. Mr. Donaldson expressed concern there was no information in the study if it takes into account growth in San Bernardino County, but it is going to be expansive with the warehouses in Western San Bernardino County. He also suggested better entrance for the HOV2+ lanes off the city streets in Corona. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 10 M/S/C (Berkson/Baca) to adopt the study results of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study, Investment Grade Study Refresh 2018. 10. STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS REPORTS AND REQUEST FOR VARIOUS AUTHORIZATIONS At this time, Commissioner Bonner rejoined the meeting. David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, provided an update for the SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (91 COP), highlighting the following areas: • Background: o Opening of the 91 Express Lanes March 20, 2017 o Key congestion areas o Operational improvements evaluated o May 9, 2018 Commission meeting • Work performed since May: o Green River Road Ramp meter study o 91 Express Lanes entrance at I-15 northbound o Restriping 91 westbound express lanes entrance/exit near the County Line o Environmental and design of general purpose lane 91 westbound near the County Line • Background of the Green River Road meter: o 3-lane ramp meter at Green River Road o Cycle length-7.5 seconds o Heavy delays on Green River Road o Trial Program Schedule  September 10 week: meter on  September 17 Week: meter off  September 24 Week: meter off  October 1 Week: 2 cars / green • Summary of findings: Improvement on Green River Road coupled with more traffic; degradation along 91; net change in delay 270 vehicle-hours; and increase in “gore jumping” • 91 Express Lanes entrance at I-15 northbound Option 1: o Extend express lane entrance south o Implemented on September 16, 2018 o Reduces impact to general purpose lanes from queuing in the 91 Express Lanes • Restriping 91 Eastbound Express Lanes entrance/exit near the County Line Option 3: o Restripe the separated entrance and exit to a continuous access lane Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 11 o Implemented November 16-19, 2018 o Expected to reduce congestion periods and improve travel times in the westbound 91 general purpose lanes • General purpose lanes 91 westbound near the County Line Option 4: o Add one lane on SR-91 westbound from Green River Road to SR-241 o Expected to further reduce congestion periods and improve travel times in the westbound 91 general purpose lanes o Staff recommended implementing modified Option 4 in two steps o Amendment with Parson for environmental and design for $4,790,973 • General purpose lane 91 westbound near the County Line – Schedule: o Environmental – Fall 2019 o Design – End of 2019 o Construction Award – Summer 2020 (dependent on funding priority) o Open to traffic – Fall 2021 (dependent on funding priority) • Heat map of travel speeds – Option 4: Projected improvements • General purpose lane 91 westbound near the County Line – Toll revenue impacts At this time, Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk joined the meeting. Dale Ploung, a Corona resident, expressed to expedite this as quickly as possible. As soon as the 91 Express Lanes project opened, the traffic times became worse from day one. He stated the express lanes does not just affect the traffic on the freeway it affects the access roads. He referred to the photos he took on Pine Crest with 300 vehicles going down the wrong side of the road, expressed the impacts in this area, and on Green River is horrific. Mr. Ploung referred to the 12 percent potential loss in revenue and suggested the Commission takes into consideration the loss of quality of life of the residents in this area that cannot even get out of their neighborhoods. Stanley Hill, representing the Board of the Mountain View Civic Association, expressed support on the urgency associated with this project and making the connection between Green River and the SR-241. He requested anything that can be done to assist in alleviating the bottleneck in that area would be appreciated. Dean Stamp, a Corona resident, expressed concern for the cut through traffic in their residential streets of commuters trying to get onto SR-91 as it presents a safety risk to the children and parents walking to schools in the neighborhood. He expressed support for the general purpose lane from Green River to SR-241 and stated he hopes this will help reduce the cut through traffic over time, create a safer neighborhood, and improve the quality of life. Don Fuller, a Corona resident, expressed there seems to be a lot of effort put into the money issues of these tolls, but the real issue is transportation how to move people back and forth with a minimum loss of time. He discussed the traffic congestion issues at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 12 Green River westbound onramp in early morning and the issues for waiting until 2021 for the general purpose lane to be completed. Mr. Fuller express this has to be expedited and it has to be done very quickly. Amie Kinne, a Temescal Valley resident, expressed support for the Option 4M project but only in favor of moving forward with the study if there is intention of building the project. She referred to the January Commission Workshop and suggested the Commission place an agenda item on the workshop agenda to include lessons learned and what to do to avoid some of the problems when working on I-15 South Express Lanes project. Ms. Kinne expressed concern Temescal Valley has the same type of geographic constraints such as Green River and the placement of those entrances and exits for the I-15 South Express Lanes project could have the same potential bottleneck problem and reiterated it would be an appropriate agenda item for the workshop. Karen Alexander, supporting Greater Corona Traffic Alliance (GCTA), expressed appreciation for the corrections and the efforts put in by staff. She referred to the 2019 through 2035 revenue impacts with the lane addition and discussed the impacts that delay would be. There is a situation in Corona with the consequences of a scaled back project, the magnitude of negativity and the quality of life is huge, which led to a citizens based group the GCTA. Ms. Alexander stated the GCTA energized the residents to push back and get this resolved. She requested the Commission help make this better to get their quality of life put back together. Michele Wentworth, representing the GCTA, expressed appreciation to the Commission for moving forward with this. She stated the Commission and Caltrans have touted the 91 Project as a big success and there are many successes here. She explained for the Corona residents the definition of success depends on whether you live east of the project or live in Corona. She requested on behalf of GCTA the Commission looks at Green River, as there is 1.4 miles they travel in 30 minutes to get on the auxiliary freeway. She expressed concern for the traffic coming down SR-91, I-15, Lincoln Avenue, and SR-71 at Green River as all those vehicles are weaving to the left to enter the toll and vehicles are exiting the toll, which creates a delay. Ms. Wentworth stated adding this capacity benefits the entire freeway and their commute. She suggested the Commission consider this carefully, support this project moving forward, and fund it as soon as possible and not wait until 2035 or shelf it. Matt Woody, a Corona resident, expressed appreciation to the Commission for having this item on the agenda as it has a possibility to make a big difference for all the Western Riverside County residents, the residents in the central and those in the east that travel to the western part of the County. He explained in speaking with numerous residents in Western Riverside County they expressed concern about traffic and very few residents saw much benefit from the 91 Project when it opened in March 2017. Mr. Woody explained there is the opportunity to approve this auxiliary lane and not only will it make Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 13 a big difference he suggested the timetable with the 2021 completion date be pushed for a quicker implementation of this project. He stated the cost is $42 million but the 91 express lanes has produced revenues beyond comprehension since the project opened and that $42 million should already be set aside to apply toward this and move quickly. At this time, Commissioner Adam Rush left the meeting. Chair Reed expressed appreciation to the public speakers for their very important testimony and stated their message was heard loud and clear by all the Commissioners. Chair Reed noted there were approximately 60 written public comments received by the Commissioners on this item. Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation to staff and the Commission for pushing this forward. He explained he repeatedly told people what a miracle this was to get two projects done in less than a year and expressed gratitude to staff and Anne Mayer for pushing up this project fast, as this is important. Commissioner Speake explained how different people in parts of the County told him it is nice to get a $1.4 billion project in your city and if you inquire the residents in Corona, they will not agree. Commissioner Speake stated this project is not a Corona project however, it did benefit it in some ways but it really is a connection for the entire western part of the County since it funnels through SR-91. He expressed appreciation for implementing and getting this project onto this next step and stated he would like to discuss the priority at some point. Commissioner Bob Magee explained hearing a lot of discussion about loss of revenue and the obligation of this Commission is to meet the financial obligations and to improve the quality of life. Commissioner Magee discussed Don Fuller’s comment about the Commission taking longer to complete this then the Nation’s complete involvement in World War II. He expressed how did the Commission get so backwards is due to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that Legislation passed, which is now being abused and that is what has derailed the Commission. He suggested the GCTA focus their energy and become a force to move things forward. He suggested one way to eliminate this massive amount of time would be to lobby the Governor elect to sign an executive order to exempt this project from CEQA. Commissioner Magee expressed if this Commission does not follow CEQA the Commission will be sued and the project will come to a halt. He explained how Supervisor Elect Karen Spiegel was a tireless supporter to work on solutions to rectify this massive issue and her last words to the Commission was to move this issue forward and he supports her efforts and staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Tavaglione expressed appreciation for Commissioners Magee and Speake’s comments as this is a critical project and stated the Commission cannot stop where it was left off with SR-91 with the expansion it needs to be finished. He stated populations are only going to continue to grow in Riverside County, which means more people will be traveling and working in Orange County until economic development and Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 14 employers in the region Orange County and Los Angeles Counties decide that it is time for them to be here for the benefit of their employees. He expressed for those that have discussed moratoriums in order to have a moratorium every city in the west end of the County has to agree or it will not make any sense. He concurred with Commissioner Magee’s comments about Supervisor Elect Spiegel who will do tremendous work as her passion is there and he requested to move approval of this agenda item. M/S/C (Baca/Vargas) to: 1) Receive a report on the implementation of the following State Route 91 Corridor Operations Project (91 COP) improvements previously approved by the Commission: a. Interstate 15 northbound 91 Express Lanes Ingress Improvement Option No. 1 (I-15 NB EL Option 1); and b. SR-91 westbound General Purpose Lane Improvement Option No. 3 (91 WB GP Option 3); 2) Receive a report on the Ramp Meter Study at the SR-91 westbound Green River Road On-Ramp; 3) Authorize implementation of the construction phase of the SR-91 westbound General Purpose Lane Improvement modified Option No. 4 (91 WB GP Option 4M) after completing environmental and design approvals; 4) Authorize the inclusion of the 91 WB GP Option 4 in the list of Commission projects for prioritization and funding determination; and 5) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute all necessary agency agreements or amendments to existing agency agreements for the Construction of the 91 WB GP Option 4 project. 11. AMENDMENT TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY’S FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Lorelle Moe-Luna, Acting Multimodal Services Director, presented details for the amendment to SunLine Transit Agency’s (SunLine) Fiscal Year 2018/19 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). At this time, she welcomed and introduced Rudy LeFlore, SunLine’s Chief Project Consultant, who will provide additional details on this amendment request. Rudy LeFlore provided an overview of the changes to the SRTP and then summarized what is being done with the changes. Mr. LeFlore noted many of the resources that come to SunLine do not flow through the Commission although the changes need to be reflected in SunLine’s planning. He clarified with the additions SunLine is still less than the 15 percent threshold that is recognized in the TDA law. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 15 At this time, Commissioners Jeffries and Tavaglione left the meeting. In response to Commissioner Ben Benoit’s inquiry about the electrolyzer that is being put in if it will have a publicly accessible hydrogen as well, Mr. LeFlore replied that is Phase II and this is Phase I and they are putting in place the infrastructure to allow that to happen but the grant funds SunLine received from ARB did not cover that. SunLine is collaborating with commercial entities such as Toyota to try to make that a realization for a 700 bar dispensing capability and it will be publicly accessible. Commissioner Lloyd White inquired about the additional $2.9 million in capital funds for the capital expenses, stating he understands Mr. LeFlore’s comment about the additional funds SunLine received from the FTA and how that approval comes through the Commission. He referred to the $2.9 million and asked if Mr. LeFlore was aware of those improvements SunLine needed to do when the amended SRTP was submitted for the Commission to approve. Mr. LeFlore replied after these amendments SunLine will still have $7 million in reserves. He explained what was undertaken at the direction of the CEO and supported by the Board is for SunLine to upgrade certain infrastructures that needed some repair in the facility. He stated with respect to the hydrogen program no SunLine did not as the hydrogen program itself required from IID certain investments in infrastructure that had not been anticipated at the time. That infrastructure is going to not only cover the infrastructure the electrolyzer but also other projects that are ongoing on SunLine’s campus. Mr. LeFlore stated SunLine also set aside some funding for upgrade of SunLine’s Indio facility for operator efficiency. Commissioner White clarified what portion of the $2.9 million was SunLine aware of when the SRTP was submitted what portion of those improvements could have been provided for with the original SRTP that would not require an amendment today. Mr. LeFlore replied out of capital one of the things that operators have the discretion to do is to set aside capital funds and try to mask those funds or they can take care of what they can address with immediate funding. He explained while there may have been a larger scale capital vision it was decided to address the capital needs immediately with those funds. M/S/C (Betts/Berkson) to: 1) Approve a modification to SunLine Transit Agency’s (SunLine) Fiscal Year 2018/19 operating assistance funding by amending the original amount of $38,900,991 to $39,654,404 to reflect additional operating expenses and revenues for the West Coast Center of Excellence funded with federal Section 5309 pass-through funds from the Center for Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 16 Transportation and the Environment (CTE), the Buzz Service subsidized by the city of Palm Springs, and personnel costs for eight new full-time employees scheduled to start in January 2019 and funded with additional Local Transportation Funds (LTF); 2) Approve a modification to SunLine’s FY 2018/19 capital improvement program to reflect an additional request of $2,982,000 in LTF to cover capital expenses related to various stations, facilities and building projects, and partial funding to purchase five trolleys for the new Buzz Service; 3) Approve a modification to SunLine’s FY 2018/19 capital improvement program to reflect an increase of $178,239 in FY 2017/18 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5339 funds offset by a decrease of the same amount in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the fixed route bus replacement, information technology and transit enhancement projects; 4) Reprogram the STA capital amount of $418,000 originally identified in the FY 2014/15 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the operator breakroom project to the purchase of five trolleys for the Buzz Service; 5) Approve a $2,982,000 adjustment to the FY 2018/19 budget to increase LTF capital expenditures and a $178,239 adjustment to decrease STA expenditures; and 6) Approve an amendment to SunLine’s FY 2018/19 SRTP to reflect these changes. 12. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICERS AND APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS At this time, Chair Reed opened the nominations for Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair for 2019. Chair Reed nominated Commissioner Washington for Chair for 2019, Commissioner Naggar moved the motion and Commissioner Benoit seconded the motion. No other nominations were received. Abstain: Washington Chair Reed nominated Commissioner Benoit for Vice Chair for 2019, Commissioner Ingram moved the motion and Commissioner Vargas seconded the motion. No other nominations were received. Abstain: Benoit Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 17 Commissioner Washington nominated Commissioner Harnik for Second Vice Chair for 2019, Commissioner Ingram moved the motion and Commissioner Benoit seconded the motion. No other nominations were received Abstain: Harnik Chair Reed closed the Nominations. Chuck Washington was elected as the Commission’s Chair, Ben Benoit as Vice Chair, and Jan Harnik as Second Vice Chair for 2019. At this time, Clerk of the Board Lisa Mobley noted appointments need to be made to the Executive Committee. Lisa Mobley called for a recess for the representatives of the following groups to meet and determine their respective representatives to the Executive Committee as follows: 1) The cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula to appoint two representatives to the Executive Committee; 2) The cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar to appoint one representative to the Executive Committee; and 3) The cities of Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio,La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage to appoint one representative to the Executive Committee. The Commission reconvened and Chair Reed called for the groups to announce their representatives to the Executive Committee. Commissioner Ingram announced the appointments of Commissioner Michael Naggar and Commissioner Brian Berkson to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula. Commissioner Krupa announced the reappointment of Commissioner Lloyd White to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar. Chair Reed announced the appointment of Commissioner Lisa Middleton to the Executive Committee to represent the cities of Blythe, Cathederal City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. At this time Chair Vargas left the meeting. 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2018 Page 18 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 14A. Anne Mayer made closing remarks for the Commission’s last meeting for 2018. She thanked the Commissioners for a great year and she highlighted in 2018 how RCTC put sunshine on the facts and made progress toward a safer, more connected Riverside County. She expressed in 2019, the Commission will continue to put sunshine on the facts and on ourselves under the Commissioners, continued leadership and involvement the community the Commission represents will thrive. 15. CLOSED SESSION 15A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner 1 102-250-056 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 2 118-270-003 and 118-270-023 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 3 118-260-015 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 4 118-301-010 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 5 118-302-001 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 6 117-101-019 and 117-101-020 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 7 117-101-013 Riverside County Transportation Comm. 8 117-270-021 and 117-270-022 Riverside County Transportation Comm. There were no announcements from the Closed Session Items. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Reed adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 9, 2019, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A Agenda Item 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the three months ended September 30, 2018. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the fiscal year is primarily directed toward completing fiscal year-end closing activities for the prior year. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook beginning in the second quarter. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 7 percent of the budget. This is a result of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for nonexchange Transactions. GASB Statement No. 33 requires sales tax revenues to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of destination or sale, as applicable. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two-month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections for July 2018. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax receipts are 3.73 and 7.17 percent lower, respectively, then the same period last fiscal year. This is inconsistent with staff’s tracking of Measure A and LTF revenues. As reported by staff to the Commission in November 2018, the CDTFA implemented a new centralized revenue opportunity system and experienced problems in the delay of sales tax return processing. This had a direct impact on the Fiscal Year 2017/18 year-end revenue accruals and cash receipts, and receipts will continue to reflect fluctuating cash payments received by the Commission through FY 2018/19 by CDTFA. (For instance, Measure A and LTF receipts through November in the second quarter are 113.8 percent and 111.9 percent higher than the same period last year.) The CDTFA has been responsive and committed to resolving the issues and expects to catch up on the unprocessed 1 Agenda Item 7A sales tax returns by December 2018. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and report to the Commission any necessary adjustments. Federal, state, and local reimbursements are generally on a reimbursement basis. The Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the respective agencies. The negative revenue amounts for federal and state reimbursements reflect the reversal of FY 2017/18 accrued revenues at the beginning of FY 2018/19 in excess of amounts billed during the first quarter. Reimbursement invoices for expenditures for the first quarter will be prepared and submitted in the second quarter. During the FY 2018/19 budget process, the Commission conservatively estimated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $21 million passed through from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). The Commission did not receive TUMF receipts during the first quarter. Staff expects TUMF receipts beginning in the second quarter. The budgeted balance of $1.9 million relates to TUMF zone reimbursements from WRCOG for the Interstate 15 interchange at Railroad Canyon in the city of Lake Elsinore. Toll revenues budgeted at $32 million represents projected toll transactions for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes operations based on estimated toll transactions and current traffic and revenue data. The operating statement shows toll revenues at 38 percent of the budget and toll violations and fee revenues at 47 percent of the budget. The RCTC 91 Express Lanes toll transactions have exceeded initial expectations; accordingly, the Commission’s traffic consultant recently updated the investment grade traffic and revenue study, which will be used in subsequent budgets. The operating statement shows other revenues at 284 percent of the $539,000 budget and reflects the sale of highway property and the reimbursement for property drainage improvements on Commission-owned properties. The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating investment income for FY 2018/19. Investment income is higher in the first quarter primarily as a result of rising investment yields and investment of sales tax revenue bond proceeds. The expenditures/expenses and other financing sources/uses categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Professional services are under budget primarily due to unused budget authority for rail operations and development activities, highway general legal services, toll operations, public outreach activities, and audit and sales tax consultant fees; • Program operations are under budget due to unused budget authority for the I-15 Express Lanes and Pachappa Underpass projects, toll operations, motorist and commuter assistance program operations, highway and rail program management, and station security; • The status of significant Commission capital projects with budget amounts exceeding $5 million is discussed in the attachment; 2 Agenda Item 7A • Special studies unused budget authority relates to feasibilities studies; • Local streets and roads are related to the timing of Measure A sales tax revenues. These financial statements reflect the collections through July 2018; • Regional arterial expenditures primarily represent expenditures for the highways and regional arterial program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority; • Debt service principal payments are made annually on June 1, while debt service interest payments are made semiannually on December 1 and June 1. On a quarterly basis, the Commission records accrued interest on the SR-91 Project Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and the 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds Series B (capital appreciation) in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Enterprise Fund accounting records. However, $5.2 million of the $7.0 million interest cost for the first quarter will not be paid in the current year and therefore not included in the FY 2018/19 budget; • Payment to escrow agent unused budget authority relates to $20 million of toll-operation surplus revenues for deposit to the 2013 TIFIA loan reserve fund as required by June 30, 2019, under the TIFIA loan agreement; • Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unused budget authority for office and property improvements for the I-15 Express Lanes project, station rehabilitation, toll operations office improvements and transponders, and Commission office, network, hardware, and software improvements; • Depreciation is recorded as part of the accrual adjustments in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Enterprise Fund accounting records, however such depreciation is not paid and therefore not included in the FY 2018/19 budget; • Loss on sale of land is recorded as part of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes Enterprise Fund accounting records and reflects the loss on sale of excess land purchased for the SR-91 Project. Loss on sale of land is not a cash-related item and, therefore, is not included in the FY 2018/19 budget; • The Commission entered into a loan agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation for a $152.5 million TIFIA loan to pay eligible I-15 Express Lanes project costs. Proceeds of the TIFIA loan may be drawn upon after certain conditions have been met. Through the first quarter, the Commission drew down $0 in TIFIA loan proceeds. During construction of the I-15 Express Lanes project and for a period of up to five years following substantial completion, interest is compounded and added to the TIFIA loan. TIFIA debt service payments are expected to commence June 2025, which is approximately five years after substantial completion of the I-15 Express Lanes project, through 2055. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Project Status – September 2018 2) Quarterly Financial Statements – September 2018 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/2018 FY 2018/19 BUDGET 1st QUARTER EXPENDITURES Project Description Project Status 91 Project (P003028) $28,758,100 ($574,228) The Design-Build contract achieved substantial completion on March 20, 2017. The Systems Integration and Implementation Contract retention was released on January 4, 2018. The Commission has remitted all of the $42 million final settlement to the Design-Builder; the only remaining costs are for the plant establishment period. The Certificate of Final Acceptance was issued to the Design-Builder on March 15, 2018. The under run of the FY 2018/19 budget at the first quarter is due to an accrual reversal for the Army Corps of Engineers Reach 9 project ($2 million) and future right of way (ROW) settlement costs that have not yet occurred. The project connects with Orange County Transportation Authority’s tolled express lanes at the Orange County/Riverside County line and continues approximately eight miles to the Interstate (I)-15/State Route (SR)-91 interchange. The project involves widening pavement on the outside of the existing highway to reposition general purpose lanes and repurposing the existing high occupancy vehicle lanes to accommodate two-tolled express lanes in the median in each direction. The 91 Project also involves constructing one new general purpose lane in each direction from SR-71 to I-15, ultimately providing two- tolled express lanes and five general purpose lanes in each direction. 91 Project development activities began in September 2007, construction work related to roadway and structures began in July 2014, and the toll lanes opened in March 2017. The total acquisition and construction cost of the 91 Project is estimated at $1.4 billion, including capitalized interest, debt service reserves, contingency, and cost of issuance. I-15 Express Lanes project (P003027) 152,864,800 16,144,382 The toll services provider (TSP) contract was awarded in January 2017, the Design-Build contract was awarded in April 2017, and the project financing was completed in July 2017. A project office in Corona opened in August 2017. Overall design is approximately 98% complete and construction is approximately 19% complete. The construction and maintenance agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway was executed on September 28, 2018. Roadway work continued on the Norco and Eastvale segments. Construction continued on the Second and Third Street bridges. All ROW was acquired and delivered to the Design-Builder. The under run of the FY 2018/19 budget at the first quarter is due to under runs in the Design- Build contract ($16 million), the project construction and management (PCM) contract ($2 million), and the TSP contract ($2 million). The project will generally add two tolled express lanes in each direction from SR-60 to Cajalco Road in Corona. Project development activities began in April 2008, and lanes are expected to open to traffic in 2020. The 2017 Base Case estimates the total project cost at $471 million, which includes $42 million of contingency. ATTACHMENT 1 4 FY 2018/19 BUDGET 1st QUARTER EXPENDITURES Project Description Project Status 15/91 Express Lanes Connector (P003039) 55,809,800 4,849,931 In October 2017 the Commission approved an amendment to the existing I-15 PCM contract for ELC project approval and environmental document work. In November 2017 the Commission approved a contract with WSP USA, Inc. for ELC project management services. In January 2018 the Commission approved an amendment to the existing I-15 PCM contract for ELC PCM support. From April to June 2018 the Commission approved one amendment and two change orders to the existing Design-Builder contract for preliminary ELC design and geotech work. In March 2018 the Commission approved a change order to the existing TSP contract for ELC tolling software support. In July 2018 the Commission approved a change order to the existing TSP contract to install lane side equipment on SR-91. The under run of the FY 2018/19 budget at the first quarter is due to an under run in the Design-Build contract ($6 million). The 15/91 Express Lane Connector (ELC) project constructs an express lanes median direct connector from southbound I-15 to westbound SR-91 and from eastbound SR-91 to northbound I-15 in the city of Corona. The project also adds tolled-express lanes in each direction of I-15 from the 15/91 ELC to Hidden Valley Parkway; adds a tolled-express lane in each direction of SR-91 from east of Lincoln Avenue to the 15/91 ELC; extends the tolled-express lane along eastbound SR-91 from I-15 to west of Promenade Avenue; and extends eastbound auxiliary lane along SR-91 from west of I-15 to west of Promenade Avenue. The project also includes the addition of a toll collection system infrastructure along I-15 and SR-91. The estimated project cost is $180 million and the project is partially funded by state funds allocated under Senate Bill (SB) 132 legislation. The connector is expected to open to traffic in 2022. I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension (P003044) 5,061,300 9,706 In September 2017 the Commission approved the allocation of $50 million of 2018 STIP funds to the I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension Project. Advertising the Request for Qualifications for the completion of the Project Approval and Environmental Document work phase is planned for November 2018, with the intent to award a contract to the selected firm in April 2019. The project will add express lanes between SR-74 and Cajalco Road. The estimated project cost is $544 million with the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase of work funded by state funds allocated under SB 1 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. 91 Corridor Operations Project (P623046) 6,000,000 71,765 I-15 northbound 91 Express Lanes ingress restriping is complete. SR- 91 restriping at the County line is scheduled for mid-November 2018. Commission approval is required for westbound general purpose lane construction from the Green River Road on-ramp to SR-241 (91 WB Option 4M). The project will construct several operational improvements along the SR-91 including I-15 northbound 91 Express Lanes ingress and SR-91 westbound general purpose lane improvements at the County Line. The estimated project cost is $6 million and the project is funded by surplus toll revenues. Mid County Parkway (P002302, P612302, P612320, & P612317) 5,390,500 89,623 The Commission approved the procurement for final design of the I- 215/Placentia Interchange in November 2016, and notice to proceed was issued the same month. Staff continues to work on the approval of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Staff continues the work on the Cultural Landscape Study for cultural resources mitigation. The Commission has acquired most of the mitigation land needed for the project. In July 2018 the Commission approved the procurement for final design of the Sweeney mitigation land. Staff continues to work on identifying the remaining mitigation land needed. Staff continues to work with state and federal agencies on permitting packages for the first construction contract. On June 29, 2018 settlement was reached with plaintiffs challenging the environmental document. The environmental document for a new corridor from I- 215 to SR-79 was approved in April 2015. The first design package is anticipated to be completed in FY 2018/2019. Construction of this new facility will be completed over many years as funding becomes available; the project cost is estimated at $1.3 to $1.6 billion. 5 FY 2018/19 BUDGET 1st QUARTER EXPENDITURES Project Description Project Status Pachappa Underpass project (P003038) 14,453,400 4,544 The Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) was obtained. Preparation of a funding agreement with Caltrans is underway. UPRR may not be able to support the project due to recent staff layoffs. The project will remove the Pachappa shoofly activities and construct the retaining wall, drainage, and track work for the permanent Pachappa underpass; the project construction cost is estimated at $12 million. SR-60 Truck Climbing Lanes (P003029) 26,861,200 63,460 On August 16, 2018 the California Transportation Commission approved funding for the project. Caltrans provided all design documents for construction advertisement on September 20, 2018. The project was advertised for Construction on October 18, 2018 as scheduled, with bids due on November 29, 2018. Construction is anticipated to start on March 28, 2019. The selection process for a Construction Management consultant commenced and proposals were received on August 23, 2018. The Construction Management contract is expected to be executed in December 2018. The project will construct eastbound climbing and westbound descending truck climbing lanes from Gilman Springs Road to west of Jack Rabbit trail and upgrade existing shoulders to standard widths. The estimated project cost is $138 million, and the project is funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, STIP/Regional Improvement Program, State Highway Operation and Protection Program, and 2009 Measure A highway funds. 71/91 Connector Project (P003021) 9,445,900 273,177 Currently, construction is on hold until a funding source for construction is identified. Staff met with Southern California Association Government’s Transportation Conformity Working Group to confirm the project is not a project of air quality concern. Staff continues to coordinate with Southern California Gas to relocate a high pressure gas line due to a conflict. Staff is also working with the last property owner where permanent rights are required as well as the agencies where temporary rights are required to close out the ROW phase. The project includes right of way acquisition, utility relocation, and begin environmental revalidation work for improvements to the 71/91 connector. The estimated project cost is $118 million, and the project is funded by SB 1 funds. Riverside Layover Facility (P653822) 6,267,600 41,928 The Plan Specification & Estimate is being finalized, incorporating construction manager comments. The final submittal to Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is being prepared for review. The Co-Op Agreement between the Commission and SCRRA is being finalized. ROW is in the acquisition process. The construction contract is scheduled for advertisement in early January 2019, with construction expected to start in April 2019. The project includes increased capacity and maintenance service improvements to Metrolink’s West Layover Facility, north of the Riverside Downtown station. The improvements include expansion of the facility to accommodate three storage tracks with an overall storage capacity of three 6-train sets. The estimated project cost is $5.3 million and the project is funded by Federal Transit Administration Section 5307. This list discusses the significant Commission capital projects (i.e., total budgeted costs in excess of $5 million) and related status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. 6 Revenues Sales tax 304,203,600$ 20,934,154$ (283,269,446)$ 7% Federal reimbursements 59,105,700 (633,399) (59,739,099)-1% State reimbursements 166,590,113 (4,386,366) (170,976,479)-3% Local reimbursements 24,037,900 586,509 (23,451,391)2% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 22,922,200 - (22,922,200)N/A Toll revenues 32,046,800 12,035,719 (20,011,081)38% Toll violations and fee revenues 4,893,700 2,290,539 (2,603,161)47% Other revenues 539,000 1,531,738 992,738 284% Investment income 3,408,000 1,167,536 (2,240,464)34% Total revenues 617,747,013 33,526,430 (584,220,583)5% Expenditures/Expenses Salaries and benefits 10,354,700 2,527,314 7,827,386 24% Professional and support Professional services 19,754,500 1,967,079 17,787,421 10% Support costs 11,719,200 2,842,516 8,876,684 24% Total Professional and support costs 31,473,700 4,809,595 26,664,105 15% Projects and operations Program operations - general 26,778,200 3,728,928 23,049,272 14% Engineering 36,788,500 978,762 35,809,738 3% Construction 122,963,500 1,112,321 121,851,179 1% Design Build 186,312,346 20,469,386 165,842,960 11% Right of way/land 93,358,800 3,070,889 90,287,911 3% Operating and capital disbursements 221,323,300 52,345,116 168,978,184 24% Special studies 1,672,000 287,985 1,384,015 17% Local streets and roads 56,951,500 4,232,340 52,719,160 7% Regional arterials 30,000,000 1,046,216 28,953,784 3% Total projects and operations 776,148,146 87,271,943 688,876,203 11% Debt service Principal 25,965,000 - 25,965,000 N/A Interest 50,710,600 6,954,493 43,756,107 14% Payment to escrow agent 20,000,000 - 20,000,000 N/A Total debt service 96,675,600 6,954,493 89,721,107 7% Capital outlay 10,985,717 1,134,894 9,850,823 10% Depreciation - 2,657,274 (2,657,274) N/A Loss on sale of land - 1,543,316 (1,543,316) N/A Total Expenditures/Expenses 925,637,863 106,898,829 818,739,034 12% Excess revenues over (under) expenditures/expenses (307,890,850) (73,372,399) 854,548,772 24% Other financing sources/(uses) Transfer in 181,899,300 31,099,994 (150,799,306) 17% Transfer out (181,899,300) (31,099,994) 150,799,306 17% TIFIA loan proceeds 106,081,000 - (106,081,000) N/A Total financing sources/(uses)106,081,000 - 106,081,000 N/A Net change in fund balances (201,809,850) (73,372,399) 960,629,772 36% Fund balance July 1, 2018 789,451,200 498,270,206 (291,180,994) 63% Fund balance September 30, 2018 587,641,350$ 424,897,807$ 669,448,778$ 72% RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL FY 2018/19 BUDGET 1ST QUARTER ACTUAL PERCENT UTILIZATION REMAINING BALANCE FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/2018 1ST QUARTER ATTACHMENT 2 7 OTHER AGENCY PROJECTS SB132 Revenues Sales tax -$ -$ 10,805,168$ 2,977,048$ 71,024$ 7,080,914$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Federal reimbursements - - (633,399) - - - - - - - - State reimbursements 833,624 169,934 (48,800) - - - - - - - (5,341,124) Local reimbursements (108,278) - 768,274 - - - - - - (73,487) - Toll revenues - - - - - - - - - - - Toll violations and fee revenues - - - - - - - - - - - Other revenues 2,867 - 1,524,371 - - - - 4,500 - - - Investment income - - 113,623 19,782 - - 39,564 39,564 - - - Total revenues 728,213 169,934 12,529,237 2,996,830 71,024 7,080,914 39,564 44,064 - (73,487) (5,341,124) Expenditures/Expenses Salaries and benefits 1,673,124 26,095 622,017 - - - - 44,393 349 7,196 49,806 Professional and support Professional services 519,665 36,881 481,193 1,713 - - 2,872 12,491 349,857 - 309,983 Support costs 1,657,210 23,835 195,600 - - - - 83 - 99 - Total Professional and support costs 2,176,875 60,716 676,793 1,713 - - 2,872 12,574 349,857 99 309,983 Projects and operations Program operations - general 371,556 441,754 777,890 - - - - 6,600 - 2,715 1,839 Engineering - - 245,881 - - - - 567,467 - 58,700 106,714 Construction - - 1,160,106 - - - - (47,785) - - - Design Build - - 16,125,541 - - - - - - - 4,343,845 Right of way/land - - 3,120,175 - - - - (15,602) - (33,684) - Operating and capital disbursements 619,222 - 1,336,710 1,500,000 - 46,649,969 2,239,215 - - - - Special studies 287,985 - - - - - - - - - - Local streets and roads - - 3,119,349 1,041,967 71,024 - - - - - - Regional arterials - - - 1,046,216 - - - - - - - Total projects and operations 1,278,763 441,754 25,885,652 3,588,183 71,024 46,649,969 2,239,215 510,680 - 27,731 4,452,398 Debt service Interest - - - - - - - - - - - Total debt service - - - - - - - - - - - Capital outlay (2,696) - 892,631 - - - - - - - - Depreciation - - - - - - - - - - - Loss on sale of land - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures/Expenses 5,126,066 528,565 28,077,093 3,589,896 71,024 46,649,969 2,242,087 567,647 350,206 35,026 4,812,187 Excess revenues over (under) expenditures/expenses (4,397,853) (358,631) (15,547,856) (593,066) - (39,569,055) (2,202,523) (523,583) (350,206) (108,513) (10,153,311) Other financing sources/(uses) Transfer in 12,493,972 - 47,087 - - 1,170,000 - - - - - Transfer out (1,394,000) (37,700) (18,239,135) (150,600) (3,500) (10,769,272) (50,200) (44,100) (17,600) - (251,900) Total financing sources/(uses)11,099,972 (37,700) (18,192,048) (150,600) (3,500) (9,599,272) (50,200) (44,100) (17,600) - (251,900) Net change in fund balances 6,702,119 (396,331) (33,739,904) (743,666) (3,500) (49,168,327) (2,252,723) (567,683) (367,806) (108,513) (10,405,211) Fund balance July 1, 2018 26,040,494 9,238,957 276,997,302 52,068,076 557 110,435,854 91,842,733 78,409,987 3,266,323 3,142 (268,754) Fund balance September 30, 2018 32,742,613$ 8,842,626$ 243,257,398$ 51,324,410$ (2,943)$ 61,267,527$ 89,590,010$ 77,842,304$ 2,898,517$ (105,371)$ (10,673,965)$ COACHELLA VALLEY RAIL STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS GENERAL FUND FSP/ SAFE WESTERN COUNTY PALO VERDE VALLEY COACHELLA VALLEY RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL BY FUND 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/2018 MEASURE A SALES TAX TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT 8 Revenues Sales tax Federal reimbursements State reimbursements Local reimbursements Toll revenues Toll violations and fee revenues Other revenues Investment income Total revenues Expenditures/Expenses Salaries and benefits Professional and support Professional services Support costs Total Professional and support costs Projects and operations Program operations - general Engineering Construction Design Build Right of way/land Operating and capital disbursements Special studies Local streets and roads Regional arterials Total projects and operations Debt service Interest Total debt service Capital outlay Depreciation Loss on sale of land Total Expenditures/Expenses Excess revenues over (under) expenditures/expenses Other financing sources/(uses) Transfer in Transfer out Total financing sources/(uses) Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2018 Fund balance September 30, 2018 ENTERPRISE FUND TOLL OPERATIONS -$ -$ -$ -$ 20,934,154$ - - - - (633,399) - - - - (4,386,366) - - - - 586,509 12,035,719 - - - 12,035,719 2,290,539 - - - 2,290,539 - - - - 1,531,738 84,916 331,790 513,790 24,507 1,167,536 14,411,174 331,790 513,790 24,507 33,526,430 104,334 - - - 2,527,314 252,424 - - - 1,967,079 965,689 - - - 2,842,516 1,218,113 - - - 4,809,595 2,126,574 - - - 3,728,928 - - - - 978,762 - - - - 1,112,321 - - - - 20,469,386 - - - - 3,070,889 - - - - 52,345,116 - - - - 287,985 - - - - 4,232,340 - - - - 1,046,216 2,126,574 - - - 87,271,943 6,954,493 - - - 6,954,493 6,954,493 - - - 6,954,493 244,959 - - - 1,134,894 2,657,274 - - - 2,657,274 1,543,316 - - - 1,543,316 14,849,063 - - - 106,898,829 (437,889) 331,790 513,790 24,507 (73,372,399) - - - 17,388,935 31,099,994 (94,900) - (47,087) - (31,099,994) (94,900) - (47,087) 17,388,935 - (532,789) 331,790 466,703 17,413,442 (73,372,399) (277,767,334) 21,576,316 95,343,644 11,082,909 498,270,206 (278,300,123)$ 21,908,106$ 95,810,347$ 28,496,351$ 424,897,807$ COMMERCIAL PAPER RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET TO ACTUAL BY FUND 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/2018 SALES TAX BONDS DEBT SERVICE COMBINED TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 9 AGENDA ITEM 7B Agenda Item 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority for the Relocation of a Brine Line for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-149-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 18-31-149-00 with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) for additional costs related to the relocation of a brine line for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of $11,000, for a total amount not to exceed $86,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2018, the Commission approved Agreement No. 18-31-149-00 with the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) in the amount of $68,400, plus a contingency amount of $6,600, for a total amount not to exceed $75,000, for the relocation of an existing SAWPA brine line that was previously impacted by the 91 Project. The 91 Project (see Figure 1) required the relocation of numerous utilities in conflict with the 91 Project improvements. One such instance was the “undergrounding” of a Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead distribution line in the SR-91/Interstate 15 interchange area. Due to various constraints and the need to proceed without causing a delay to the 91 Project, it was agreed by SAWPA that the underground portion of the SCE facility could be placed temporarily to within one foot of an existing SAWPA brine line. SAWPA agreed to accept this alignment for the SCE line provided the Commission agree to fund the relocation of the 150 foot impacted portion of the brine line at a future date. SAWPA recently completed the relocation for a total cost of $86,000, which exceeds the original contract value of $68,400 by $17,600. SAWPA provided staff with a detailed breakdown of the total costs for the relocation, and staff concurs with the costs. The additional costs will be 10 Agenda Item 7B funded with unused contingency of $6,600 previously authorized by the Commission and, if approved, Commission authorization for an additional $11,000 under this item. Figure 1: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Vicinity Map RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 18-31-149-00 with SAWPA for the additional costs associated with the relocation of a brine line in the amount of $11,000, for a total amount not to exceed $86,000. Further, authorization is requested for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2018/19 Amount: $11,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway funds Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81402 00000 0000 262 31 81402 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/17/2018 Attachment: Draft Amendment No. 1 11 17336.00009\31619842.2 1 Agreement No. 18-31-149-01 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BRINE LINE RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY (91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) 1.PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 1 to the Brine Line Relocation Agreement is made and entered into as of _____________, 2019, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (“SAWPA”). The Commission and SAWPA are sometimes referred to herein, collectively, as the “Parties”. 2.RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and SAWPA have entered into an agreement dated July 24, 2018 (the “Master Agreement”) for the purpose of providing for SAWPA to complete certain SAWPA brine line relocation work necessitated by the installation of a high- voltage Southern California Edison conduit, as described and detailed in the Master Agreement (the “Work”). 2.2 The Master Agreement included an estimated cost for SAWPA to complete the Work, and provides that the Commission shall pay the actual and necessary cost incurred by SAWPA for the Work. 2.3 The Parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide additional compensation for unanticipated costs related to the Work. 3.TERMS 3.1 The Commission shall compensate SAWPA for the additional costs related to completion of the Work (the “Additional Costs”), as detailed in Exhibit “A” attached to this Amendment No. 1 and incorporated herein by reference, in an amount not to exceed Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($17,600). 3.2 Payment for the Additional Costs shall be made in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement. ATTACHMENT 1 12 17336.00009\31619842.2 2 3.3 The total compensation of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, shall be increased from Sixty Eight Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars ($68,400), to a not to exceed amount Eighty Six Thousand Dollars ($86,000). 3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 1. 3.5 This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.6 This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. [Signatures on following page] 13 17336.00009\31619842.2 3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BRINE LINE RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY (91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ____________________________ Anne Mayer, Executive Director SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY By: ____________________________ Its: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _____________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM By: ____________________________ Its: _____________________________ 14 17336.00009\31619842.2 Exhibit A EXHIBIT "A" BASIS FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS SAWPA commenced and completed the Work within the established timeline at a cost of $85,462.42 which is above the original budget of $68,400. SAWPA is requesting an increase of the budget of 24.9% to account for the following costs: 1. Damage to one electrofusion coupling during the morning of November 14, 2018; and 2. Request by the Caltrans Inspector to slurry backfill the trench rather than using native material to compact. Due to these two reasons, SAWPA had to incur additional costs in materials and labor. SAWPA completed the Work using rental equipment and its own staff. The design was also prepared by SAWPA staff, as well as project oversight. SAWPA has submitted invoices to the Commission substantiating the Additional Costs, which are on file at the offices of the Commission. 15 AGENDA ITEM 7C Agenda Item 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with the California Department of Transportation District 8 for Project Approval/Environmental Document Phase of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project - Southern Extension STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-032-00, a cooperative agreement between the Commission and the California Department of Transportation, District 8 (Caltrans) for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project-Southern Extension (I-15 ELPSE); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute all future necessary non-funding interagency agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The I-15 ELPSE proposes to add two express lanes in each direction on Interstate 15 from Cajalco Road to State Route 74 (Central Avenue). See Attachment 1 for a vicinity map. The purpose of the project is to: • Improve traffic operations and travel times for general purpose lane users; • Expand travel choices with the addition of express lanes and carpooling; • Increase travel time reliability for all corridor users; and • Provide travel time savings and travel time certainty for express lane users. At its September 2017 meeting, the Commission approved the I-15 ELPSE as one of three project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In March 2018, the CTC approved $50 million of STIP funding to be used for the project approval/environmental document (PA/ED) development phase of the I-15 ELPSE. 16 Agenda Item 7C On November 7, 2018, staff issued a Request for Qualifications to solicit qualified consultants to conduct preliminary engineering and environmental studies to support the preparation of a project report and environmental document. Staff will be evaluating qualified consultants in early 2019 and anticipates bringing a contract award recommendation to the Commission's May 2019 meeting. Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans To proceed with the PA/ED phase of the I-15 ELPSE, the Commission must enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans (Attachment 2), the owner and operator of the State Highway System. Execution of the agreement allows Caltrans to identify a funding source for staff efforts and continued work on the I-15 ELPSE. The following are some key provisions of this cooperative agreement: • The Commission, as the project sponsor and implementing agency, shall be responsible for establishing the project scope, securing funding for the PA/ED work, and managing the scope, cost, schedule, and quality of the PA/ED work activities; • Caltrans shall perform quality management of the PA/ED work to ensure compliance with applicable standards and regulations and will issue/obtain the necessary approvals for work within the existing and proposed State Highway System right of way; • Caltrans will be the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); • Caltrans will review and approve any public notices and attend meetings related to CEQA/NEPA requirements; • Caltrans will be responsible for all costs related to its efforts to complete quality management and CEQA/NEPA lead agency activities; • A defined dispute resolution process is included to address issues that cannot be resolved at the Project Development Team level; and • Both parties will ensure cooperation for the duration of the PA/ED development phase and timely completion of work activities and identify schedule risks as soon as they arise. Staff seeks Commission approval of the cooperative agreement and authorization for the Chair or Executive Director to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. There is no direct cost related to this cooperative agreement. Interagency Agreements During the PA/ED and future work phases, communication and coordination will be key with project stakeholders. Specifically, certain project stakeholders may be directly impacted by the project. These impacts may require the Commission to obtain an agreement, secure a project approval, or obtain a permit or license from a project stakeholder. For these project stakeholders, the Commission will be negotiating interagency agreements during the PA/ED 17 Agenda Item 7C phase and future work phases. Interagency agreements are anticipated with, but not limited, to the following agencies: Caltrans, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of Riverside, city of Corona, and city of Lake Elsinore. Staff seeks Commission authorization for the Chair or Executive Director to execute all future necessary non-funding interagency agreements on behalf of the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2018/19 Amount: $0 Source of Funds: N/A Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/10/2018 Attachments: 1) Vicinity map 2) Draft Agreement No. 19-31-032-00 18 241 74 I NTERSTATE 241 74 I NTERSTATE Project Limits North: RIV-15 PM 36.8 Project Limits South: RIV-15 PM 22.3 YuccaValley Twentynine Palms RanchoMirage PalmSprings PalmDesert La Quinta Indio Desert Hot Springs Coachella CathedralCity Wildomar LakeElsinore Menifee Eastvale Temecula LakeMatthews Cleveland National Forest LakeElsinore CanyonLake LakePerris VailLake NewportBeach Murrieta Laguna Woods Laguna Niguel Irvine AlisoViejo SanJacinto San Bernardino Perris MorenoValley Highland Hemet Beaumont Banning Yorba Linda WalnutUpland Tustin Santa Ana SanDimas RialtoRanchoCucamongaPomona Placentia Ontario Norco JurupaValleyLaVerneGlendora FontanaDiamondBar Corona Claremont Chino Hills Brea Anaheim Riverside Calimesa Diamond ValleyLakeBedford WashC o ldwater W ashUnincorporated Riverside County Cajalco Rd Weirick Rd Temescal Canyon RdIndian Truck TrailLake StNichols RdCentral AveSAN BERNARDINO CO.RIVERSIDE CO. RI V E R S I D E C O . O R A N G E C O . RIVERSIDE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. SAN BERNARDINO CO.RIVERSIDE CO. 133 142 259 71 1 55 6657 76 30 91 74 74 60 90 22 5 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 210INTERSTATECALIFORNIA 215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 10 I NTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 405 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 73 371 111 243 247 74 62 79 79 38 15 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 10 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 91 15 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 79 I-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT SOUTHERN EXTENSION Construct 14.5 miles of 4 tolled express lanes (TEL) (2 TEL in each direction) generally in the median Legend Project Limits Interchange ATTACHMENT 1 19 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 i COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT DRAFT This AGREEMENT, effective on _______________________________, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and: Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public corporation/entity, referred to hereinafter as COMMISSION. RECITALS 1. PARTIES are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements to the State Highway System per the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 114 and 130. 2. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, Construction of 14.5 miles of tolled express lanes in the median of I-15 from SR-74 in Lake Elsinore to Cajalco Road in Corona, will be referred to hereinafter as PROJECT. The PROJECT scope of work is defined in the project initiation and approval documents (e.g. Project Study Report, Permit Engineering Evaluation Report, or Project Report). 3.All obligations and responsibilities assigned in this AGREEMENT to complete the following PROJECT COMPONENT will be referred to hereinafter as WORK: •PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) Each PROJECT COMPONENT is defined in the CALTRANS Workplan Standards Guide as a distinct group of activities/products in the project planning and development process. ATTACHMENT 2 20 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 2 4. The term AGREEMENT, as used herein, includes this document and any attachments, exhibits, and amendments. This AGREEMENT is separate from and does not modify or replace any other cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding between the PARTIES regarding the PROJECT. PARTIES intend this AGREEMENT to be their final expression that supersedes any oral understanding or writings pertaining to the WORK. The requirements of this AGREEMENT will preside over any conflicting requirements in any documents that are made an express part of this AGREEMENT. If any provisions in this AGREEMENT are found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other AGREEMENT provisions invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable, and those provisions will be automatically severed from this AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided in the AGREEMENT, PARTIES will execute a written amendment if there are any changes to the terms of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES agree to sign a CLOSURE STATEMENT to terminate this AGREEMENT. However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, legal challenge, maintenance and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement or expire by the statute of limitations. 5. The following work associated with this PROJECT has been completed or is in progress: • COMMISSION completed the Project Initiation Document. 6. In this AGREEMENT capitalized words represent defined terms, initialisms, or acronyms. 7. PARTIES hereby set forth the terms, covenants, and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 21 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 3 RESPONSIBILITIES Sponsorship 8. A SPONSOR is responsible for establishing the scope of the PROJECT and securing the financial resources to fund the WORK. A SPONSOR is responsible for securing additional funds when necessary or implementing PROJECT changes to ensure the WORK can be completed with the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. PROJECT changes, as described in the CALTRANS Project Development Procedures Manual, will be approved by CALTRANS as the owner/operator of the State Highway System. 9. COMMISSION is the SPONSOR for the WORK in this AGREEMENT. Implementing Agency 10. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is the PARTY responsible for managing the scope, cost, schedule, and quality of the work activities and products of a PROJECT COMPONENT. • COMMISSION is the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. PA&ED includes the completion of the Final Environmental Document and the Project Report (documenting the project alternative selection). 11. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will provide a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the WORK in that component. The QMP describes the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’s quality policy and how it will be used. The QMP will include a process for resolving disputes between the PARTIES at the team level. The QMP is subject to CALTRANS review and approval. 12. Any PARTY responsible for completing WORK will make its personnel and consultants that prepare WORK available to help resolve WORK-related problems and changes for the entire duration of the PROJECT including PROJECT work that may occur under separate agreements. Funding 13. The WORK does not use funds administered by CALTRANS. PARTIES will amend this AGREEMENT should this condition change. 22 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 4 14. Each PARTY is responsible for the costs they incur in performing the WORK unless otherwise stated in this AGREEMENT. CALTRANS’ Quality Management 15. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System (SHS), will perform quality management work including Independent Quality Assurance (IQA), environmental document quality control, and owner/operator approvals for the portions of WORK within the existing and proposed SHS right-of-way. 16. CALTRANS’ independent quality assurance (IQA) efforts are to ensure that COMMISSION's quality assurance results in WORK that is in accordance with the applicable standards and the PROJECT’s quality management plan (QMP). An IQA does not include any efforts necessary to develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking WORK. When CALTRANS performs IQA it does so for its own benefit. No one can assign liability to CALTRANS due to its IQA. 17. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System, will approve WORK products in accordance with CALTRANS policies and guidance and as indicated in this AGREEMENT. 18. Per National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assignment and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes, CALTRANS will perform environmental document quality control and NEPA assignment review procedures for environmental documentation. CALTRANS quality control and quality assurance procedures for all environmental documents are described in the NEPA Assignments memorandums, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/memos.htm#LinkTarget_705. This also includes the independent judgment analysis and determination under CEQA that the environmental documentation meets CEQA requirements. 19. COMMISSION will provide WORK-related products and supporting documentation upon CALTRANS’ request for the purpose of CALTRANS’ quality management work. 20. The cost of CALTRANS’ quality management work is to be borne by CALTRANS. CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency 21. CALTRANS is the CEQA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. 22. CALTRANS is the NEPA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. 23 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 5 Environmental Permits, Approvals and Agreements 23. PARTIES will comply with the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each PARTIES responsibilities in this AGREEMENT. 24. Unless otherwise assigned in this AGREEMENT, the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT is responsible for all PROJECT COMPONENT WORK associated with coordinating, obtaining, implementing, renewing, and amending the PROJECT permits, agreements, and approvals whether they are identified in the planned project scope of work or become necessary in the course of completing the PROJECT. 25. It is expected that the PROJECT requires the following environmental permits/approvals: ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS/REQUIREMENTS 404, US Army Corps of Engineers 401, Regional Water Quality Control Board 1602 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), State Water Resources Control Board Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) 26. As the PA&ED IMPLEMENTING AGENCY, COMMISSION is responsible for all PA&ED WORK except those activities and responsibilities that are assigned to another PARTY and those activities that are excluded under this AGREEMENT. 24 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 6 27. CALTRANS will be responsible for completing the following PA&ED activities: CALTRANS Work Breakdown Structure Identifier (If Applicable) 100.10.10.xx Quality Management 165.15.15.xx Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 165.15.15.xx Section 7 Consultation 165.25.25 Approval to Circulate Resolution 175.20 Project Preferred Alternative 180.10.05.05.xx CEQA Lead Final Env. Doc QA/QC and Approval 180.10.05.45 Section 7 Consultation 180.15.05 Record of Decision (NEPA) 180.15.10 Notice of Determination (CEQA) 28. Any PARTY preparing environmental documentation, including studies and reports, will ensure that qualified personnel remain available to help resolve environmental issues and perform any necessary work to ensure that the PROJECT remains in environmental compliance. 29. COMMISSION will provide written notice of the initiation of environmental studies to the CEQA and NEPA Lead Agencies prior to completing any other PA&ED phase work. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 30. Environmental documentation will be prepared in compliance with the California Public Resources Code §§ 21080.3.1(d) and (e). CALTRANS will provide, and COMMISSION will use, a letter template and a list of California Native American tribes requesting notification. COMMISSION will prepare consultation documentation for CALTRANS’ signature and transmittal in compliance with the statutorily required time frames. 31. The CEQA Lead Agency will determine the type of CEQA documentation and will cause that documentation to be prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements. 32. Any PARTY involved in the preparation of CEQA documentation will prepare the documentation to meet CEQA requirements and follow the CEQA Lead Agency’s standards that apply to the CEQA process. 25 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 7 33. Any PARTY preparing any portion of the CEQA documentation, including any studies and reports, will submit that portion of the documentation to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at appropriate stages of development prior to public availability. 34. COMMISSION will submit CEQA-related public notices to CALTRANS for review, comment, and approval prior to publication and circulation. 35. COMMISSION will submit all CEQA-related public meeting materials to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to the public meeting date. If the CEQA Lead Agency makes any changes to the materials, then the CEQA Lead Agency will allow COMMISSION to review, comment, and concur on those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. 36. The CEQA Lead Agency will attend all CEQA-related public meetings. 37. If a PARTY who is not the CEQA Lead Agency holds a public meeting about the PROJECT, that PARTY must clearly state its role in the PROJECT and the identity of the CEQA Lead Agency on all meeting publications. All meeting publications must also inform the attendees that public comments collected at the meetings are not part of the CEQA public review process. That PARTY will submit all meeting advertisements, agendas, exhibits, handouts, and materials to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to publication or use. If that PARTY makes any changes to the materials, it will allow the CEQA Lead Agency to review, comment on, and approve those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. The CEQA Lead Agency maintains final editorial control with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over CEQA-related roles and responsibilities. 26 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 8 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 38. Pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C. 326) and 23 U.S.C. 327, CALTRANS is the NEPA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. CALTRANS is responsible for NEPA compliance, will determine the type of NEPA documentation, and will cause that documentation to be prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements. CALTRANS, as the NEPA Lead Agency for PROJECT, will review, comment, and approve all environmental documentation (including, but not limited to, studies, reports, public notices, and public meeting materials, determinations, administrative drafts, and final environmental documents) at appropriate stages of development prior to approval and public availability. When required as NEPA Lead Agency, CALTRANS will conduct consultation and coordination and obtain, renew, or amend approvals pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat. When required as NEPA Lead Agency, CALTRANS will conduct consultation and coordination approvals pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 39. Any PARTY involved in the preparation of NEPA documentation will follow FHWA and CALTRANS standards that apply to the NEPA process including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm) and the CALTRANS Standard Environmental Reference. 40. Any PARTY preparing any portion of the NEPA documentation (including, but not limited to, studies, reports, public notices, and public meeting materials, determinations, administrative drafts, and final environmental documents) will submit that portion of the documentation to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval prior to public availability. 41. COMMISSION will prepare, publicize, and circulate all NEPA-related public notices, except Federal Register notices. COMMISSION will submit all notices to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval prior to publication and circulation. CALTRANS will work with the appropriate federal agency to publish notices in the Federal Register. 42. The NEPA Lead Agency will attend all NEPA-related public meetings. 43. COMMISSION will submit all NEPA-related public meeting materials to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to the public meeting date. 27 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 9 44. If a PARTY who is not the NEPA Lead Agency holds a public meeting about the PROJECT, that PARTY must clearly state its role in the PROJECT and the identity of the NEPA Lead Agency on all meeting publications. All meeting publications must also inform the attendees that public comments collected at the meetings are not part of the NEPA public review process. That PARTY will submit all meeting advertisements, agendas, exhibits, handouts, and materials to the NEPA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to publication or use. If that PARTY makes any changes to the materials, it will allow the NEPA Lead Agency to review, comment on, and approve those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. The NEPA Lead Agency has final approval authority with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over NEPA-related roles and responsibilities. 45. COMMISSION will ensure that the PROJECT is included in the approved Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) prior to the NEPA Lead Agency’s approval of the environmental document. Schedule 46. PARTIES will manage the WORK schedule to ensure the timely use of obligated funds and to ensure compliance with any environmental permits, right-of-way agreements, construction contracts, and any other commitments. PARTIES will communicate schedule risks or changes as soon as they are identified and will actively manage and mitigate schedule risks. 28 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 10 Additional Provisions Standards 47. PARTIES will perform all WORK in accordance with federal and California laws, regulations, and standards; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards; and CALTRANS standards. CALTRANS standards include, but are not limited to, the guidance provided in the: • CADD User’s Manual • CALTRANS policies and directives • Plans Preparation Manual • Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) • Workplan Standards Guide • Standard Environmental Reference • Highway Design Manual Qualifications 48. Each PARTY will ensure that personnel participating in WORK are appropriately qualified or licensed to perform the tasks assigned to them. Consultant Selection 49. COMMISSION will invite CALTRANS to participate in the selection of any consultants that participate in the WORK. Encroachment Permits 50. CALTRANS will issue, upon proper application, the encroachment permits required for WORK within State Highway System (SHS) right-of-way. COMMISSION, their contractors, consultants, agents and utility owners will not work within the SHS right-of-way without an encroachment permit issued in their name. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to COMMISSION, its contractors, consultants, agents, and utility owners at no cost. If the encroachment permit and this AGREEMENT conflict, the requirements of this AGREEMENT will prevail. 29 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 11 51. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend any encroachment permits needed to complete the WORK. Protected Resources 52. If any PARTY discovers unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources during WORK, all WORK in that area will stop and that PARTY will notify all PARTIES within 24 hours of discovery. WORK may only resume after a qualified professional has evaluated the nature and significance of the discovery and CALTRANS approves a plan for its removal or protection. Disclosures 53. PARTIES will hold all administrative drafts and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for the WORK in confidence to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code, Section 6254.5(e) will protect the confidentiality of such documents in the event that said documents are shared between PARTIES. PARTIES will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the WORK without the written consent of the PARTY authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law. 54. If a PARTY receives a public records request pertaining to the WORK, that PARTY will notify PARTIES within five (5) working days of receipt and make PARTIES aware of any disclosed public documents. PARTIES will consult with each other prior to the release of any public documents related to the WORK. Hazardous Materials 55. HM-1 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, irrespective of whether it is disturbed by the PROJECT or not. HM-2 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by the PROJECT. The management activities related to HM-1 and HM-2, including and without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations are referred to herein as HM-1 MANAGEMENT and HM-2 MANAGEMENT respectively. 30 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 12 56. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found the discovering PARTY will immediately notify all other PARTIES. 57. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of-way. CALTRANS will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT will pay, or cause to be paid, the cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT related to HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of- way. 58. If HM-1 is found within the PROJECT limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way, responsibility for such HM-1 rests with the owner(s) of the parcel(s) on which the HM-1 is found. COMMISSION, in concert with the local agency having land use jurisdiction, will ensure that HM-1 MANAGEMENT is undertaken with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. The cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT for HM-1 found within the PROJECT limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way will be the responsibility of the owner(s) of the parcel(s) where the HM-1 is located. 59. The CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for HM-2 MANAGEMENT within the PROJECT limits. 60. CALTRANS’ acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition. Claims 61. COMMISS ION may accept, reject, compromise, settle, or litigate claims of any consultants or contractors hired to complete WORK without concurrence from the other PARTY. 62. PARTIES will confer on any claim that may affect the WORK or PARTIES’ liability or responsibility under this AGREEMENT in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential future claims. No PARTY will prejudice the rights of another PARTY until after PARTIES confer on the claim. 31 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 13 63. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply with the Federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards of 2 CFR, Part 200. PARTIES will ensure that any for-profit consultant hired to participate in the WORK will comply with the requirements in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31. When state or federal funds are expended on the WORK these principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT. 64. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will undergo an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act in the Federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards as defined in 2 CFR, Part 200. 65. When a PARTY reimburses a consultant for WORK with state or federal funds, the procurement of the consultant and the consultant overhead costs will be in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Chapter 10. Interruption of Work 66. If WORK stops for any reason, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will place the PROJECT right- of-way in a safe and operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS. 67. If WORK stops for any reason, each PARTY will continue with environmental commitments included in the environmental documentation, permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, and will keep the PROJECT in environmental compliance until WORK resumes. Penalties, Judgements and Settlements 68. Any PARTY whose action or lack of action causes the levy of fines, interest, or penalties will indemnify and hold all other PARTIES harmless per the terms of this AGREEMENT. Project Files 69. COMMISSION will furnish CALTRANS with the Project History Files related to the PROJECT facilities on State Highway System within sixty (60) days following the completion of each PROJECT COMPONENT. COMMISSION will prepare the Project History File in accordance with the Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 7. All material will be submitted neatly in a three-ring binder and on a CD ROM in PDF format. 32 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 14 GENERAL CONDITIONS Venue 70. PARTIES understand that this AGREEMENT is in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and laws of the State of California. This AGREEMENT will be enforceable in the State of California. Any PARTY initiating legal action arising from this AGREEMENT will file and maintain that legal action in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office that is signatory to this AGREEMENT resides, or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. Exemptions 71. All CALTRANS’ obligations under this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, programming and allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Indemnification 72. Neither CALTRANS nor any of their officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon COMMISSION under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that COMMISSION, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 73. Neither COMMISSION nor any of their officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless COMMISSION and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 33 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 15 Non-parties 74. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations, or rights for entities not signatory to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to affect their legal liability by imposing any standard of care for fulfilling the WORK different from the standards imposed by law. 75. PARTIES will not assign or attempt to assign obligations to entities not signatory to this AGREEMENT without an amendment to this AGREEMENT. Ambiguity and Performance 76. COMMISSION will not interpret any ambiguity contained in this AGREEMENT against CALTRANS. COMMISSION waives the provisions of California Civil Code, Section 1654. A waiver of a PARTY’s performance under this AGREEMENT will not constitute a continuous waiver of any other provision. 77. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that right or power in the future when deemed necessary. Defaults 78. If any PARTY defaults in its performance of the WORK, a non-defaulting PARTY will request in writing that the default be remedied within thirty (30) calendar days. If the defaulting PARTY fails to do so, the non-defaulting PARTY may initiate dispute resolution. Dispute Resolution 79. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level as described in the Quality Management Plan. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS District Director and the Executive Officer of COMMISSION will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, PARTIES’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of the WORK in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. However, if any PARTY stops fulfilling its obligations, any other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that the WORK continues. 34 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 16 Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or forty-five (45) calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS District Office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. 80. PARTIES maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. Prevailing Wage 81. When WORK falls within the Labor Code § 1720(a)(1) definition of "public works" in that it is construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair; or maintenance work under Labor Code § 1771, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of Labor Code §§ 1720-1815, and all applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. PARTIES will include prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public work and require contractors to include the same prevailing wage requirements in all subcontracts. Work performed by a PARTY’s own employees is exempt from the Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements. If WORK is paid for, in whole or part, with federal funds and is of the type of work subject to federal prevailing wage requirements, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of the Davis- Bacon and Related Acts, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3148. When applicable, PARTIES will include federal prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public works. WORK performed by a PARTY’s employees is exempt from federal prevailing wage requirements. 35 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 17 DEFINITIONS PARTY – Any individual signatory party to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES – The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this AGREEMENT. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) – A WBS is a standardized hierarchical listing of project work activities/products in increasing levels of detail. The CALTRANS WBS defines each PROJECT COMPONENT as a group of work activities/products. The CALTRANS WBS is defined in the CALTRANS Workplan Standards Guide. 36 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 EA 0J082 08-RIV-15-22.3/36.8 18 SIGNATURES PARTIES are empowered by California Streets and Highways Code to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. Signatories may execute this AGREEMENT through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This AGREEMENT is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Janice Benton Interim District Director VERIFICATION OF FUNDS AND AUTHORITY: Mary Risaliti District Budget Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Anne Mayer Executive Director Attest: Name Tbd Title TBD Approved as to form and procedure: Best, Best and Krieger General Council 37 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 CLOSURE STATEMENT INSTRUCTIONS 1. Did PARTIES complete all scope, cost and schedule commitments included in this AGREEMENT and any amendments to this AGREEMENT? YES / NO Did CALTRANS accept and approve all final deliverables submitted by other PARTIES? YES / NO Did the CALTRANS HQ Office of Accounting verify that all final accounting for this AGREEMENT and any amendments to this AGREEMENT were completed? YES / NO If construction is involved, did the CALTRANS District Project Manager verify that all claims and third party billings (utilities, etc.) have been settled before termination of the AGREEMENT? YES / NO Did PARTIES complete and transmit the As-Built Plans, Project History File, and all other required contract documents? YES / NO If ALL answers are “YES”, this form may be used to TERMINATE this AGREEMENT. 38 Agreement 08-1693 Project No. 0818000063 CLOSURE STATEMENT PARTIES agree that they have completed all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in Agreement 08-1693 and any amendments to the agreement. The final signature date on this document terminates agreement 08-1693 except survival articles. All survival articles in agreement 08-1693 will remain in effect until expired by law, terminated or modified in writing by the PARTIES’ mutual agreement, whichever occurs earlier. The people signing this agreement have the authority to do so on behalf of their public agencies. CALTRANS Name Date Interim District Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Name Date Executive Director 39 AGENDA ITEM 7D Agenda Item 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Policy for Commission-Funded Landscape and Aesthetics STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 19-001, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Policy for Commission-Funded Landscape and Aesthetics”; and 2) Adopt a policy on the appropriate level of landscape and aesthetics costs for Commission- funded projects. Background The Mid County Parkway (MCP) and the State Route 79 Realignment projects represent about 23 miles of new freeway, containing about 18 new local interchanges, two freeway-to-freeway system interchanges, and modification of one existing interchange. Landscaping and aesthetics will be a component of each of these projects. Each of these projects or project segments will require scoping of the landscape and aesthetic improvements, in coordination with the applicable local agency and in conformance with Caltrans and FHWA policies on landscape scope, maintenance and cost. Staff now recommends a policy be adopted to guide decisions on the appropriate level of funding for landscape and aesthetic features on future capital projects. A policy to govern the scope and cost of landscaping and aesthetic features to be added to Commission-funded capital projects is good policy because: 1) It will set a fair, reasonable, and equitable budget for landscape and aesthetics, based on past project aesthetic and landscape costs in the county; 2) It will provide more predictability of the cost of the landscape and aesthetics portion of future projects; 3) It will comply with environmental commitment mitigation measures; 4) It will maximize the use of limited Commission Measure A funds for build-out of both MCP and SR-79 Realignment projects and other future capital projects; and 5) It will provide a suitable level of landscape and aesthetic treatments to enhance future projects, and it will allow local agencies flexibility to allow for additional landscaping and aesthetics. 40 Agenda Item 7D Comparable Projects Staff compared the cost of landscape and aesthetics on several recent interchange projects in the County to the overall costs of those projects. The following table summarizes the results: Project Construction Cost Landscaping & Aesthetic Cost Percent of construction I-15/Limonite Interchange $45,771,982 $1,964,098 4.29 I-215/Van Buren Interchange $30,268,700 $974,651 3.22 I-215/Newport Interchange $32,914,543 $740,532 2.25 I-215/Scott Road Interchange $32,600,000 $1,130,000 3.47 Average 3.31 As the MCP and SR-79 Realignment projects move forward, construction will eventually take place on these very large projects utilizing a series of contracts, which will vary considerably in size depending on available funding and other constraints. Some of these construction contracts may be well over $100 million, while others will be closer to the size of the projects listed in the table above. Therefore, it is necessary to have a policy that provides flexibility based on the relative size of each contract. During development and scoping of the four new rail stations that were part of the Perris Valley Line project, the Commission adopted a similar policy to insure equity and fairness in the amount of money spent at each station for off-site improvements. Policy Staff recommends that for future Commission-funded projects, the percentage of cost attributable to landscaping and aesthetics funded by the Commission be limited to about 3.5 percent of the overall construction cost of the project for construction contracts less than $50 million. This policy would not preclude a local agency from adding local funds to increase the amount of landscaping and aesthetics above the 3.5 percent threshold. Generally, this will require that the local agency also accept responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping and aesthetics, which is accomplished through an agreement with the agency owning the facility (usually Caltrans). Since Caltrans is very limited on the amount of maintenance it can provide on aesthetics and landscaping, most projects already include such an agreement. For projects in which the construction contract is greater than $50 million, the percentage contributed by the Commission will gradually decline as the construction cost increases. For example, the landscaping and aesthetics cost for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project in Corona was about 2.1 percent of the overall construction cost of that project. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 19-001 2) Policy for Commission Funded Landscape and Aesthetics 41 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 19-001 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE POLICY FOR COMMISSION-FUNDED LANDSCAPE AND AESTHETICS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Commission”) currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission’s policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Policy for Commission-funded landscape and aesthetics and attached as Exhibit A. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2019. _____________________________________ Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _________________________________ Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board 42 Page 1 of 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Policy Title: Policy for Commission-Funded Landscape and Aesthetics Revised: Administered By: Capital Projects Approved By: Commission Approved Date: January 9, 2018 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy for Commission-Funded Landscape and Aesthetics (“Policy”) is to set forth a guideline for the percentage of total construction cost attributable to landscaping and aesthetics that will be paid by the Commission as part of a highway project. POLICY For Commission-funded projects, the percentage of cost attributable to landscaping and aesthetics funded by the Commission be limited to about 3.5 percent of the overall construction cost of the project, for construction contracts less than $50 million. A local agency may add local funds through a funding agreement to increase the amount of landscaping and aesthetics above the 3.5 percent threshold. Generally, this will require that the local agency also accept responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping and aesthetics, which is accomplished through an agreement with the agency owning the facility (usually Caltrans). For projects in which the construction contract is greater than $50 million, the percentage contributed by the Commission will gradually decline as the construction cost increases. ATTACHMENT 2 43 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2018/19 Mid-Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the mid-year Fiscal Year 2018/19 revenue projections of $192 million for Measure A revenues, $96 million for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, and $24 million for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues; 2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to Measure A revenues of $5 million and expenditures of $2,075,000 to reflect the revised Measure A projections; 3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF revenues of $2 million and transfers in of $315,000, and expenditures and transfers out of $394,000 to reflect the revised LTF projections; and 4) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $3 million to reflect the revised TUMF projections. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the beginning of FY 2018/19, staff made projections regarding the revenues to be received from Measure A, LTF, and TUMF funds for budget purposes. Staff tracks the Measure A, LTF, and TUMF revenues on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF receipts are 9.9 percent and 8.8 percent higher, respectively, for the six months ended December 31, 2018, compared to the same period last year. For comparison purposes, the FY 2017/18 actual revenues reflected a slight increase of 0.6 percent and 1.6 percent in Measure A and LTF revenues, respectively, from the FY 2016/17 levels. As reported at the November Commission meeting in connection with the quarterly sales tax report, numerous sales tax returns related to the first two quarters of calendar year 2018 remained unprocessed at the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration following implementation of a new automation system in May 2018. The unprocessed returns had a direct impact on FY 2017/18 sales tax revenues, as the Commission did not record an estimate of the revenue related to the unprocessed returns affecting FY 2017/18. Therefore, FY 2018/19 includes sales tax revenues related to FY 2017/18 as demonstrated by the unusually high increase 44 Agenda Item 8 in sales tax receipts noted previously. The Commission’s sales tax consultant, MuniServices, LLC, an Avenu Company, provided analysis during a recent quarterly review that indicated continued growth has occurred in Measure A sales tax revenues when reporting FY 2017/18 sales tax returns processed in FY 2018/19 in the correct period. TUMF revenues for the three months ended September 2018 are 19 percent higher than the same period last year. Monthly TUMF receipts, however, tend to fluctuate significantly – making it difficult to identify and project any trend. Accordingly, while there appears to be continued improvement in TUMF revenues, a revised projection should be conservative. Growth in sales tax revenues continues due to growth in employment, population, and a more diverse economic base. According to the 2018 Inland Empire Forecast issued by the Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at the University of California Riverside School of Business, “the Inland Empire economy showed resiliency through the first half of 2018.” Nonetheless, staff will continue to take an optimistic yet conservative approach to this year’s mid-year projection analysis based on the revenue trend noted through December 2018, including the impact of FY 2017/18 unprocessed returns that will be included with FY 2018/19 revenues. Staff recommends the Commission increase the current year revenue projections for Measure A, LTF, and TUMF revenues projections as follows: Revenue Projections Original (January 2018) FY 2018/19 Budget Revised for Mid- Year Adjustment Increase from Budget Measure A $ 187,000,000 $ 187,000,000 $ 192,000,000 $5,000,000 LTF 94,000,000 94,000,000 96,000,000 2,000,000 TUMF 21,000,000 21,000,000 24,000,000 3,000,000 For reference purposes, audited revenues for FY 2017/18 were approximately $176.3 million (Measure A), $89.6 million (LTF), and $23.7 million (TUMF). The Measure A and LTF revenue revised projections for FY 2018/19 are 8.9 percent and 7.1 percent higher than the FY 2017/18 actual revenues, respectively, and include the impact of the FY 2017/18 unprocessed returns. The TUMF revenue projection approximates the prior fiscal year’s actual revenue with a small rounding increase after consideration of current receipt trends. Any change in Measure A revenue projections has a direct effect on the distributions to the geographic areas and related local streets and roads (LSR) programs. Since there is a change in the Measure A revenue projections, adjustments are required for LSR expenditures aggregating $1,528,000 and Coachella Valley highways and regional arterials expenditures of $547,000. The LTF audit was completed, and financial statements were issued in October 2018. Staff revised the original LTF projections to include the carryover that is available to the local governments and transit agencies and approximates $8,516,000. Staff estimates the LTF administrative allocation to the Commission remains unchanged at $1,170,000; however, the 45 Agenda Item 8 actual amount is subject to the quarterly amounts determined per the administrative cost allocation plan. Any difference in allocated Commission administration costs will be reflected in next year’s estimated carryover. An expenditure adjustment is required for Southern California Association of Governments planning of approximately $79,000. Since the Commission planning allocations will be transferred from the Local Transportation Fund to the General fund, similar adjustments to transfer in and out are also needed. The increase for SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects of approximately $202,000 does not require a budget adjustment, as this amount will be included in the amount available for the next call for projects. The increase in the LTF balance available for apportionments for transit operators of approximately $8,928,000 also does not require a budget adjustment as this amount will be available for any transit allocation adjustments based on amendments to transit operator Short Range Transit Plans. Upon Commission approval, staff will provide this updated information to the necessary local governments and transit operators. Additionally, staff will continue to monitor FY 2018/19 revenues to determine if any adjustments to the revenue projections or Measure A and LTF administration are necessary. 46 Agenda Item 8 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2018/19 Amount: $10,315,000 additional sources $2,469,000 additional uses Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A, LTF, TUMF Budget Adjustment: Yes GL/Project Accounting No.: $ 2,000,000 601 62 40102 315,000 601 62 97001 315,000 106 65 59001 79,000 601 62 86205 1,178,000 623999 401 40101 262 31 40101 427,000 613999 401 40101 261 31 40101 236,000 654199 401 40101 265 33 40101 59,000 269 62 40101 74,000 260 26 40101 25,000 270 26 40101 58,000 632199 401 40101 263 41 40101 347,000 266 72 40101 1,119,000 267 71 40101 311,000 264 19 40101 46,000 683999 401 40101 268 31 40101 547,000 563999 401 40101 256 31 40101 382,000 257 71 40101 164,000 258 26 40101 27,000 234 71 40101 1,119,000 267 71 86104 547,000 256 31 86405 382,000 257 71 86104 27,000 234 71 86104 1,500,000 725000 416 41607 210 72 42110 1,500,000 735000 416 41607 210 73 42110 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/13/2018 Attachments: 1) Measure A Program Allocation FY 2018/19 2) Riverside County LTF FY 2018/19 Apportionment 47 Revised Projection (1/9/2019) Original Projection (1/10/2018) Increase (Decrease) Revenues 192,000,000$ 187,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Less: Administration 2 - - - Projected Apportionment to Programs: Western County Highway Improvements 45,244,000$ 44,066,000$ 1,178,000$ New Corridors 16,412,000 15,985,000 427,000 Public Transit Commuter Rail 9,049,000 8,813,000 236,000 Intercity Bus 2,262,000 2,203,000 59,000 Specialized Transit-Operations 2,828,000 2,754,000 74,000 Specialized Transit-CTSA 943,000 918,000 25,000 Commuter Services 2,218,000 2,160,000 58,000 Regional Arterial 13,307,000 12,960,000 347,000 Local Streets & Roads 43,025,000 41,906,000 1,119,000 BANNING 618,000 601,000 17,000 BEAUMONT 970,000 945,000 25,000 CALIMESA 176,000 171,000 5,000 CANYON LAKE 195,000 190,000 5,000 CORONA 4,364,000 4,251,000 113,000 EASTVALE 1,387,000 1,351,000 36,000 HEMET 1,862,000 1,813,000 49,000 JURUPA VALLEY 2,123,000 2,067,000 56,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,426,000 1,390,000 36,000 MENIFEE 1,823,000 1,776,000 47,000 MORENO VALLEY 4,240,000 4,130,000 110,000 MURRIETA 2,561,000 2,494,000 67,000 NORCO 715,000 697,000 18,000 PERRIS 1,718,000 1,673,000 45,000 RIVERSIDE 8,073,000 7,863,000 210,000 SAN JACINTO 926,000 902,000 24,000 TEMECULA 3,354,000 3,267,000 87,000 WILDOMAR 675,000 658,000 17,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,819,000 5,667,000 152,000 Bond Financing 11,976,000 11,665,000 311,000 Economic Development Projects 1,774,000 1,728,000 46,000 SUBTOTAL―Western County 149,038,000 145,158,000 3,880,000 Coachella Valley Highways & Regional Arterials 20,972,000 20,425,000 547,000 Local Street & Roads 14,679,000 14,297,000 382,000 CATHEDRAL CITY 1,569,000 1,528,000 41,000 COACHELLA 640,000 624,000 16,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 503,000 490,000 13,000 INDIAN WELLS 280,000 272,000 8,000 INDIO 2,062,000 2,008,000 54,000 LA QUINTA 1,606,000 1,565,000 41,000 PALM DESERT 2,948,000 2,871,000 77,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,232,000 2,174,000 58,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 973,000 948,000 25,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,866,000 1,817,000 49,000 Specialized & Public Transit 6,291,000 6,127,000 164,000 SUBTOTAL―Coachella Valley 41,942,000 40,849,000 1,093,000 Palo Verde Valley Local Street & Roads 1,020,000 993,000 27,000 BLYTHE 821,000 800,000 21,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 199,000 193,000 6,000 SUBTOTAL―Palo Verde Valley 1,020,000 993,000 27,000 TOTAL 192,000,000$ 187,000,000$ 5,000,000$ Notes: 1 Estimate for planning purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION)1 FY 2018/19 (Revised (1/9/2019) Administrative costs are allocated in accordance with a cost allocation plan on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, the Measure A allocations to each geographic area by program will be reduced for such quarterly cost allocations. ATTACHMENT 1 48 Revised Original Projection Projection (Decrease) (1/9/2019)(1/10/2018)Increase Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned)8,516,000$ -$ 8,516,000$ Estimated Receipts1 96,000,000 94,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 104,516,000 94,000,000 10,516,000 Less: County Auditor-Controller Administration 12,000 12,000 - Less: Estimated RCTC Administration2 1,170,000 1,170,000 - Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues)3,135,000 2,820,000 315,000 Less: SCAG Planning (3/4 of 1% of revenues)784,000 705,000 79,000 BALANCE 99,415,000 89,293,000 10,122,000 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance)1,988,000 1,786,000 202,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 97,427,000 87,507,000 9,920,000 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 9,743,000 8,751,000 992,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMEN 87,684,000$ 78,756,000$ 8,928,000$ FY 2018/19 Revised FY 2018/19 Original Revised Population Apportionment Apportionment (Decrease) APPORTIONMENT Population % of Total (1/9/2019)(1/10/2018)Increase Western:1,898,719 79.62%69,813,000$ 62,704,000$ 7,109,000$ Rail 22%15,359,000 13,795,000 1,564,000 Transit 78%54,454,000 48,909,000 5,545,000 Coachella Valley 460,275 19.30%16,923,000 15,200,000 1,723,000 Palo Verde Valley 25,790 1.08%948,000 852,000 96,000 2,384,783 100.00%87,684,000$ 78,756,000$ 8,928,000$ ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005): Western: Rail 1,707,000$ Transit: RTA 5,002,000$ Banning 167,000 Beaumont 253,000 Corona 223,000 Riverside 406,000 Subtotal Transit 6,051,000$ 6,051,000 Subtotal Western 7,758,000 Coachella Valley 1,880,000 Palo Verde Valley 105,000 Total Reserves 9,743,000$ NOTES: 1 Estimate for planning purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. Rounded to the nearest thousand. 2 Amount is an estimate; administrative costs are allocated in accordance with a cost allocation plan on a quarterly basis. Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2017. Allocation of reserves: FY 2016/17 SRTP funding allocations approved 7/13/16. RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2018/19 APPORTIONMENT (REVISED 1/9/2019) N:\LTF\LTF Projections\2018-2019 Apportionments REVISED 01.09.19.xlsx 12/13/20183:29 PM ATTACHMENT 2 49 ANNUAL REVENUES UPDATE FY 2019 & FY 2020 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 1 FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Revenue Projections JANUARY 9, 2019 2 •Current trends •Economic data •Historical data Analysis •Measure A •½% local transaction and use tax •Place of consumption •LTF •¼% of state sales tax •Point of sale •TUMF •Western County development fee Revenues •FY 2018/19 •Midyear revision •FY 2019/20 •Budget development Projections FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Analysis JANUARY 9, 2019 3 Overall Employment Real Estate Revenues •Steady growth for short-run outlook •Local economy fundamentals on solid footing •Steady growth in wages improves local household finances •4.1% unemployment rate compared to 14.1% at height of Great Recession •Advances in past year but could be doing better considering region’s economic growth •Sales tax growth since recession •FY 2018 impacted by state data processing issues •TUMF growth overall despite fluctuations FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Measure A by Economic Category JANUARY 9, 2019 4 Source: MuniServices (2Q 2018) ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS % of Total / % Change RCTC State Wide Orange County San Bernardino County S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast General Retail 28.7 / 3.8 38.7 / 2.8 37.5 / 1.9 37.9 / 4.5 36.1 / 2.7 40.3 / 5.0 42.6 / 7.2 39.9 / 1.9 31.7 / 0.2 36.7 / -2.1 Food Products 17.0 / 4.4 19.5 / 5.0 18.5 / 3.1 14.0 / 7.3 20.6 / 4.6 16.5 / 5.9 24.5 / 9.6 20.8 / 4.9 18.4 / 1.5 30.4 / -1.8 Transportation 25.5 / 5.2 23.2 / 3.2 21.6 / 1.0 26.2 / 1.8 20.7 / 6.3 27.8 / 4.3 26.6 / 7.6 22.6 / 1.0 29.2 / 2.3 21.2 / 8.6 Construction 10.5 / 6.1 7.1 / 14.5 6.2 / 10.6 6.4 / 15.9 7.7 / 13.8 6.8 / 18.0 6.8 / 23.6 6.5 / 13.3 11.1 / 12.3 5.4 / 1.0 Business to Business 16.3 / 5.2 10.9 / 5.2 11.0 / 1.5 15.3 / 2.2 14.3 / 4.0 7.9 / 3.7 8.9 / 36.2 9.6 / 3.7 8.6 / 10.5 5.7 / -2.7 Miscellaneous 1.9 / 6.4 0.6 / 2.8 5.3 / 2.8 0.4 / -1.6 0.7 / 3.7 0.7 / -4.7 0.4 / 11.2 0.6 / 2.7 1.0 / 52.0 0.6 / 6.0 Total 100.0 / 4.8 100.0 / 4.4 100.0 / 2.5 100.0 / 4.5 100.0 / 4.9 100.0 / 5.7 100.0 / 11.0 100.0 / 3.2 100.0 /3.8 100.0 / 0.4 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery,and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales -New, Auto Sales -Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry,Light Industry, Leasing, Biotechnology, I.T. Infrastructure, and Green Energy Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Economic Category Trends JANUARY 9, 2019 5 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 YE 2011Q2 YE 2012Q2 YE 2013Q2 YE 2014Q2 YE 2015Q2 YE 2016Q2 YE 2017Q2 YE 2018Q2 General Retail Food Products Transportation Construction Business To Business Miscellaneous Source: MuniServices (2Q 2018) FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Measure A Top 3 Economic Segments JANUARY 9, 2019 6 ECONOMIC SEGMENT ANALYSIS RCTC State Wide Orange County San Bernardino County S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Auto Sales - New Misc Retail Misc Retail Misc Retail Misc Retail Misc Retail Misc Retail Misc Retail Restaurants Restaurants % of Total / % Change 11.7 / 0.6 20.4 / 2.2 20.4 / 1.3 20.9 / 3.7 18.5 / 3.0 21.2 / 5.0 24.5 / 9.6 22.3 / 1.1 11.0 / -0.2 22.6 / -2.6 2nd Largest Segment Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Auto Sales - New Service Stations Restaurants Auto Sales - New Misc. Retail % of Total / % Change 11.5 / 3.6 14.7 / 3.8 14.5 / 1.8 10.2 / 5.7 15.4 / 4.4 13.7 / 1.7 10.3 / 13.1 16.3 / 3.4 10.7 / 2.0 16.7 / -1.3 3rd Largest Segment Department Stores Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Department Stores Auto Sales - New Restaurants Department Stores Auto Sales - New Service Stations Auto Sales - New % of Total / % Change 9.5 / 1.1 11.3 / 1.7 10.8 / 0.0 9.5 / 7.5 11.5 / 5.9 11.7 / 4.4 11.0 / 2.9 11.2 / -0.8 10.0 / 7.6 10.5 / 14.4 Source: MuniServices (2Q 2018) FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Economic Segment Trends JANUARY 9, 2019 7Source: MuniServices (2Q 2018) $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 YE 2011Q2 YE 2012Q2 YE 2013Q2 YE 2014Q2 YE 2015Q2 YE 2016Q2 YE 2017Q2 YE 2018Q2 Auto Sales - New Restaurants Department Stores Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Bldg.Matls-Whsle Apparel Stores Food Markets Bldg.Matls-Retail Light Industry FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Measure A Revenue Allocations JANUARY 9, 2019 8 •30% Highways •29% Local Streets & Roads •Allocation to County/cities based on 75% population, 25% taxable sales •12% Public Transit •11% New Corridors •9% Regional Arterials •8% Bond Financing •1% Economic Development Incentives Western County •50% Highways & Regional Arterials •35% Local Streets & Roads •Allocation to County/cities based on 50% dwelling units, 50% taxable sales •15% Public Transit Coachella Valley •100% Local Streets & Roads •Allocation to County/city based on 75% population, 25% taxable sales Palo Verde Valley By Geographic Area Based on taxable sales by area FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Measure A Projections JANUARY 9, 2019 9 $0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Projection YTD receipts 9.9% higher than Dec 2017 •$5 million midyear increase •8.9% above FY 2018 actuals FY 2019: $192 million •0.5% increase over FY 2019 projection FY 2020: $193 million FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Measure A Revenue Allocation JANUARY 9, 2019 10 $149,038,000 $41,942,000 $1,020,000 FY 2019 -$192 million Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley $150,535,000 $41,475,000 $990,000 FY 2020 -$193 million Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections LTF Projections JANUARY 9, 2019 11 $- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Projection FY 2019: $97 million 1.0% increase over FY 2019 projection FY 2018: $96 million $2 million midyear increase 7.2% above FY 2018 actuals YTD receipts 8.8% higher than Dec 2017 FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections LTF Apportionment JANUARY 9, 2019 12 $5,101,000 $1,988,000 $97,427,000 FY 2019 -$104.5 million1 Administration & Planning SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit $4,750,000 $1,845,000 $90,405,000 FY 2020 -$97 million Administration & Planning SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit 1 Includes FY 2018 Carryover of $8.5 million related to release of FY 2018 transit reserves and difference between FY 2018 actual and projected revenues FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Western County TUMF Projections JANUARY 9, 2019 13 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Actual Projection FY 2019 & FY 2020 Revenue Projections Next Steps JANUARY 9, 2019 14 FY 2018/19 midyear projections •Board approval •Budget adjustments •Advise local jurisdictions FY 2019/20 projections •Board approval •Budget development •Advise local jurisdictions Monitor revenue trends •Propose adjustments as necessary AGENDA ITEM 9 Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2019/20 Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the projections for Measure A revenues of $193 million for Fiscal Year 2019/20; 2) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment of $97 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2019/20; and 3) Approve the projections for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $25 million for FY 2019/20. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to the commencement of the annual budget process, the Chief Financial Officer presents to the Commission the projections for Measure A, LTF, and TUMF revenues related to the next fiscal year. These revenue projections include consideration of historical and current trends of receipts and economic data collected from various sources, including the quarterly sales tax forecast of Measure A revenues prepared by its sales tax consultant, MuniServices, LLC, an Avenu Company. Measure A The Measure A projection consists of revenues generated from the local half-cent transactions and use tax approved by voters in November 2002. The Measure A funds are principally used to fund highway, regional arterial, local streets and roads, new corridors, economic development, bond financing, bus transit, commuter rail, commuter assistance, and specialized transportation projects in the three geographic areas of Riverside County, as defined in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The percentage of Measure A revenues allocated to each of these geographic areas is based on return to source of the sales tax revenues generated. FY 2019/20 represents the eleventh year of the 30-year term of the 2009 Measure A. The Measure A projection for FY 2019/20 is $193 million. The estimate is based on the mid-year projection of $192 million for FY 2018/19, which includes an amount related to FY 2017/18 50 Agenda Item 9 unprocessed sales tax returns that the California Tax and Fee Administration will include with FY 2018/19 sales tax revenues as discussed further in the separate mid-year revenue projection staff report. The increase is conservative and represents cautious optimism based on current economic forecast information and recent fiscal year trends. This projection will become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2019/20 budget. The budget process typically commences in January of each year following the development of the Measure A revenue projections. Additionally, the amounts for the local streets and roads programs are usually provided to the local jurisdictions for planning purposes. The projected amount of Measure A available for distribution to the three geographic areas is $193 million prior to an administrative cost allocation, as summarized below and presented in further detail by program on the attachment: Geographic Area Amount Western Riverside County $ 150,535,000 Coachella Valley 41,475,000 Palo Verde Valley 990,000 Total $ 193,000,000 Administrative costs are allocated in accordance with a cost allocation plan on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, the Measure A allocations to each geographic area by program will be reduced for such quarterly costs allocations. Local Transportation Fund The LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the county of Riverside (County). The Transportation Development Act (TDA) legislation that created LTF requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. The estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process, which commences in January 2020 for the next fiscal year. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. Therefore, the practice has been for staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County agree on a revenue amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas as defined by TDA law within the County: Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The revenues are divided based on the respective populations for each area. The apportionment occurs after off-the-top allocations for administration to the County and Commission and set asides for Southern California Association of Governments planning (3/4 of 1 percent), local planning 51 Agenda Item 9 activities (3 percent), and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2 percent). The Commission’s administration allocation is an estimate; the actual amount is subject to the quarterly amounts determined per the administrative cost allocation plan. Any difference in allocated Commission administration costs will be reflected in next year’s estimated carryover. Attached is the FY 2019/20 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of $97 million. The estimate will be submitted to the County for its concurrence. The estimate is based on the mid-year projection of $96 million for FY 2018/19, which also includes the impact of the FY 2017/18 unprocessed returns. This increase is conservative and represents cautious optimism based on current economic forecast information. After the deductions for administration of approximately $1,112,000 and set-asides of approximately $5,483,000, the amount available for apportionment before reserves is approximately $90,405,000. The balance available for apportionment before reserves is as follows: Geographic Area Amount Western Riverside County $ 71,980,000 Coachella Valley 17,451,000 Palo Verde Valley 974,000 Total $ 90,405,000 In accordance with Reserve Policy adopted by the Commission at its January 12, 2005 meeting, a reserve of 10 percent for each apportionment area will be established and set aside for FY 2019/20, for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the Western Riverside County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to each of the transit operators. For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the reserve is based on each operator’s proportionate share of FY 2018/19 LTF operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their SRTPs through the established amendment and Commission approval process. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee The TUMF projection consists of revenues generated from fees charged to new development to ensure it pays for the new transportation facilities needed to accommodate growth. As a result of a memorandum of understanding executed in 2008 between the Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the administrator of the TUMF program, the Commission receives a significant share of TUMF revenues, after a WRCOG administrative allocation, for the Commission’s regional arterial and Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process programs that is equal to the WRCOG share for the TUMF zone program. The revenue estimate for FY 2018/19 is $25 million. The estimate is based on the mid-year projection of $24 million for FY 2018/19 and assumes a 5.4 percent increase over the FY 2017/18 actual TUMF revenues. 52 Agenda Item 9 Next Steps Upon Commission approval, staff will provide this information to the local jurisdictions and transit operators for planning purposes. Staff will continue to monitor FY 2018/19 revenues during the development of the FY 2019/20 budget to determine if any adjustments to the revenue projections are necessary. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2019/20 Amount: $193,000,000 Measure A; $97,000,000 LTF; $25,000,000 TUMF Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF, and TUMF Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: Measure A $ 45,698,000 623999 401 40101 262 31 40101 16,577,000 613999 401 40101 261 31 40101 9,140,000 654199 401 40101 265 33 40101 2,285,000 269 62 40101 2,856,000 260 26 40101 952,000 270 26 40101 2,240,000 632199 401 40101 263 41 40101 13,441,000 266 72 40101 43,458,000 267 71 40101 12,096,000 264 19 40101 1,792,000 683999 401 40101 268 31 40101 20,738,000 563999 401 40101 256 31 40101 14,516,000 257 71 40101 6,221,000 258 26 40101 990,000 234 71 40101 LTF 97,000,000 601 62 40102 TUMF 12,500,000 725000 416 41607 210 72 42110 12,500,000 735000 416 41607 210 73 42110 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/13/2018 Attachments: 1) Measure A Program Allocation FY 2019/20 2) Riverside County LTF FY 2019/20 Apportionment 53 Original Projection (1/9/2019) Projected Measure A Revenues 193,000,000$ Less: Administration 2 - Projected Apportionment to Programs: Western County Highway Improvements 45,698,000$ New Corridors 16,577,000 Public Transit Commuter Rail 9,140,000 Intercity Bus 2,285,000 Specialized Transit-Operations 2,856,000 Specialized Transit-CTSA 952,000 Commuter Services 2,240,000 Regional Arterial 13,441,000 Local Streets & Roads 43,458,000 BANNING 627,000 BEAUMONT 1,000,000 CALIMESA 182,000 CANYON LAKE 197,000 CORONA 4,486,000 EASTVALE 1,436,000 HEMET 1,856,000 JURUPA VALLEY 2,221,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,441,000 MENIFEE 1,847,000 MORENO VALLEY 4,248,000 MURRIETA 2,577,000 NORCO 713,000 PERRIS 2,003,000 RIVERSIDE 7,886,000 SAN JACINTO 927,000 TEMECULA 3,211,000 WILDOMAR 680,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,920,000 Bond Financing 12,096,000 Economic Development Projects 1,792,000 SUBTOTAL-Western County 150,535,000 Coachella Valley Highways & Regional Arterials 20,738,000 Local Street & Roads 14,516,000 CATHEDRAL CITY 1,537,000 COACHELLA 628,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 507,000 INDIAN WELLS 267,000 INDIO 2,054,000 LA QUINTA 1,590,000 PALM DESERT 2,842,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,240,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 965,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,886,000 Specialized & Public Transit 6,221,000 SUBTOTAL-Coachella Valley 41,475,000 Palo Verde Valley Local Street & Roads 990,000 BLYTHE 782,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 208,000 SUBTOTAL-Palo Verde Valley 990,000 TOTAL 193,000,000$ Notes: 1 Estimate for planning purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION)1 FY 2019/20 Administrative costs are allocated in accordance with a cost allocation plan on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, the Measure A allocations to each geographic area by program will be reduced for such quarterly cost allocations. N:\MEASURES\Meas A FY20\Measure A 2020 Projections.xlsx 12/13/20181:55 PM ATTACHMENT 1 54 Revised Original Projection Projection (Decrease) (1/9/2019)(1/10/2018)Increase Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned)8,516,000$ -$ -$ Estimated Receipts1 96,000,000 94,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 104,516,000 94,000,000 10,516,000 Less: County Auditor-Controller Administration 12,000 12,000 - Less: Estimated RCTC Administration2 1,170,000 1,170,000 - Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues)3,135,000 2,820,000 315,000 Less: SCAG Planning (3/4 of 1% of revenues)784,000 705,000 79,000 BALANCE 99,415,000 89,293,000 10,122,000 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance)1,988,000 1,786,000 202,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 97,427,000 87,507,000 9,920,000 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 9,743,000 8,751,000 992,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMEN 87,684,000$ 78,756,000$ 8,928,000$ FY 2018/19 Revised FY 2018/19 Original Revised Population Apportionment Apportionment (Decrease) APPORTIONMENT Population % of Total (1/9/2019)(1/10/2018)Increase Western:1,898,719 79.62%69,813,000$ 62,704,000$ 7,109,000$ Rail 22%15,359,000 13,795,000 1,564,000 Transit 78%54,454,000 48,909,000 5,545,000 Coachella Valley 460,275 19.30%16,923,000 15,200,000 1,723,000 Palo Verde Valley 25,790 1.08%948,000 852,000 96,000 2,384,783 100.00%87,684,000$ 78,756,000$ 8,928,000$ ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005): Western: Rail 1,707,000$ Transit: RTA 5,002,000$ Banning 167,000 Beaumont 253,000 Corona 223,000 Riverside 406,000 Subtotal Transit 6,051,000$ 6,051,000 Subtotal Western 7,758,000 Coachella Valley 1,880,000 Palo Verde Valley 105,000 Total Reserves 9,743,000$ NOTES: 1 Estimate for planning purposes, subject to change and rounding differences. Rounded to the nearest thousand. 2 Amount is an estimate; administrative costs are allocated in accordance with a cost allocation plan on a quarterly basis. Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2017. Allocation of reserves: FY 2016/17 SRTP funding allocations approved 7/13/16. RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2018/19 APPORTIONMENT (REVISED 1/9/2019) N:\LTF\LTF Projections\2018-2019 Apportionments REVISED 01.09.19.xlsx 12/13/20183:26 PM ATTACHMENT 2 55 AGENDA ITEM 10 Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Funding, Environmental Mitigation and Construction Agreement with Skanska USA Civil West STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 18-31-146-00 to Skanska USA Civil West (Skanska) to construct the State Route 60 Truck Lanes project (Project), in the amount of $95,994,000, plus a contingency amount of $10,047,705 for potential change orders and supplemental work during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $106,041,705; 2) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-038-00 with the state of California for an amount not to exceed $1,040,070 for California Highway Patrol (CHP) Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) services; 3) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-027-00 with Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for compensatory mitigation for the Project in the amount of $413,400, plus a contingency amount of $10,000 to cover administrative fees, for a total amount not to exceed $423,400; 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work as may be required for the Project; and 5) Authorize Chair or the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Project is located east of Moreno Valley from Gilman Springs Road to Jack Rabbit Trail. The Project scope includes an eastbound truck climbing lane and a westbound truck descending lane plus inside and outside standard shoulders along a 4.5-mile stretch of SR-60 (Figure 1), and is designed to enhance safety and improve operations. The Project is a combination of a Caltrans-sponsored safety project to construct shoulders and the Commission’s project to construct the truck lanes, as well as a Caltrans-sponsored pavement rehabilitation project. 56 Agenda Item 10 Figure 1: Project Location Map Construction activity is expected to begin in July 2019 and will take about 33 months. Procurement Process: On October 18, 2018, the Commission advertised Invitation for Bids (IFB) No. 18-31-146-00 for construction of the Project. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the complete IFB, including all contract documents, was posted on the Commission’s PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission’s website. Electronic mail messages were sent to vendors registered in the Commission’s PlanetBids database that fit the IFB qualifications. One hundred thirteen firms downloaded the IFB. Twenty-eight are located in Riverside County. A pre-bid conference was held at the Commission’s office on October 25, and, on November 29, seven bids were received and publicly opened. A summary of the bids received is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Construction of State Route 60 Truck Lanes Firm (In order from low bid to high bid) Bid Amount Engineer’s Estimate $ 110,000,000 1 Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc. 95,994,000 2 Ames Construction, Inc. 96,465,395 3 Security Paving Company, Inc. 106,266,391 4 Coffman Specialties, Inc. 107,835,000 57 Agenda Item 10 5 Flatiron West, Inc. 107,907,621 6 OHL USA, Inc. 109,662,676 7 Sukut Construction, LLC 126,519,053 The basis for award for a public works contract is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder as defined by the Commission’s procurement policy and state law. The bid analysis (Attachment 2) shows the bid amounts of the seven bidders, the total price per item and percent variation from the engineer’s estimate for each bid item. The bid price submitted by Skanska was 10 percent lower than the engineer’s estimate. Although Skanska’s bid is lower than the engineer’s estimate, an analysis of the bid identified no irregularities or omissions. After analyzing the seven bids received, staff concluded that Skanska is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $95,994,000 for the Project. Staff recommends award of Agreement No. 18-31-146-00 for the construction of the Project to Skanska for the amount of $95,994,000, plus a contingency amount of $10,047,705 to cover potential change orders and supplemental work encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed contract authorization of $106,041,705. Supplemental work is work that will have to be done during construction but is not quantifiable at the time of construction advertisement. Two common supplemental items of work are maintaining existing traffic and the price fluctuation of asphalt. COZEEP COZEEP traffic control services are required during construction as a safety measure to increase traffic enforcement above normal levels. CHP officers may be used to slow down or assist in stopping or directing traffic to enable necessary breaks in traffic for critical movements of the contractor’s equipment and operations. Staff recommends approval of agreement no. 19-31-038-00 for COZEEP traffic control services to be provided by the CHP San Gorgonio Pass Area office for an amount not to exceed $1,040,070. Environmental Mitigation Commitment In August 2018, staff secured all the required Project environmental permits including Nationwide Permit 14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Section 401 Clean Water Certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Commission is required to mitigate Project impacts through rehabilitation and long-term management of 1.56 acres of ephemeral streambed and riparian habitat, satisfied through the purchase of credits through a USACE, RWQCB and CDFW approved mitigation bank. 58 Agenda Item 10 The RCRCD manages a USACE, RWQCB and CDFW approved In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program for impacts within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Under the ILF program, RCRCD is authorized to sell mitigation credits for specific impacts resulting from USACE, RWQCB and CDFW permitted projects. Commission staff evaluated mitigation options and identified RCRCD as the most suitable resource for providing the necessary mitigation. Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 19-31-027-00 with RCRCD to purchase 1.56 rehabilitation ILF credits as compensatory mitigation for the purchase price of $413,400, plus a $10,000 contingency to cover administrative costs, for a total amount not to exceed $423,400. Project Funding Caltrans will contribute $40 million in State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds and the Commission will be responsible for the balance of the Project cost. Since October 2013, the Commission has programmed various types of funding including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and State Transportation Improvement Program- Regional Improvement Program (STIP-RIP). The 2009 Measure A Western County Highways program will provide the remaining funding. Funding is also required for agency furnished materials expenses including construction freeway service patrol and various fees estimated at $2,050,000. These costs will be funded with a combination of STIP-RIP and 2009 Measure A Western County Highway funds. At the December 2018 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement for construction support to Falcon Engineering for a total amount not to exceed $17,512,548. The construction support will be funded by STIP-RIP. Table 2 presents the total funding for the construction and construction support phases of the Project. Table 2 (Amounts in $000s) CMAQ STIP-RIP SHOPP Measure A Total Construction Capital $ 45,401 $ 14,043 $ 40,000 $ 9,689 $ 109,133 Construction Support - 17,512 - - 17,512 Total $ 45,401 $ 31,555 $ 40,000 $ 9,689 $ 126,645 The ILF credits in the amount of $423,400 will be funded with 2009 Measure A Western County Highway right of way capital funds, approved by the Commission in June 2015. 59 Agenda Item 10 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20+ Amount: $ 1,423,400 $106,081,775 Source of Funds: CMAQ, STIP-RIP, SHOPP, 2009 Measure A Western County Highway funds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003029 81301 00000 0000 262 31 81301 003029 81401 00000 0000 262 31 81401 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 12/17/2018 Attachments: 1) Draft Agreement No. 18-31-146-00 2) Bid Analysis 3) Bid Summary 4) Draft COZEEP Agreement No. 19-31-038-00 5) Draft RCRCD Agreement No. 19-31-027-00 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ************** CONTRACT ************** CONSTRUCTION ON STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES LOCATED EAST OF MORENO VALLEY FROM GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD TO JACK RABBIT TRAIL( PM 22.1 to PM 26.6), IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RCTC Agreement No. 18-31-146-00 FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. CMLN-0654-090 October 18, 2018 BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. ATTACHMENT 1 61 CONSTRUCTION ON STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES LOCATED EAST OF MORENO VALLEY FROM GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD TO JACK RABBIT TRAIL (PM 22.1 to PM 26.6), IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RCTC AGREEMENT NO. 18-31-146-00 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Contract is made and entered into this ____ day of ____________, 2019 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter called the "Commission") and Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc. (hereinafter called the "Contractor"). This Contract is for that Work described in the Contract Documents entitled CONSTRUCTION ON STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES LOCATED EAST OF MORENO VALLEY FROM GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD TO JACK RABBIT TRAIL (PM 22.1 TO PM 26.6), IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2. RECITALS. 2.1 The Commission is a County Transportation Commission organized under the provisions of Sections 130000, et seq. of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California, with power to contract for services necessary to achieving its purpose; 2.2 Contractor, in response to a Notice Inviting Bids issued by Commission on October 18, 2018, has submitted a bid proposal for the CONSTRUCTION ON STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES LOCATED EAST OF MORENO VALLEY FROM GILMAN SPRINGS ROAD TO JACK RABBIT TRAIL (PM 22.1 TO PM 26.6), IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2.3 Commission has duly opened and considered the Contractor's bid proposal and duly awarded the bid to Contractor in accordance with the Notice Inviting Bids and other Bid Documents. 2.4 Contractor has obtained, and delivers concurrently herewith, Performance and Payment Bonds and evidences of insurance coverage as required by the Contract Documents. 3. TERMS. 3.1 Incorporation of Documents. This Contract includes and hereby incorporates in full by reference this Contract and the following Contract Documents provided with the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids, including all exhibits, drawings, specifications and documents therein, and attachments thereto, all of which, 62 including all addendum thereto, are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Contract: a. NOTICE INVITING BIDS b. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS c. CONTRACT BID FORMS d. FORM OF CONTRACT e. PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND FORMS f. ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS g. CONTRACT APPENDIX PART "A" - Regulatory Requirements and Permits PART "B" - Special Provisions PART "C" – Standard Provisions PART "D" - Contract Drawings PART "E" - Contract Compliance Provisions/DBE Requirements PART "F" - Federal Minimum Wage Requirements PART "G" - Federal Requirements for Federal Aid Construction Contracts h. ADDENDUM NO.(S) 1,2,3,4 3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation. Contractor promises and agrees, at his own cost and expense, to furnish to the Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work for the construction on State Route (SR) 60 east of Moreno Valley from Gilman Springs Road to Jack Rabbit Trail (PM 22.1 to PM 26.6). Project scope includes construction of an eastbound truck climbing lane and a westbound truck descending lane plus inside and outside shoulders, drainage structures, retaining wall, wildlife crossings and wildlife fences along a 4.5 mile stretch of SR 60 (the Work). Notwithstanding anything else in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall complete the Work for a total of Ninety-Five Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Dollars ($95,994,000), as specified in the bid proposal and pricing schedules submitted by the Contractor in response to the above referenced Notice Inviting Bids. Such amount shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the applicable terms of this Contract. All Work shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with the above referenced Contract Documents. 3.3 Beginning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidate Damages The Contractor shall begin work within 15 calendar days after the issuance of the Notice to Proceed. This Work shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the expiration of (excluding plant establishment work) 650 working days beginning on the fifteenth calendar day after the date shown on the Notice to Proceed. Contractor agrees that if such Work is not completed within the aforementioned periods, liquidated damages will apply as provided by the applicable provisions of the Special Provisions, found in Part "B" of the Contract Appendix. The Contractor shall pay to the Commission the sum of Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($28,500) per day or fraction thereof, for each and every calendar days’ delay in finishing the Work in excess of the number of working days prescribed above. 63 3.4 Commission's Basic Obligation. Commission agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents, the Commission shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory performance by the Contractor of services and obligation required by this Contract, the above referenced compensation in accordance with Compensation Provisions set forth in the Contract Documents. 3.5 California Prevailing Wages; Conflicts The State general prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of Industrial Relations are hereby made a part of this contract. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid of said Contractor, then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said bid conflicting herewith. 3.6 Contractor's Labor Certification. Contractor maintains that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work. A certification form for this purpose is attached to this Contract as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, and shall be executed simultaneously with this Contract. 3.7 Successors. The parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract. Contractor may not either voluntarily or by action of law, assign any obligation assumed by Contractor hereunder without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.8 Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of the Contract or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Contractor: Commission: Skanska USA Civil West CA District, Inc. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1995 Agua Mansa Road P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92509 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Attn: (Contractor PM Name) Attn: Executive Director 64 Any notice so given shall be considered received by the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to the party at the above address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ______________________ By: _________________________ Name [***INSERT NAME***] Riverside County Transportation Commission ______________________ Title ______________________ Tax I.D. Number: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel, RCTC 65   EXHIBIT “A” CERTIFICATION LABOR CODE - SECTION 1861 I, the undersigned Contractor, am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 et seq. of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code. I agree to and will comply with such provisions before commencing the Work governed by this Contract. CONTRACTOR: Name of Contractor: Skanska USA Civil West CA District, Inc. By: _______________________________ Signature _______________________________ Name _______________________________ Title _______________________________ Date 66 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST 1070030 LEAD COMPLIANCE PLANLS1 $ 3,200.00 $ 3,200 10,000.00 $ 10,000 213% 2,500.00 $ 2,500 -22% 15,000.00 $ 15,000 369%2080050 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH METHOD) LS1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 75,000.00 $ 75,000 650% 15,000.00 $ 15,000 50% 20,000.00 $ 20,000 100%3090100 TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD (WDAY)WD650 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,600,000 8,130.00 $ 5,284,500 103% 6,800.00 $ 4,420,000 70% 5,900.00 $ 3,835,000 48%4100100 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLYLS1 $ 450,000.00 $ 450,000 1,200,000.00 $ 1,200,000 167% 1,800,000.00 $ 1,800,000 300% 1,000,000.00 $ 1,000,000 122%5120090 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNSLS1 $ 46,000.00 $ 46,000 100,000.00 $ 100,000 117% 85,000.00 $ 85,000 85% 100,000.00 $ 100,000 117%6120091A RETROREFLECTIVE SHEETING (TYPE XI) FOR CONSTRUSQFT 2,060 $7.00 $ 14,420 4.30 $ 8,858 -39% 4.00 $ 8,240 -43%7.50 $ 15,450 7%7120100 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMLS1 $ 1,510,000.00 $ 1,510,000 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000 -1% 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000 -1% 2,000,000.00 $ 2,000,000 32%8120120 TYPE III BARRICADEEA27 $ 100.00 $ 2,700 165.00 $ 4,455 65%370.00 $ 9,990 270%90.00 $ 2,430 -10%9120165 CHANNELIZER (SURFACE MOUNTED)EA414 $ 42.00 $ 17,388 50.00 $ 20,700 19%35.00 $ 14,490 -17%38.00 $ 15,732 -10%10120200 FLASHING BEACON (PORTABLE)EA27 $ 650.00 $ 17,550 150.00 $ 4,050 -77%875.00 $ 23,625 35%650.00 $ 17,550 0%11121161 TEMPORARY TERMINAL SECTION (TYPE K)EA3 $ 2,800.00 $ 8,400 3,000.00 $ 9,000 7%875.00 $ 2,625 -69% 4,400.00 $ 13,200 57%12128652 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNLS1 $ 170,000.00 $ 170,000 50,000.00 $ 50,000 -71% 300,000.00 $ 300,000 76% 95,000.00 $ 95,000 -44%13129000 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)LF 135,100 $ 13.00 $ 1,756,300 4.50 $ 607,950 -65.4%12.00 $ 1,621,200 -8%9.50 $ 1,283,450 -27%14129100 TEMPORARY CRASH CUSHION MODULEEA322 $ 218.00 $ 70,196 250.00 $ 80,500 15%450.00 $ 144,900 106%235.00 $ 75,670 8%15130100 JOB SITE MANAGEMENTLS1 $ 136,200.00 $ 136,200 700,000.00 $ 700,000 414% 175,000.00 $ 175,000 28% 375,000.00 $ 375,000 175%16130300 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLALS1 $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000 1,000.00 $ 1,000 -98% 5,000.00 $ 5,000 -90% 22,000.00 $ 22,000 -58%17130310 RAIN EVENT ACTION PLANEA9 $ 500.00 $ 4,500 500.00 $ 4,500 0%600.00 $ 5,400 20%350.00 $ 3,150 -30%18130320 STORM WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DAYEA20 $ 6,760.00 $ 135,200 450.00 $ 9,000 -93%650.00 $ 13,000 -90%530.00 $ 10,600 -92%19130330 STORM WATER ANNUAL REPORTEA3 $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000 500.00 $ 1,500 -75% 3,000.00 $ 9,000 50% 2,000.00 $ 6,000 0%20130505MOVE-IN/MOVE-OUT (TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL)EA20 $ 800.00 $ 16,000 600.00 $ 12,000 -25%600.00 $ 12,000 -25%500.00 $ 10,000 -38%21130520 TEMPORARY HYDRAULIC MULCHSQYD 118,000 $0.30 $ 35,400 0.25 $ 29,500 -17%0.25 $ 29,500 -17%1.00 $ 118,000 233%22130560 TEMPORARY SOIL BINDERSQYD 180,000 $0.20 $ 36,000 0.20 $ 36,000 0%0.15 $ 27,000 -25%0.70 $ 126,000 250%23130570 TEMPORARY COVERSQYD 7,500 $3.00 $ 22,500 4.00 $ 30,000 33%2.50 $ 18,750 -17%2.20 $ 16,500 -27%24130610 TEMPORARY CHECK DAMLF4,000 $5.00 $ 20,000 4.50 $ 18,000 -10%2.35 $ 9,400 -53%3.25 $ 13,000 -35%25130620 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTIONEA280 $ 300.00 $ 84,000 235.00 $ 65,800 -22%100.00 $ 28,000 -67%300.00 $ 84,000 0%26130640 TEMPORARY FIBER ROLLLF 60,000 $2.00 $ 120,000 4.00 $ 240,000 100%2.25 $ 135,000 13%3.25 $ 195,000 63%27130650 TEMPORARY GRAVEL BAG BERMLF 12,000 $4.00 $ 48,000 10.00 $ 120,000 150%2.00 $ 24,000 -50%3.25 $ 39,000 -19%28130680 TEMPORARY SILT FENCELF 30,000 $4.00 $ 120,000 6.00 $ 180,000 50%1.65 $ 49,500 -59%3.25 $ 97,500 -19%29130710 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEA6 $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000 8,000.00 $ 48,000 60% 4,000.00 $ 24,000 -20% 4,300.00 $ 25,800 -14%30130900 TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUTLS1 $ 352,800.00 $ 352,800 70,000.00 $ 70,000 -80% 85,000.00 $ 85,000 -76% 290,000.00 $ 290,000 -18%31141103 REMOVE YELLOW THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (HLF 48,900 $0.45 $ 22,005 0.70 $ 34,230 56%0.60 $ 29,340 33%0.70 $ 34,230 56%32141120 TREATED WOOD WASTELB 126,000 $0.43 $ 54,180 0.25 $ 31,500 -42%0.20 $ 25,200 -53%1.00 $ 126,000 133%Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR ESTPage 1 of 7ATTACHMENT 267 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST33146002 CONTRACTOR-SUPPLIED BIOLOGIST LS1 $ 501,000.00 $ 501,000 700,000.00 $ 700,000 40% 750,000.00 $ 750,000 50% 650,000.00 $ 650,000 30%3434146003 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION PLANLS1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 7,000.00 $ 7,000 40% 5,000.00 $ 5,000 0% 7,000.00 $ 7,000 40%3535160110 TEMPORARY HIGH-VISIBILITY FENCELF 56,100 $ 3.80 $ 213,180 2.50 $ 140,250 -34% 1.50 $ 84,150 -61% 3.00 $ 168,300 -21%3636170103 CLEARING AND GRUBBINGLS1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000 100,000.00 $ 100,000 -60.0% 100,000.00 $ 100,000 -60% 500,000.00 $ 500,000 100%3737180106 DUST PALLIATIVELS1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 50,000.00 $ 50,000 0% 150,000.00 $ 150,000 200% 206,000.00 $ 206,000 312%38 F 38190101 ROADWAY EXCAVATIONCY 2,100,000 $ 11.80 $ 24,780,000 6.18 $ 12,978,000 -47.6% 6.50 $ 13,650,000 -45% 10.00 $ 21,000,000 -15%3939190185 SHOULDER BACKINGTON5,500 $ 25.00 $ 137,500 14.00 $ 77,000 -44% 4.00 $ 22,000 -84% 44.00 $ 242,000 76%40 F B 40192055 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (SOIL NAIL WALL)CY123 $ 135.00 $ 16,605 100.00 $ 12,300 -26% 50.00 $ 6,150 -63% 172.00 $ 21,156 27%41 F B 41193028 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (SOIL NAIL WALL)CY6 $ 425.00 $ 2,550 30.00 $ 180 -93% 95.00 $ 570 -78% 172.00 $ 1,032 -60%42194001 DITCH EXCAVATIONCY 13,100 $ 21.00 $ 275,100 25.00 $ 327,500 19% 25.00 $ 327,500 19% 30.00 $ 393,000 43%4343198250 GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENTSQYD 126,000 $ 2.50 $ 315,000 4.00 $ 504,000 60% 2.50 $ 315,000 0% 7.00 $ 882,000 180%4444200002 ROADSIDE CLEARINGLS1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 155,000.00 $ 155,000 1450% 10,000.00 $ 10,000 0% 106,000.00 $ 106,000 960%4545202006 SOIL AMENDMENTCY20 $ 89.00 $ 1,780 90.00 $ 1,800 1% 30.00 $ 600 -66% 85.00 $ 1,700 -4%4646202037 ORGANIC FERTILIZERLB140 $ 6.00 $ 840 14.00 $ 1,960 133% 65.00 $ 9,100 983% 6.00 $ 840 0%4747204013 PLANT (GROUP M)EA 12,600 $ 3.75 $ 47,250 3.00 $ 37,800 -20% 35.00 $ 441,000 833% 14.00 $ 176,400 273%4848204038 PLANT (GROUP U)EA340 $ 112.00 $ 38,080 360.00 $ 122,400 221% 145.00 $ 49,300 29% 212.00 $ 72,080 89%4949204099 PLANT ESTABLISHMENT WORKLS1 $ 95,000.00 $ 95,000 110,000.00 $ 110,000 16% 100,000.00 $ 100,000 5% 250,000.00 $ 250,000 163%5050205035 WOOD MULCHCY3,050 $ 48.00 $ 146,400 40.00 $ 122,000 -17% 48.00 $ 146,400 0% 36.00 $ 109,800 -25%5151210010 MOVE-IN / MOVE-OUT (EROSION CONTROL)EA5 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000 825.00 $ 4,125 -18% 400.00 $ 2,000 -60% 500.00 $ 2,500 -50%5252210280 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT (BLANKET) SQFT 1,980,000 $ 0.44 $ 871,200 0.25 $ 495,000 -43% 0.20 $ 396,000 -55% 0.25 $ 495,000 -43%5353210350 FIBER ROLLSLF 207,000 $ 2.75 $ 569,250 2.50 $ 517,500 -9% 1.00 $ 207,000 -64% 2.70 $ 558,900 -2%54210430 HYDROSEEDSQFT 3,800,000 $ 0.11 $ 418,000 0.05 $ 190,000 -55% 0.04 $ 152,000 -64% 0.05 $ 190,000 -55%55210610 COMPOSTCY9,530 $ 33.00 $ 314,490 32.00 $ 304,960 -3% 30.00 $ 285,900 -9% 34.00 $ 324,020 3%56210630 INCORPORATE MATERIALSSQFT 1,820,000 $ 0.06 $ 109,200 0.02 $ 36,400 -67% 0.02 $ 36,400 -67% 0.03 $ 54,600 -50%57250201 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUBBASECY 77,700 $ 33.00 $ 2,564,100 19.00 $ 1,476,300 -42.4% 12.00 $ 932,400 -64% 39.00 $ 3,030,300 18%58260203 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASECY9,990 $ 30.00 $ 299,700 45.00 $ 449,550 50% 30.00 $ 299,700 0% 58.00 $ 579,420 93%59280000 LEAN CONCRETE BASECY 47,300 $ 105.00 $ 4,966,500 125.00 $ 5,912,500 19% 130.00 $ 6,149,000 24% 144.00 $ 6,811,200 37%60360200 BASE BOND BREAKERSQYD 284,000 $ 8.00 $ 2,272,000 6.30 $ 1,789,200 -21% 5.90 $ 1,675,600 -26% 6.00 $ 1,704,000 -25%61390100 PRIME COATTON270 $ 875.00 $ 236,250 1,800.00 $ 486,000 106% 510.00 $ 137,700 -42% 800.00 $ 216,000 -9%62390132 HOT MIX ASPHALT (TYPE A)TON 22,700 $ 105.00 $ 2,383,500 88.00 $ 1,997,600 -16% 83.00 $ 1,884,100 -21% 92.00 $ 2,088,400 -12%63390137 RUBBERIZED HOT MIX ASPHALT (GAP GRADED)TON4,160 $ 115.00 $ 478,400 110.00 $ 457,600 -4% 284.00 $ 1,181,440 147% 122.00 $ 507,520 6%64394060 DATA CORESLS1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000 5,500.00 $ 5,500 -89% 12,500.00 $ 12,500 -75% 2,200.00 $ 2,200 -96%Page 2 of 768 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST65394074 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (TYPE C)LF54 $ 12.00 $ 648 6.50 $ 351 -46% 3.75 $ 203 -69% 5.00 $ 270 -58%66394075 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (TYPE D)LF990 $ 5.00 $ 4,950 6.50 $ 6,435 30% 3.75 $ 3,713 -25% 5.00 $ 4,950 0%67394076 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT DIKE (TYPE E)LF860 $ 4.00 $ 3,440 6.50 $ 5,590 63% 3.75 $ 3,225 -6% 5.00 $ 4,300 25%68394090 PLACE HOT MIX ASPHALT (MISCELLANEOUS AREA) SQYD87 $ 100.00 $ 8,700 110.00 $ 9,570 10% 20.00 $ 1,740 -80% 150.00 $ 13,050 50%69397005 TACK COATTON30 $ 615.00 $ 18,450 425.00 $ 12,750 -31% 430.00 $ 12,900 -30% 700.00 $ 21,000 14%70398200 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENTSQYD 15,900 $ 4.50 $ 71,550 4.00 $ 63,600 -11% 4.00 $ 63,600 -11% 4.50 $ 71,550 0%71401050 JOINTED PLAIN CONCRETE PAVEMENTCY 108,000 $ 185.00 $ 19,980,000 179.00 $ 19,332,000 -3% 170.00 $ 18,360,000 -8% 178.00 $ 19,224,000 -4%72401056A PLACE PCC DIKE (TYPE A MODIFIED)LF780 $ 50.00 $ 39,000 30.00 $ 23,400 -40% 25.00 $ 19,500 -50% 35.00 $ 27,300 -30%73414202 JOINT SEAL (PREFORMED COMPRESSION)LF 364,000 $ 4.00 $ 1,456,000 4.00 $ 1,456,000 0% 3.80 $ 1,383,200 -5% 3.25 $ 1,183,000 -19%74414240 ISOLATION JOINT SEAL (ASPHALT RUBBER)LF 21,200 $ 5.30 $ 112,360 8.00 $ 169,600 51% 2.00 $ 42,400 -62% 2.00 $ 42,400 -62%75420201 GRIND EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENTSQYD 137,000 $ 5.00 $ 685,000 3.75 $ 513,750 -25% 3.70 $ 506,900 -26% 5.00 $ 685,000 0%76 B 460300 SOIL NAILLF1,452 $ 56.00 $ 81,312 55.00 $ 79,860 -2% 40.00 $ 58,080 -29% 54.00 $ 78,408 -4%77 F B 477020 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EMBANKMENTSQFT 58,000 $ 60.00 $ 3,480,000 65.00 $ 3,770,000 8% 77.00 $ 4,466,000 28% 58.00 $ 3,364,000 -3%78498052 60" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONCRETE PILE (SIGN FOULF140 $ 1,150.00 $ 161,000 800.00 $ 112,000 -30% 820.00 $ 114,800 -29% 860.00 $ 120,400 -25%79 F B 510072 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BARRIER SLABCY1,170 $ 550.00 $ 643,500 545.00 $ 637,650 -1% 450.00 $ 526,500 -18% 834.00 $ 975,780 52%80 F B 510090 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BOX CULVERTCY4,648 $ 720.00 $ 3,346,560 515.00 $ 2,393,720 -28.5% 650.00 $ 3,021,200 -10% 512.00 $ 2,379,776 -29%81 F B 510091A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, ARCH CULVERTCY499 $ 975.00 $ 486,525 750.00 $ 374,250 -23.1% 1,050.00 $ 523,950 8% 1,835.00 $ 915,665 88%82 F 510092 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, HEADWALLCY541 $ 1,200.00 $ 649,200 1,100.00 $ 595,100 -8% 1,325.00 $ 716,825 10% 2,184.00 $ 1,181,544 82%83 F 510094 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, DRAINAGE INLETCY218 $ 1,175.00 $ 256,150 1,700.00 $ 370,600 45% 2,400.00 $ 523,200 104% 2,750.00 $ 599,500 134%84 F 510501 MINOR CONCRETECY56 $ 200.00 $ 11,200 125.00 $ 7,000 -38% 2,100.00 $ 117,600 950% 371.00 $ 20,776 86%85 F 520101 BAR REINFORCING STEELLB 31,693 $ 2.00 $ 63,386 1.90 $ 60,217 -5% 0.95 $ 30,108 -53% 1.50 $ 47,540 -25%86 F B 520107 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BOX CULVERT)LB 1,148,840 $ 1.07 $ 1,229,259 1.05 $ 1,206,282 -2% 0.95 $ 1,091,398 -11% 1.20 $ 1,378,608 12%87520108A BAR REINFORCING STEEL (ARCH CULVERT)LB 103,075 $ 1.25 $ 128,844 1.45 $ 149,459 16% 0.95 $ 97,921 -24% 1.60 $ 164,920 28%88 F B 530200 STRUCTURAL SHOTCRETECY311,185.00$ $ 36,735 1,700.00 $ 52,700 43% 750.00 $ 23,250 -37% 4,700.00 $ 145,700 297%89 F 560218 FURNISH SIGN STRUCTURE (TRUSS)LB 116,340 $ 4.20 $ 488,628 4.30 $ 500,262 2% 4.25 $ 494,445 1% 4.00 $ 465,360 -5%90 F 560219 INSTALL SIGN STRUCTURE (TRUSS)LB 116,340 $ 0.40 $ 46,536 0.25 $ 29,085 -38% 0.25 $ 29,085 -38% 0.40 $ 46,536 0%91 F 575005 TIMBER RETAINING WALLSQFT 6,720 $ 65.00 $ 436,800 65.00 $ 436,800 0% 130.00 $ 873,600 100% 33.00 $ 221,760 -49%92 B 600130A CULVERT REMOVAL (PORTION), LOCATION ALS1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000 50,000.00 $ 50,000 233% 9,000.00 $ 9,000 -40% 21,500.00 $ 21,500 43%93 B 600131A CULVERT REMOVAL (PORTION), LOCATION BLS1 $ 18,500.00 $ 18,500 50,000.00 $ 50,000 170% 14,000.00 $ 14,000 -24% 21,500.00 $ 21,500 16%94 B 600132A CULVERT REMOVAL (PORTION), LOCATION CLS1 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000 53,000.00 $ 53,000 212% 14,000.00 $ 14,000 -18% 21,500.00 $ 21,500 26%95610108 18" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF4,930 $ 90.00 $ 443,700 95.00 $ 468,350 6% 110.00 $ 542,300 22% 130.00 $ 640,900 44%96610112 24" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF2,540 $ 100.00 $ 254,000 100.00 $ 254,000 0% 115.00 $ 292,100 15% 156.00 $ 396,240 56%Page 3 of 769 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST97610117 30" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF440 $ 110.00 $ 48,400 165.00 $ 72,600 50% 180.00 $ 79,200 64% 145.00 $ 63,800 32%98610121 36" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF2,410 $ 125.00 $ 301,250 165.00 $ 397,650 32% 220.00 $ 530,200 76% 158.00 $ 380,780 26%99610128 48" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF490 $ 170.00 $ 83,300 230.00 $ 112,700 35% 230.00 $ 112,700 35% 233.00 $ 114,170 37%100610130 60" ALTERNATIVE PIPE CULVERTLF400 $ 205.00 $ 82,000 400.00 $ 160,000 95% 250.00 $ 100,000 22% 296.00 $ 118,400 44%101610401 12" TEMPORARY CULVERTLF330 $ 100.00 $ 33,000 155.00 $ 51,150 55% 140.00 $ 46,200 40% 123.00 $ 40,590 23%102610403 18" TEMPORARY CULVERTLF91 $ 115.00 $ 10,465 140.00 $ 12,740 22% 145.00 $ 13,195 26% 193.00 $ 17,563 68%103610404 24" TEMPORARY CULVERTLF110 $ 125.00 $ 13,750 130.00 $ 14,300 4% 145.00 $ 15,950 16% 175.00 $ 19,250 40%104610405 30" TEMPORARY CULVERTLF140 $ 135.00 $ 18,900 150.00 $ 21,000 11% 150.00 $ 21,000 11% 178.00 $ 24,920 32%105610406 36" TEMPORARY CULVERTLF46 $ 145.00 $ 6,670 185.00 $ 8,510 28% 160.00 $ 7,360 10% 225.00 $ 10,350 55%106650018 24" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPELF220 $ 115.00 $ 25,300 160.00 $ 35,200 39% 700.00 $ 154,000 509% 156.00 $ 34,320 36%107650026 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPELF180 $ 160.00 $ 28,800 200.00 $ 36,000 25% 800.00 $ 144,000 400% 158.00 $ 28,440 -1%108650042 60" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPELF89 $ 210.00 $ 18,690 355.00 $ 31,595 69% 1,000.00 $ 89,000 376% 296.00 $ 26,344 41%109665016 18" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (.064" THICK)LF1,450 $ 200.00 $ 290,000 135.00 $ 195,750 -33% 300.00 $ 435,000 50% 169.00 $ 245,050 -16%110665022 24" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (.064" THICK)LF400 $ 110.00 $ 44,000 275.00 $ 110,000 150% 350.00 $ 140,000 218% 173.00 $ 69,200 57%111665030 30" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (.064" THICK)LF400 $ 120.00 $ 48,000 465.00 $ 186,000 288% 350.00 $ 140,000 192% 191.00 $ 76,400 59%112665036 36" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (.079" THICK)LF140 $ 130.00 $ 18,200 120.00 $ 16,800 -8% 450.00 $ 63,000 246% 320.00 $ 44,800 146%113700638 36" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE INLET (.079" THICK) LF490 $ 305.00 $ 149,450 930.00 $ 455,700 205% 350.00 $ 171,500 15% 612.00 $ 299,880 101%114703210 12" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE RISER (.064" THICK) LF16 $ 160.00 $ 2,560 600.00 $ 9,600 275% 300.00 $ 4,800 88% 357.00 $ 5,712 123%115703216 18" CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE RISER (.064" THICK) LF130 $ 200.00 $ 26,000 3,000.00 $ 390,000 1400% 700.00 $ 91,000 250% 900.00 $ 117,000 350%116703233 GRATED LINE DRAINLF360 $ 120.00 $ 43,200 200.00 $ 72,000 67% 200.00 $ 72,000 67% 136.00 $ 48,960 13%117705311 18" ALTERNATIVE FLARED END SECTIONEA10 $ 400.00 $ 4,000 600.00 $ 6,000 50% 1,400.00 $ 14,000 250% 1,380.00 $ 13,800 245%118705315 24" ALTERNATIVE FLARED END SECTIONEA1 $ 625.00 $ 625 700.00 $ 700 12% 1,800.00 $ 1,800 188% 1,910.00 $ 1,910 206%119707117 36" PRECAST CONCRETE PIPE INLETLF24 $ 435.00 $ 10,440 1,100.00 $ 26,400 153% 280.00 $ 6,720 -36% 296.00 $ 7,104 -32%120710102 ABANDON CULVERT (LF)LF4,120 $ 15.00 $ 61,800 14.00 $ 57,680 -7% 19.00 $ 78,280 27% 16.00 $ 65,920 7%121710110 ABANDON INLETEA15 $ 795.00 $ 11,925 600.00 $ 9,000 -25% 2,000.00 $ 30,000 152% 1,553.00 $ 23,295 95%122710132 REMOVE CULVERT (LF)LF500 $ 40.00 $ 20,000 55.00 $ 27,500 38% 70.00 $ 35,000 75% 48.00 $ 24,000 20%123710150 REMOVE INLETEA7 $ 950.00 $ 6,650 765.00 $ 5,355 -19% 1,300.00 $ 9,100 37% 2,000.00 $ 14,000 111%124710152 REMOVE HEADWALLEA19 $ 1,020.00 $ 19,380 1,000.00 $ 19,000 -2% 2,800.00 $ 53,200 175% 1,320.00 $ 25,080 29%125710196 ADJUST INLETEA2 $ 2,675.00 $ 5,350 1,600.00 $ 3,200 -40% 1,600.00 $ 3,200 -40% 3,180.00 $ 6,360 19%126710262 CAP INLETEA3 $ 1,425.00 $ 4,275 850.00 $ 2,550 -40% 1,500.00 $ 4,500 5% 3,180.00 $ 9,540 123%127710370 SAND BACKFILLCY520 $ 75.00 $ 39,000 125.00 $ 65,000 67% 75.00 $ 39,000 0% 154.00 $ 80,080 105%128721420 CONCRETE (DITCH LINING)CY5,940 $ 520.00 $ 3,088,800 400.00 $ 2,376,000 -23.1% 600.00 $ 3,564,000 15% 440.00 $ 2,613,600 -15%Page 4 of 770 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST129723050 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (1/4 T, CLASS V, METHOD BCY540 $ 125.00 $ 67,500 145.00 $ 78,300 16% 150.00 $ 81,000 20% 160.00 $ 86,400 28%130723060 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (300 LB, CLASS IV, METHODCY91 $ 120.00 $ 10,920 160.00 $ 14,560 33% 120.00 $ 10,920 0% 160.00 $ 14,560 33%131723070 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (150 LB, CLASS III, METHODCY180 $ 115.00 $ 20,700 185.00 $ 33,300 61% 120.00 $ 21,600 4% 160.00 $ 28,800 39%132723080 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (60 LB, CLASS II, METHOD BCY700 $ 115.00 $ 80,500 155.00 $ 108,500 35% 120.00 $ 84,000 4% 160.00 $ 112,000 39%133723090 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (1T, CLASS VIII, METHOD B)CY140 $ 205.00 $ 28,700 155.00 $ 21,700 -24% 120.00 $ 16,800 -41% 160.00 $ 22,400 -22%134723110 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (1/2 T, CLASS VII, METHOD CY41 $ 165.00 $ 6,765 145.00 $ 5,945 -12% 120.00 $ 4,920 -27% 160.00 $ 6,560 -3%135729011 ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION FABRIC (CLASS 8)SQYD 2,460 $ 5.00 $ 12,300 4.00 $ 9,840 -20% 6.00 $ 14,760 20% 5.00 $ 12,300 0%136731502 MINOR CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS)CY120 $ 935.00 $ 112,200 250.00 $ 30,000 -73% 225.00 $ 27,000 -76% 720.00 $ 86,400 -23%137731504 MINOR CONCRETE (CURB AND GUTTER)CY17 $ 1,130.00 $ 19,210 600.00 $ 10,200 -47% 650.00 $ 11,050 -42% 3,900.00 $ 66,300 245%138 F 750001 MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEELLB 53,836 $ 2.00 $ 107,672 2.75 $ 148,049 38% 8.00 $ 430,688 300% 3.00 $ 161,508 50%139780230 SURVEY MONUMENT (TYPE D)EA50 $ 1,000.00 $ 50,000 1,000.00 $ 50,000 0% 70.00 $ 3,500 -93% 3,100.00 $ 155,000 210%140780440 PREPARE AND STAIN CONCRETESQFT 3,230 $ 3.75 $ 12,113 12.00 $ 38,760 220% 3.75 $ 12,113 0% 14.00 $ 45,220 273%141790001A 24" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (JACKED)LF490 $ 800.00 $ 392,000 1,400.00 $ 686,000 75% 700.00 $ 343,000 -13% 1,114.00 $ 545,860 39%142790002A 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (JACKED)LF290 $ 1,100.00 $ 319,000 1,800.00 $ 522,000 64% 700.00 $ 203,000 -36% 1,504.00 $ 436,160 37%143790003A 60" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (JACKED)LF140 $ 1,750.00 $ 245,000 2,500.00 $ 350,000 43% 800.00 $ 112,000 -54% 1,800.00 $ 252,000 3%144800001 FENCE (TYPE BW, METAL POST)LF 27,400 $ 10.00 $ 274,000 7.00 $ 191,800 -30% 35.00 $ 959,000 250% 54.00 $ 1,479,600 440%145802901 4' CHAIN LINK GATE (TYPE CL-8)EA1 $ 700.00 $ 700 4,500.00 $ 4,500 543% 2,500.00 $ 2,500 257% 3,550.00 $ 3,550 407%146802921A 12' TUBULAR STEEL GATEEA20 $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000 3,000.00 $ 60,000 0% 3,500.00 $ 70,000 17% 12,000.00 $ 240,000 300%147803030 REMOVE FENCE (TYPE BW)LF 14,500 $ 3.50 $ 50,750 4.00 $ 58,000 14% 12.00 $ 174,000 243% 11.00 $ 159,500 214%148803221A WILDLIFE FENCELF 26,000 $ 25.00 $ 650,000 46.00 $ 1,196,000 84% 65.00 $ 1,690,000 160% 94.00 $ 2,444,000 276%149810120 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKEREA3,070 $ 1.40 $ 4,298 1.00 $ 3,070 -29% 1.00 $ 3,070 -29% 1.00 $ 3,070 -29%150810160 DELINEATOR (SPECIAL)EA6 $ 100.00 $ 600 110.00 $ 660 10% 50.00 $ 300 -50% 80.00 $ 480 -20%151810180 DELINEATOR (CLASS 2)EA200 $ 55.00 $ 11,000 65.00 $ 13,000 18% 60.00 $ 12,000 9% 80.00 $ 16,000 45%152810190 GUARD RAILING DELINEATOREA120 $ 30.00 $ 3,600 26.00 $ 3,120 -13% 50.00 $ 6,000 67% 30.00 $ 3,600 0%153810220A PAVEMENT MARKER (NON-REFLECTIVE)EA 42,500 $ 2.15 $ 91,375 1.50 $ 63,750 -30% 1.50 $ 63,750 -30% 1.70 $ 72,250 -21%154810230 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETROREFLECTIVE)EA9,820 $ 3.50 $ 34,370 3.50 $ 34,370 0% 3.50 $ 34,370 0% 4.00 $ 39,280 14%155810250 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETROREFLECTIVE-RECESSED) EA5,450 $ 12.00 $ 65,400 25.00 $ 136,250 108% 25.00 $ 136,250 108% 25.00 $ 136,250 108%156820110 MILEPOST MARKEREA18 $ 80.00 $ 1,440 90.00 $ 1,620 13% 70.00 $ 1,260 -13% 80.00 $ 1,440 0%157820112 MARKER (CULVERT)EA77 $ 75.00 $ 5,775 90.00 $ 6,930 20% 70.00 $ 5,390 -7% 80.00 $ 6,160 7%158820130 OBJECT MARKEREA16 $ 85.00 $ 1,360 90.00 $ 1,440 6% 70.00 $ 1,120 -18% 80.00 $ 1,280 -6%159820250 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGNEA35 $ 105.00 $ 3,675 150.00 $ 5,250 43% 100.00 $ 3,500 -5% 100.00 $ 3,500 -5%160820600 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN-TWO POSTEA1 $ 800.00 $ 800 500.00 $ 500 -38% 950.00 $ 950 19% 700.00 $ 700 -13%Page 5 of 771 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST161820710 FURNISH LAMINATED PANEL SIGN (1"-TYPE A)SQFT 1,040 $ 29.00 $ 30,160 31.00 $ 32,240 7% 23.00 $ 23,920 -21% 24.00 $ 24,960 -17%162820720 FURNISH LAMINATED PANEL SIGN (1"-TYPE B)SQFT310 $ 28.00 $ 8,680 33.00 $ 10,230 18% 24.00 $ 7,440 -14% 25.00 $ 7,750 -11%163820750 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN (0.063"-UNFRASQFT21 $ 15.00 $ 315 12.00 $ 252 -20% 10.00 $ 210 -33% 12.00 $ 252 -20%164820760 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN (0.080"-UNFRASQFT 1,130 $ 16.00 $ 18,080 15.00 $ 16,950 -6% 10.00 $ 11,300 -38% 12.00 $ 13,560 -25%165 820840 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST EA 64 $ 350.00 $ 22,400 365.00 $ 23,360 4% 360.00 $ 23,040 3% 400.00 $ 25,600 14%166 820850 ROADSIDE SIGN - TWO POST EA 5 $ 620.00 $ 3,100 550.00 $ 2,750 -11% 1,125.00 $ 5,625 81% 1,250.00 $ 6,250 102%167 820860 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD EA 3 $ 160.00 $ 480 3,500.00 $ 10,500 2088% 90.00 $ 270 -44% 160.00 $ 480 0%168820920 INSTALL ROADSIDE SIGN (LAMINATED WOOD BOX POSTEA1 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500 2,600.00 $ 2,600 -42% 6,180.00 $ 6,180 37% 5,400.00 $ 5,400 20%169820921A RETROREFLECTIVE SHEETING (TYPE XI)SQFT 1,320 $ 7.00 $ 9,240 4.30 $ 5,676 -39% 4.40 $ 5,808 -37% 12.00 $ 15,840 71%170832005 MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEMLF6,880 $ 33.00 $ 227,040 33.00 $ 227,040 0% 32.00 $ 220,160 -3% 48.00 $ 330,240 45%171832070 VEGETATION CONTROL (MINOR CONCRETE)SQYD 2,950 $ 52.00 $ 153,400 45.00 $ 132,750 -13% 120.00 $ 354,000 131% 70.00 $ 206,500 35%172833074A CONCRETE BARRIER WILDLIFE PASSAGEWAY (TYPE MEA3 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000 555.00 $ 1,665 -89% 2,500.00 $ 7,500 -50% 10,500.00 $ 31,500 110%173 F B 839521 CABLE RAILINGLF1,701 $ 23.00 $ 39,123 60.00 $ 102,060 161% 45.00 $ 76,545 96% 72.00 $ 122,472 213%174839543 TRANSITION RAILING (TYPE WB-31)EA1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 4,200.00 $ 4,200 5% 45.00 $ 45 -99% 4,700.00 $ 4,700 18%175839581 END ANCHOR ASSEMBLY (TYPE SFT)EA15 $ 790.00 $ 11,850 830.00 $ 12,450 5% 730.00 $ 10,950 -8% 1,300.00 $ 19,500 65%176839584 ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE TERMINAL SYSTEMEA16 $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000 3,300.00 $ 52,800 10% 3,200.00 $ 51,200 7% 4,600.00 $ 73,600 53%177839640 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60M)LF 16,600 $ 95.00 $ 1,577,000 75.00 $ 1,245,000 -21% 72.00 $ 1,195,200 -24% 84.00 $ 1,394,400 -12%178839642 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60MC)LF7,050 $ 120.00 $ 846,000 95.00 $ 669,750 -21% 90.00 $ 634,500 -25% 127.00 $ 895,350 6%179839698 PORTABLE CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 60K)LF78 $ 200.00 $ 15,600 65.00 $ 5,070 -68% 43.00 $ 3,354 -79% 43.00 $ 3,354 -79%180 F B 839724A CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 836)LF2,283 $ 120.00 $ 273,960 100.00 $ 228,300 -17% 70.00 $ 159,810 -42% 89.00 $ 203,187 -26%181 F 839745 CONCRETE BARRIER TRANSITIONLF60 $ 200.00 $ 12,000 75.00 $ 4,500 -63% 85.00 $ 5,100 -58% 127.00 $ 7,620 -37%182839750 REMOVE BARRIERLF 23,000 $ 9.00 $ 207,000 15.00 $ 345,000 67% 18.00 $ 414,000 100% 13.00 $ 299,000 44%183839761 SALVAGE GUARDRAILLF 14,000 $ 5.70 $ 79,800 6.50 $ 91,000 14% 6.30 $ 88,200 11% 15.00 $ 210,000 163%184839952A TEMPORARY CRASH CUSHION (ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE BEA2 $ 3,300.00 $ 6,600 3,700.00 $ 7,400 12% 4,500.00 $ 9,000 36% 4,100.00 $ 8,200 24%185840515 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGSQFT130 $ 5.00 $ 650 3.00 $ 390 -40% 3.00 $ 390 -40% 11.00 $ 1,430 120%186840516 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (ENHANCED WESQFT 4,330 $ 5.50 $ 23,815 4.00 $ 17,320 -27% 4.00 $ 17,320 -27% 6.00 $ 25,980 9%187840560 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (SPRAYABLE)LF470,000 $ 0.32 $ 150,400 0.70 $ 329,000 119% 0.70 $ 329,000 119% 1.25 $ 587,500 291%188 840656 PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE (2-COAT) LF 172,000 $ 0.17 $ 29,240 0.45 $ 77,400 165% 0.50 $ 86,000 194% 0.30 $ 51,600 76%189846007 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET LF 147,000 $ 0.87 $ 127,890 0.75 $ 110,250 -14% 0.70 $ 102,900 -20% 1.20 $ 176,400 38%190846009 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET LF 41,600 $ 1.30 $ 54,080 1.50 $ 62,400 15% 1.50 $ 62,400 15% 2.00 $ 83,200 54%191846030 REMOVE THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPELF 61,700 $ 0.55 $ 33,935 0.50 $ 30,850 -9% 0.50 $ 30,850 -9% 0.55 $ 33,935 0%192846051 12" RUMBLE STRIP (ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT) STA70 $ 125.00 $ 8,750 25.00 $ 1,750 -80% 125.00 $ 8,750 0% 47.00 $ 3,290 -62%Page 6 of 772 TRUCK CLIMBING LANE -- ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AND BIDDERS' PRICESLOW BIDDERSkanskaSECOND BIDDERAMESTHIRD BIDDERSecurity PavingITEM NUMFPQBridge ITEM CODEITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT OF MEASUREBIDQTY(A)ENGINEER'SESTIMATEDPRICE(B) AMOUNT(C=A x B) PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR ESTPRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST PRICE AMOUNT % VARENGR EST Bid Opening Date: 29 Nov 18SS 1813077Yellow items are > $100kbelow ENGR EST193846052 12" RUMBLE STRIP (CONCRETE PAVEMENT)STA430 $ 140.00 $ 60,200 165.00 $ 70,950 18% 160.00 $ 68,800 14% 172.00 $ 73,960 23%194870009 MAINTAINING EXISTING TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTE LS1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 1,000.00 $ 1,000 -80% 4,000.00 $ 4,000 -20% 2,000.00 $ 2,000 -60%195870600 TRAFFIC MONITORING STATION SYSTEMLS1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 15,000.00 $ 15,000 50% 28,000.00 $ 28,000 180% 8,000.00 $ 8,000 -20%196872130 MODIFYING EXISTING ELECTRICALLS1 $ 141,000.00 $ 141,000 255,000.00 $ 255,000 81% 255,000.00 $ 255,000 81% 272,000.00 $ 272,000 93%197872140 REMOVING EXISTING ELECTRICALLS1 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000 5,000.00 $ 5,000 -62% 10,000.00 $ 10,000 -23% 5,500.00 $ 5,500 -58%198999990 MOBILIZATIONLS1 $ 10,738,549 $ 10,738,549 9,510,204.22 $ 9,510,204 -11% 7,200,000.00 $ 7,200,000 -33% 3,802,777.00 $ 3,802,777 -65%1 $ 107,385,486 [Bidder] $ 95,994,000 -11% [Bidder] $ 96,472,395 -10% [Bidder] $ 106,266,396 -1%Page 7 of 773 Rank FirmAmount(x$1,000)%Var.to Engr Est.1 Skanska 95,994$        ‐10.6%2 Ames 96,472$        ‐10.2%3 Security 106,266$      ‐1.0%4 Coffman 107,835$     0.4%5 Flatiron 107,907$     0.5%6 OHL 109,663$     2.1%7 Sukut 126,659$     17.9%Average 107,257$      ‐0.1%Median 107,835$     0.4%Adj Engr Est 107,385$     SS 1813086ATRUCK CLIMBING LANE BID OPENING RESULTS (x$1,000)29‐Nov‐18 $‐ $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000$140,000Skanska Ames SecurityPavingCoffman Flatiron OHL Sukut Bid AmountAverageEngr EstATTACHMENT 374 ATTACHMENT 4 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 24632.00044\31437542.2 -1- Agreement No. 19-31-027-00 AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF CREDITS FROM THE RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT This Agreement is entered into this ________________ day of ________, 2018, by and between Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (“RCRCD”), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) (“Project Proponent”) (individually, a “Party,” and collectively the “Parties”), as follows: RECITALS A. RCRCD has developed the RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program (the “Program”); and B. The Program was approved by the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”), and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 (“RWQCB”) (jointly referred to as the Interagency Review Team (the “IRT”)) on July 26, 2012 and is currently in good standing with the IRT; and C. RCRCD has received approval from the IRT to sell credits from the Program to offset impacts; and D. Project Proponent is seeking to purchase Compensatory Mitigation Credits (“ILF Credits”) from the Program for impacts to Waters of the United States that result from activities of the Project Proponent authorized under sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (see Permits attached in Exhibit “A”). The number of ILF Credits to be acquired by the Project Proponent for the State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project (the “Project”), located just to the east of the City of Moreno Valley, in unincorporated Riverside County, California (Lat.: 33.94281ºN, Long.: -117.08686ºW (“Impact Location”), as described in Exhibit “B,” is 1.2 enhancement ILF Credits; and E. USACE is requiring Project Proponent to purchase 1.2 enhancement ILF Credits from the Program for the enhancement of waters of the U.S. as described in Special Condition 5 of the USACE Nationwide Permit Verification Letter, dated August 10, 2018 (File No. SPL- 2013-00880-VCL), although Project Proponent has requested to upgrade the mitigation to purchase 1.56 rehabilitation ILF Credits and represents to RCRCD that such change in the mitigation shall still be sufficient to satisfy Special Condition 5 of the USACE 404 Nationwide Permit; and F. The Project is subject to a RWQCB section 401 Clean Water Act water quality certification dated August 15, 2018 (Certification No. 332018-09, the “401 Certification”). The 401 Certification is attached hereto in Exhibit “A.” Under the 401 Certification, Page 4, 5, 13, 14 (Section VIII Compensatory Mitigation), the Project Proponent agreed to mitigate impacts through the purchase of 1.20 enhancement ILF Credits through the Program. However, in an email dated September 4, 2018, Marc Brown, the RWQCB agreed that the purchase of 1.56 ATTACHMENT 5 95 24632.00044\31437542.2 -2- rehabilitation ILF Credits from the Program would satisfy the 401 Certification Compensatory Mitigation requirement; and G. Pursuant to a California Department of Fish and Game (“CDFW”) Streambed Alteration Agreement (Notification No. 1600-2018-0059-R6]), executed by CDFW on August 10, 2018, CDFW is requiring Compensatory Measure 3, which states that “Permittee shall mitigate Project impacts through the rehabilitation and long-term management of 1.56 acres of ephemeral streambed and riparian habitat, satisfied through either the purchase of credits from a CDFW-approved mitigation bank or the rehabilitation of 1.56 acres of streambed and riparian habitat to be managed and conserved in perpetuity by a CDFW-approved due diligence entity[]” to mitigate for impacts to waters of the state at the Impact Location caused by the Project, which is described in Exhibit B; and H. Project Proponent desires to purchase from RCRCD and RCRCD desires to sell and convey to Project Proponent, the above-described enhancement ILF Credits. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, RCRCD agrees to sell to Project Proponent and Project Proponent agrees to purchase 1.56 rehabilitation ILF Credits for the purchase price of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NO/100’S DOLLARS ($413,400.00). The purchase price for said ILF Credits shall be paid by means acceptable to RCRCD. The Credit sale transaction shall be completed within ten (10) days of the date this Agreement has been executed by both Parties (“Closing Date”). On the Closing Date, RCRCD shall transfer to Project Proponent evidence that the ILF Credits have been allocated to the Project by Bill of Sale in the form attached as Exhibit “C”, and Project Proponent shall pay the purchase price specified above. 2. In the event Project Proponent has not delivered the Purchase Price to RCRCD on or before the Closing Date, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without need for any further action by RCRCD and neither party shall have any further obligations to the other Party under this Agreement. 3. The sale and transfer herein is not intended as a sale or transfer to Project Proponent of a security, license, lease, easement, or possessory or non-possessory interest in real property, nor the granting of any interest of the foregoing. 4. Project Proponent shall have no obligation whatsoever by reason of the purchase of the ILF Credits, to support, pay, fix, monitor, report on, sustain, continue in perpetuity, or otherwise be obligated or liable for the success or continued expense or maintenance in perpetuity of the mitigation property associated with ILF Credits sold, or the Program. 5. The ILF Credits herein sold and conveyed to Project Proponent shall be non- transferable and non-assignable, and shall be used as compensatory mitigation only in connection with the Project. 6. All representations, warranties, and covenants embodied in this Agreement shall survive the transfer of the ILF Credits hereunder. 96 24632.00044\31437542.2 -3- 7. RCRCD shall cooperate and assist Project Proponent by providing documentation required by the IRT, and other regulatory agencies to demonstrate that the ILF Credits have been acquired in conjunction with the Project permits referenced above. RCRCD shall provide USACE with a Statement of Sale of Credit in the form of the attached Exhibit “D” no later than 30 days after the Closing Date of a successful sale. 8. Any notice or other written communication given pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered to the other Party by first class U.S. mail, certified or registered U.S. mail or facsimile mail with mailed copy as follows: Project Proponent: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Telephone: (951) 787-7141 Facsimile: (951) 787-7920 RCRCD: Shelli Lamb, District Manager 4500 Glenwood Drive, Building A Riverside, CA 92501-3042 Telephone: (951) 683-7691 Facsimile: (951) 683-3814 9. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 10. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 11. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 12. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties and shall not be assigned by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party. 13. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement shall survive any such expiration or termination. 14. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 15. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties 16. It is agreed that all understandings and agreements heretofore had between the Parties respecting the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are merged in this 97 24632.00044\31437542.2 -4- Agreement, which fully and completely expresses the agreement of the Parties. There are no representations, warranties, or agreements except as specified and expressly set forth herein, in the exhibits annexed hereto, or to be set forth in the instruments or other documents delivered or to be delivered hereunder. 17. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the execution and delivery of this Agreement shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon, nor obligate any of the parties hereto, to any person or entity other than the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written, RCRCD: PROJECT PROPONENT: By: Alfred B. Bonnett, Jr. President By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director 98 24632.00044\31437542.2 -5- EXHIBIT A 99 24632.00044\31437542.2 -6- 100 24632.00044\31437542.2 -7- 101 24632.00044\31437542.2 -8- 102 24632.00044\31437542.2 -9- 103 24632.00044\31437542.2 -10- 104 24632.00044\31437542.2 -11- 105 24632.00044\31437542.2 -12- 106 24632.00044\31437542.2 -13- 107 24632.00044\31437542.2 -14- From: Brown, Marc@Waterboards <Marc.Brown@waterboards.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 1:03 PM To: Patricia Castillo <PCastillo@rctc.org> Cc: Erik Galloway <EGalloway@bec-riv.org>; Gustavo Quintero <GQuintero@RCTC.org>; Shelli Lamb <lamb@rcrcd.org>; Veronica Li (Veronica.C.Li@usace.army.mil) (Veronica.C.Li@usace.army.mil) <Veronica.C.Li@usace.army.mil>; Woelfel, David@Waterboards <David.Woelfel@waterboards.ca.gov> Subject: RE: SR 60 Truck Lanes Project SARWQCB# 332018-09 Patricia, Thank you for bringing this item to my attention. I have reviewed your proposal and have discussed this issue with my supervisor David Woelfel. Since the 1.56 acres of rehabilitation credits provide an increased value to habitat than 1.2 acres of enhancement credits listed in the 401 and 404 documents issued, we will accept this proposed change in mitigation for impacts associated with the subject Project. Upon purchase of the credits, please provide verification documents in your return response. Please include the Project Name and Project Number on all correspondences relating to this Project. Thank you Marc Brown Environmental Scientist Regional Planning Programs Section, 401 Coordinator Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: 951-321-4584 Fax: 951-781-6288 Email: marc.brown@waterboards.ca.gov From: Patricia Castillo [mailto:PCastillo@rctc.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 12:09 PM To: Brown, Marc@Waterboards <Marc.Brown@waterboards.ca.gov> Cc: Erik Galloway <EGalloway@bec-riv.org>; Gustavo Quintero <GQuintero@RCTC.org> Subject: SR 60 Truck Lanes Project SARWQCB# 332018-09 Hi Marc, Hope all is well with you. I have a question regarding mitigation. The 1602 permit requires that RCTC purchase 1.56 acres of rehabilitation credits for the SR 60 TCL project. The 401 and 404 108 24632.00044\31437542.2 -15- permits require 1.2 acres of ephemeral stream enhancement credits. I checked with Veronica Li of the Army Corps and she confirmed that the 1.56 acres of rehabilitation credits would suffice for their purposes. If RCTC purchased 1.56 acres of rehabilitation credits, would that suffice to meet the 1.2 acre ephemeral stream enhancement credits requirement in the 401 permit? Please advise. Thanks, Patti Castillo PE, TE Capital Projects Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.org 109 24632.00044\31437542.2 -16- 110 24632.00044\31437542.2 -17- 111 24632.00044\31437542.2 -18- 112 24632.00044\31437542.2 -19- 113 24632.00044\31437542.2 -20- EXHIBIT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would widen SR-60 from PM 22.2 to PM.26.5, in an unincorporated area of Riverside County between the cities of Moreno Valley and Beaumont, to add a single commercial trucking lane in each direction of traffic. The widening would occur for 4.4 miles, requiring the expansion of length to existing drainage culverts running beneath the proposed widened section of roadway. Impacts to waters of the United States (WOTUS) will occur to unnamed ephemeral drainages from the proposed lengthening of the culverts described above. 114 24632.00044\31437542.2 -21- EXHIBIT C BILL OF SALE Contract No. _________________ In consideration of the payment of FOUR HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NO/100’S DOLLARS ($416,400.00), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, RCRCD does hereby recognize that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the “Project Applicant”), has acquired 1.56 rehabilitation ILF Credits from the ILF Program. RCRCD represents and warrants that it has good title to the credits, has good right to sell the same, and that they are free and clear of all claims, liens, or encumbrances. DATED: ____________________________ By: ______________________________ District Manager 115 24632.00044\31437542.2 -22- EXHIBIT D Statement of Sale of Credit RCRCD letterhead [date] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District – Regulatory Division 915 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Statement of Sale for 1.56 Rehabilitation ILF Credits from the RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the SR-60 Truck Lanes Project. The Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District has an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Los Angeles District to operate an In-Lieu-Fee Program. This letter confirms the sale of 1.56 rehabilitation ILF Credits to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project. These credits are being used as compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to approximately 0.40 acres of non-wetland Waters of the United States as described in Special Condition 5 of the USACE Nationwide Permit Verification Letter, dated August 10, 2018 (File No. SPL-2013-00880-VCL) and the Compensatory Mitigation described in RWQCB section 401 Clean Water Act water quality certification dated August 15, 2018 (Certification No. 332018-09). By selling credits to the above permittee, RCRCD is the party responsible for fulfilling the mitigation aspect of Special Condition 5 of the USACE Permit listed above and the Compensatory Mitigation from the 401 Certification. Signed cc: R.J. Van Sant, Project Manager/Biologist, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad Field Office James Mace, Senior Project Manager, Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Marc Brown, Regional Planning Programs, Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region. Sarvy Mahdavi, Environmental Protection Specialist, Wetlands Regulatory Office, U.S. EPA, Region 9 116 STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT Construction Contract Award Bryce Johnston, Construction Project Manager 1 State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Background 2 •2009 Measure A Project •Partnership with Caltrans •Prioritized at 2011 Commission workshop 3 Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Truck Lane Truck Lane State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Project Features 4 •Pavement widening •Curve correction •Truck lane signage •Much flatter side slopes State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Project Features 5 •Wildlife fencing •Speed feedback signs •Wildlife crossings •Three 36” •Three 60” •Two 20’ x 20’ box structures for large animals State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Contract Amount and Funding 6 Construction Phase o Engineer’s Estimate: $110,000,000 o Construction bid amount: $ 95,994,000 o Contingency, and non-contract costs: $ 13,147,452 (includes COZEEP, FSP, Mitigation, etc) o Construction Management: $ 17,512,548 o Total: $126,645,000 Funding comes from: o Measure A o CMAQ o STIP-RIP o Caltrans Safety Program + Pavement rehab State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Anticipated Schedule 7 November 29, 2018 •Bids Open January 2019 •Award Contract Mid 2019 •Construction Begins Winter 2019 •Westbound Lane Closures Late 2021 •Lanes Open State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project Traffic Management/Outreach 8 •Outreach to public/stakeholders critical to project success •Extreme terrain and space constraints will impact motorists •Staging will balance, less disruption to traffic with higher project cost/duration •RCTC and CM firm creating detailed public outreach plan •Will update Commission this spring State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project rctc.org 951.787.7141 info@rctc.org @theRCTC Stay Connected 9 rctc.org/60trucklanes AGENDA ITEM 11 Agenda Item 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 9, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jillian Guizado, Legislative Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform and Preview STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the Commission’s 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform; and 2) Receive and file a report on State and Federal Legislation for 2019. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the beginning of every year, the Commission adopts a legislative platform that outlines the positions the Commission will take on various pieces of legislation, administrative policies, and regulations. The platform addresses broad themes that are critical in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C. These platform points allow staff, Commissioners, and the Commission’s lobbyists to communicate in a timely, effective manner with state and federal actors as issues arise. DISCUSSION: 2019 State and Federal Legislative Program While the proposed 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform builds on platforms the Commission has adopted in previous years, staff took extra time this year to clean up and strengthen the platform. Some outdated points were stricken while other long-standing points were removed due to being addressed in Senate Bill 1. Several new points have been added which reflect policy issues that have arisen recently and issues that are anticipated to be on the horizon in 2019. The attached proposed 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform is provided in track changes for ease of noting what changes are proposed. 2019 State and Federal Legislative Preview Oral presentations by Commission lobbyists: Kathy Ruffalo, Cliff Madison, and Mark Watts Attachment: 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform (proposed) 117 1 OBJECTIVE: Advocate for state and federal policy and funding decisions that enable RCTC to: implement Measure A, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and adopted plans and programs; comply with state and federal requirements; and provide greater mobility, improved quality of life, operational excellence, and economic vitality in Riverside County. Equity and Fairness Funding should be distributed equitably to Riverside County. Governance structures should give equitable voting and decision-making authority to Riverside County. Policies should recognize high-growth regions for their impact on the economy and environment, looking forward. Regional Control Project selection and planning authority for state/federal funds should be as local as possible, preferably in the hands of the Commission. State/federal rulemakings, administrative processes, program guidelines, and policy development activities should include meaningful collaboration from regional transportation agencies. Oppose efforts by non-transportation interests to assert control over transportation funding. Policies should be sensitive to each region’s unique needs and avoid “one size fits all” assumptions, especially regarding the balance among highways, transit, rail, and freight; and urban, suburban, and rural needs. State/federal policies should align authority to select projects, manage performance, and implement programs with state/federal mandates and responsibilities placed upon regional and local governments. Protect Our Authority and Revenue Existing statutory authorities for the Commission should be preserved and protected. Oppose efforts to infringe on the Commission’s discretion in collecting and administering its revenue sources including, but not limited to:, Measure A, tolls, and TUMF. Oppose efforts to place mandates on agencies which would drive up operating costs and thereby reduce the amount of funds available to deliver mobility improvements. Oppose efforts to remove or reduce tax exemption on municipal bond interest to avoid increased costs to finance projects. Oppose legislation that restructures or interferes with governance of the Commission or other local and regional transportation agencies without the support and consent of the entity affected. Oppose legislation that amends procurement law in a manner that increases the Commission’s exposure to litigation, costs, decreased private sector competition, conflicts of interest, or deviation from best practices. Support legislation that facilitates collection and remittance of sales taxes on e-commerce. Support efforts to preserve, stabilize, and/or increase funding for transportation. ATTACHMENT 1 118 2  Support reducing the statutory threshold to pass local option sales tax measures.  Ensure the Commission is positioned to receive maximum sales tax collections resulting from any state effort to implement the Wayfair Supreme Court Decision relative to state sales taxes on internet sales or any other change in policy. Innovation  Support a collaborative approach for the California Transportation Secretary’s “California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP)” efforts to advance innovation and reform.  Support the availability of project delivery tools such as design-build, construction manager/general contractor, and public-private partnerships to the Commission, the State, federal agencies, and other infrastructure agencies. Oppose efforts to add barriers to effective implementation of such tools.  Support implementation and expansion of U.S. Department of Transportation’s “Every Day Counts” initiative, the Build America Bureau,“Building America Transportation Investment Center” and other efforts to expedite and advance innovation in transportation. Project Delivery Streamlining  Support all efforts to reduce project delivery timelines while maintaining important environmental protections.  Support reciprocity of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  Support removing the statutory sunset on the NEPA Assignment program California participates in with the Federal Highway Administration which continues to benefit Commission projects.  Support implementation of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) reforms to accelerate project delivery including, but not limited to, the creation of a single NEPA document for all federal agencies; NEPA reciprocity; expediting and improving the federal permitting review process; and narrowing concurrence requirements.  Engage with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and United States Department of Transportation to allow the State and the Commission to participate in the NEPA reciprocity pilot program.  Support further efforts to streamline the federal environmental project approval processes and provide flexibility to meet planning requirements due to changing circumstances.  Support creation of a low-interest loan program to support habitat conservation plans that mitigate the impacts of transportation infrastructure and make project approvals more efficient.  Support efforts to modernize the CEQA, including but not limited to: o Reduce the Commission’s exposure to litigation; o Increase accountability and disclosure for plaintiffs in CEQA cases; o Limit courts’ ability to invalidate an entire CEQA document when a writ of mandate can resolve discreet issues; o Exempt illegal actions from CEQA review; and o Prohibit “document dumping”. Accountability  Revenue derived from transportation sources should be spent exclusively on transportation projects. Support measures to strengthen the relationship between transportation revenue and expenditures; oppose measures that weaken them. 119 3  Support efforts to ensure that all projects in a voter-approved tax measure are delivered to the public.  Encourage the adoption of on time, balanced state budgets, and federal appropriations, and authorizations, to ensure transportation projects are delivered without delay or costly stoppages, and that adequate planning for future projects can take place.  Promote policies that ensure state and federal agencies are responsive and accountable to Commission concerns when working on Commission projects.  Oppose efforts by non-elected, regulatory bodies to dilute, reduce, or withhold transportation funds.  Support maximum transparency by funding agencies in revealing scoring of funding requests. Alignment of Responsibilities  Support strong collaborative partnerships with state and federal agencies.  Support policies that reflect and recognize self-help counties’ supermajority funding contribution to transportation projects in California. Oppose policies that give outsized weight to minority funding partners.  Advocate that cap-and-trade revenues be expended in a manner that enables regions to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals in SB 375, AB 32, and SB 32.  Support policies that provide decision-making authority and flexibility to agencies bearing financial risk for projects. Oppose policies that place unfunded mandates and other undue burdens and restrictions on agencies that bear financial risk for projects.  Support efforts by the state and federal governments to improve maintenance and operations of the state highway and interstate systems. Oppose efforts to realign maintenance and operations costs and responsibilities to local or regional agencies.  Oppose efforts by the state legislature to deflect responsibility for voting on revenue for statewide transportation to local voters. Alternatives to Driving Ridesharing  Support incentives to employers that enhance or create transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs.  Oppose new mandates on employers or transportation agencies to provide ridesharing programs, or any efforts that would result in disruption of the Commission’s ridesharing program.  Support programs and policies that support investments in and foster new technologies that promote ridesharing, traffic information, and commuter assistance.  Support regional cooperation toward establishing transportation data standards and technological integrations. Active Transportation  Support maximum regional control of project selection for Active Transportation Projects. Transit and Rail  Support incentives for transit agencies that utilize alternative fuels. 120 4  Support inclusion and prioritization of Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail service in the California State Rail Plan and other state planning and funding efforts.  Support legislation to better enable the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail service to become part of California’s intercity rail network, such as legislation to allow intercity rail joint powers authorities to expand their service areas.  Advocate for expeditious and certain reviews and approvals for greenhouse-gas-reducing rail and transit projects.  Support increases in funding for Capital Improvement Grants for new transit service (New and Small Starts 5309 program) in order to create funding capacity for future rail expansion projects and bus rapid transit service in Riverside County.  Support efforts to provide an equitable share of funding to west coast intercity rail systems as compared to the Northeast Corridor.  Support Metrolink’s policy and funding needs with regard to implementation of positive train control and other rail safety items. Support efforts to prioritize high-speed rail funding for connectivity improvements to existing transit systems and infrastructure in California’s urban areas. In particular, support all efforts to ensure that funding is provided as soon as possible to projects included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Commission.  Ensure that the Commission’s rights and interests in passenger rail in Southern California are properly respected in state, federal, and regional plans and policies.  Support all transit operators in Riverside County with legislative concerns impacting the operators’ funding and operations.  Support efforts to provide for streamlined project delivery for transit projects that fulfill the goals of AB 32 and SB 375, as well as other state and federal air quality mandates and mobility performance measures.  Oppose zero-emission bus transit legislation or regulations that would negatively impact the operating budgets of transit agencies.  Advocate for additional and more flexible state funding sources from the Cap and Trade Program.  Support efforts to reevaluate transit performance measures in state and federal law. Tolling and Managed Lanes  Support legislation that enhances the full and accurate capture of toll revenues, in order to protect the Commission’s debt and congestion management obligations.  Support legislation that authorizes toll agencies to deploy new technology to improve toll operations and mobility.  Engage in legislation regarding privacy laws to ensure an appropriate balance between customer privacy, public safety, financial obligation, and practical operations is reasonably met.  Oppose legislation significantly altering the type and/or number of vehicles subject to free or reduced toll rates, in order to protect the Commission’s debt and congestion management obligations, and to reduce operational costs and complexity.  Monitor Engage in legislation and monitor Aadministrative policies relating to interoperability of tolled facilities statewide and nationally, in order to ensure technical feasibility, efficient and effective operations, cost reasonableness, and customer satisfaction.  Support increased enforcement of managed lanes for improved travel time reliability and effective operation of express bus service. Goods Movement 121 5  Support recommendations of the House Panel on 21st Century Freight Transportation.  Policies should recognize the impact of goods movement from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the U.S.-Mexico border on Riverside County.  Support Congressional action to continue create a new dedicated funding source for goods movement projects, inasmuch as the funding source: o Has a nexus to the user; o Does not reduce funding to existing highway and transit programs; o Provides funding to California, and Southern California in particular, commensurate with this region and state’s significance to interstate goods movement; and o Can be spent on grade separation projects.  Provide input to the National Freight Advisory Committee and California State Freight Advisory Committee.  Advocate for accurate representation of Riverside County in the Primary Freight Network or other national or statewide freight route designations.  Advocate for freight funding from state and federal sources to be distributed based on a bottoms- up regional consensus, in consultation with state and federal freight plans. Environment  Support a greater share of state greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction funds toward transportation investments to address the transportation sector’s share of GHG emissions.  Ensure criteria for defining disadvantaged communities and environmental justice areas of concern accurately represent Riverside County and enable the region to compete for funding.  Oppose efforts to place new environmental criteria (such as GHG reduction or vehicle miles traveled reduction) on transportation projects and programs without commensurate funding for alternatives or mitigations.  Oppose legislation to authorize a multicounty revenue measure for environmental programs if the measure is not required to: (1) achieve a 2/3rds vote of the Riverside County electorate, (2) provide equitable funding to Riverside County, and (3) be developed through formal consultation with the Commission before and after passage; or if such a measure would negatively impact the Commission’s ability to achieve voter approval of local transportation revenue. Projects  Support programs and policies that advantage transportation projects in Riverside County, including, but not limited to: o Measure A-funded projects o Grade separations o Transit capital projects and operations by regional and municipal transit agencies o Commuter rail capital projects and operations o Intercity Rail Service to the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass o Local streets and road projects sponsored by the county and municipalities o Active Ttransportation Pprojects o Expansion and rehabilitation of the state highway system o Interchanges o Safety enhancements o Mitigation of the impacts of goods movement o Connectivity to high-speed rail o Connectivity to commercial airports 122 6 o Tolled Eexpress Llanes, tolled highways, and related infrastructure and technology  Oppose policies that inhibit the efficient, timely delivery of such projects.  Support implementation of projects in other counties that are contained in the Southern California Association of Governments RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy when requested by other counties and not in conflict with the Commission’s interests. Funding  Support continued robust testing and analysis of California’s road charge pilot program as a potential replacement of the state motor fuels excise tax as the primary funding mechanism for transportation.  Encourage the federal government to authorize a program to test and analyze a pilot program to explore potential replacement mechanisms for the federal gasoline excise tax.  Support all efforts to maintain, at the very least, level state/federal funding for transportation programs.  Strongly support repayment of loans made to the state general fund from transportation-related accounts.  Support re-dedication of California truck weight fees to transportation accounts.  Strongly encourage stabilization and restoration of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) from the deep cuts suffered in 2016 which impacted Riverside County projects.  Monitor legislation relating to tax collection for impacts on Measure A revenues or administration fees.  Support maximizing Commission flexibility and discretion over funding decisions.  Funding sources should be discretionary and distributed by population share to facilitate expeditious project delivery and expenditure of funds.  Support maintaining the legislative intent behind Senate Bill 1 (Statutes 2017), including, but not limited to: o Opposing efforts to tie distribution of transportation funding to ancillary policy matters, such as housing. o Supporting efforts to adjust formula allocations to maximize funding decisions being made as locally as possible. o Program guidelines should be as broad as possible with respect to mode, to the extent appropriate while adhering to legislative intent. Regional Partnerships  Collaborate with regional transportation agencies to impact transportation funding and regulatory policies to bring equity and fairness to the Inland Empire region.  Collaborate with public and private sector stakeholders on policy and funding matters that enhance economic development and quality of life in the Inland Empire region.  Engage in legislative efforts impacting regional transportation agencies, particularly when the efforts have a nexus to the Commission. 123