Loading...
08 August 22, 2005 Budget & Implementation73512 I RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AMENDED AGENDA *Actions may be taken on any item listed on 10:00 a.m. Monday, August 22, 2005 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor Riverside, California REC R S In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 11.36.06 Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 2 6. 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. 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the lnterfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended April 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 3 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 5 1 } Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 3 6D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 12 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. STATE ROUTE 74/1-215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 8-1273 BETWEEN CALTRANS AND AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-513) Overview This item is for the Committee to: COOPERATIVE RCTC (RCTC Pg. 22 1) Approve the attached cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 with Caltrans for the preparation of a Project Approval and Environmental Document for the State Route 74/1-215 Interchange Improvement Project in the City of Perris (RCTC Agreement No. 06-31-513); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 4 8. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 MORENO VALLEY HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 39 1) Approve the adjustment of the existing project budget for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, to allow use of approximately $2,013,500 of the $3,041,230 project contingency for anticipated remaining project contract expenditures follows: a) $1,270,000 to cover additional costs associated with construction Agreement No. 03-31-052, with SEMA Construction, Inc., increasing the construction contract contingency amount from $2,380,951 to $3,650,951, for a total contract amount not to exceed $27,570,000; b) $380,000 to cover existing RCTC Agreements with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enhancement Enforcement Program (COZEEP); c) $363,500 to cover anticipated additional costs associated with final design, construction management, and right of way acquisition; 2) Approve the reduction of the Commission's budgeted Measure "A" Matching Funding (11.47%) from $6,000,000 to $4,594,000 in order to be consistent with the policy to maximize use of federal funds, and increase the CMAQ amount from $34,800,000 to $35,456,000; 3) Approve a FY 2005/06 budget amendment of $290,900 for increased project expenditures, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 5 FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Pg. 43 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve to increase the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7`h Street in the City of Perris from $69,847,655 to $76,400,108, and 2) Appreve -Y--2005 0 get -amendment of S 1 ,060 inn for increased project expenditures, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. GUIDELINES FOR 2009 MEASURE A ADVANCEMENT OF LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 46 1) Approve the conceptual framework for the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines; 2) Direct staff to develop specific financing guidelines based on such framework and present such guidelines to the Commission for their future review and approval, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 6 11. FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 50 1) Approve the budget amendment of $6,500,000 for Measure A Local Streets and Roads expenditures; 2) Approve the budget amendment of $2,141,556 for arbitrage rebate expenditures; 3) Approve the budget amendment of $2,893,216 for transfers related to the reimbursement to the TUMF fund by the Commercial Paper fund for land acquisition costs, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-517 FOR ADVANCE TO CVAG Pg. 53 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-517, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Highway and Major Regional Road Funds," to advance up to $43,300,000 of new Measure A funds to Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) utilizing proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. i Budget and Implementation Committee ;August 22, 2005 Page 7 13. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT WITH PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE TO PROVIDE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON BEAT #18 AND BEAT #25 Pg. 74 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-510, Amendment No. 3 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc. to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #18 on SR-60/I-215; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-511, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-072 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #25 along 1-15;. 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 114. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Pg. 76 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #1 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost not to exceed $43.75 per hour per truck; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 8 15. FY 2006-10 MEASURE A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF LAKE ELSINORE AND SAN JACINTO Pg. 79 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the following bill and associated policy position: SEEK AMENDMENTS - SCA 15 (McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks) SEEK AMENDMENTS - ACA 22 (LaMalfa, R-Richvale); 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA. 18. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview Pg. 87 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 19. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, September 26, 2005, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 73512 TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Monday, August 22, 2005 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Bob Magee, Chair / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Jeff Stone Vice Chair / District Three / County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.06 ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2005 10:00 A.M. NAME ,Cq triG+ e� 42K- S, ►,�' 6.11#, _ ioz-J., 51( bitotkh5 REPRESENTING n /)may 6 .oi/ dr,r '/(1- et. s!sv ()aeI�.fi° TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL # riv74 eee/ak-e/sc,�,%. ll Ve Zr,4' G/-0 • .7P0 jc ej t.e.2a0ae. rr. norr,. c04(jsov, db.5 1,471 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10: 00 a.m. Monday, August 22, 2005 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Pr Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 2 6. 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: 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 1 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended April 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 66. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Pg. 3 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Pg. 5 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 3 6D. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 12 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. STATE ROUTE 74/1-215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1273 BETWEEN CALTRANS AND RCTC (RCTC AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-513) Pg. 22 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the attached cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 with Caltrans for the preparation of a Project Approval and Environmental Document for the State Route 74/1-215 Interchange Improvement Project in the City of Perris (RCTC Agreement No. 06-31-513); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 4 8• FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 MORENO VALLEY HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 39 1) Approve the adjustment of the existing project budget for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, to allow use of approximately $2,013,500 of the $3,041,230 project contingency for anticipated remaining project contract expenditures follows: a) $1,270,000 to cover additional costs associated with construction Agreement No. 03-31-052, with SEMA Construction, Inc., increasing the construction contract contingency amount from $2,380,951 to $3,650,951, for a total contract amount not to exceed $27,570,000; b) $380,000 to cover existing RCTC Agreements with the. California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enhancement Enforcement Program (COZEEP); c) $363,500 to cover anticipated additional costs associated with final design, construction management, and right of way acquisition; 2) Approve the reduction of the Commission's budgeted Measure "A" Matching Funding (11.47%) from $6,000,000 to $4,594,000 in order to be consistent with the policy to maximize use of federal funds, and increase the CMAQ amount from $34,800,000 to $35,456,000; 3) Approve a FY 2005/06 budget amendment of $290,900 for increased project expenditures, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 5 9. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Pg. 43 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve to increase the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7' Street in the City of Perris from $69,847,655 to $76,400,108; 2) Approve a FY 2005/06 budget amendment of $1,060,300 for increased project expenditures, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. GUIDELINES FOR 2009 MEASURE A ADVANCEMENT OF LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 46 1) Approve the conceptual framework for the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines; 2) Direct staff to develop specific financing guidelines based on such framework and present such guidelines to the Commission for their future review and approval, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 6 11. FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 50 1) Approve the budget amendment of $6,500,000 for Measure A Local Streets and Roads expenditures; 2) Approve the budget amendment of $2,141,556 for arbitrage rebate expenditures; 3) Approve the budget amendment of $2,893,216 for transfers related to the reimbursement to the TUMF fund by the Commercial Paper fund for land acquisition costs, and 4). Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-517 FOR ADVANCE TO CVAG Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 53 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-517, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Highway and Major Regional Road Funds," to advance up to $43,300,000 of new Measure A funds to Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) utilizing proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • I Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 7 13. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT WITH PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE TO PROVIDE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON BEAT #18 AND BEAT #25 Pg. 74 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-510, Amendment No. 3 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc. to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #18 on SR-60/I-215; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-511, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-072 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #25 along 1-15; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Pg. 76 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #1 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost not to exceed $43.75 per hour per truck; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee August 22, 2005 Page 8 15. FY 2006-10 MEASURE A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN :FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF LAKE ELSINORE AND SAN JACINTO Pg. 79 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the following bill and associated policy position: SEEK AMENDMENTS - SCA 15 (McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks) SEEK AMENDMENTS - ACA 22 (LaMalfa, R-Richvale); 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 18. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview Pg. 87 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 19. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, September 26, 2005, Board Chambers; 1' Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, June 27, 2005 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Magee at 10:06 a.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Juan DeLara Terry Henderson Bob Magee Ameal Moore Kelly Seyarto Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Robert Crain Barbara Hanna Ron Meepos Gregory Pettis Matt Weyuker 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 28, April 25, and May 23, 2005 M/S/C (Seyarto/Stone) to approve the February 28, April 25, and May 23, 2005 minutes as submitted. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Seyarto/Henderson) to approve the following Consent Calendar items and forward to the Commission for final action. 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended May 31, 2005. 7. STATE ROUTE 91 — LA SIERRA AVENUE AND VAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGES MEASURE "A" FUNDING Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the status of projects as it related to project readiness and the proposal to exchange funds between the La Sierra Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard Interchange projects. M/S/C (Moore/Henderson) to: 1) Approve a FY 2005-06 budget amendment to change the description of the $7.6 million of Western County Measure "A" Local Circulation Interchange funds for the SR 91 Van Buren Interchange project to the La Sierra Interchange project; 2) Approve the reduction of $7.6 million to the $1.5.540 million commitment of Western County Measure "A" Local Circulation Interchange funds to the La Sierra Interchange project and make those funds available to the Van Buren Interchange project; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 06-33-504, AMENDMENT 5 TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-029, WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN OF THE NEW _ RIVERSIDE- DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION SOUTH SIDE PARKING LOT Hideo Sugita briefly reviewed the project background and scope of service for the amendment to the agreement with Engineering Resources for the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station South Side Parking Lot project. Commissioner Ameal Moore requested that the project be renamed to the East Side parking lot, instead of the South Side parking lot, as this more accurately reflects its location. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 3 The Committee concurred with the substitution of the name. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that staff would accommodate the requested change. M/SIC (Seyarto/Moore) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-33-504, Amendment 5 to Agreement No. 02-33-029, with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. (ER) for Final Design of the new Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot for an additional base amount of $275,645 for a total not to exceed agreement value of $897,241; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-505, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-061, WITH DMJM + HARRIS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES ON THE STATE ROUTE 74 SEGMENT II PROJECT FROM WASSON CANYON TO 7T" STREET Hideo Sugita updated the Committee on the status of the State Route 74 Segment II project, noting schedule delays due to extensive rains and delays by Verizon in the relocation of their facilities. Commissioner John Tavaglione requested that staff explore and verify if Verizon has the permits necessary to go through this process. Hideo Sugita responded that staff makes that assessment with Ca!trans at the start and that assessment would show utilities vested rights and believes Verizon has acquired those rights. Commissioner Tavaglione noted the issues that the County is experiencing relating to Verizon having necessary permits for work within the unincorporated areas of the County and requested that staff ensures coordination with the Riverside County Transportation Department, and Hideo Sugita responded that staff would contact Transportation Department for coordination on this activity. In response to Commissioner Terry Henderson's concern regarding the extent of the delays by Verizon, Hideo Sugita responded that approximately 2-3 months of the 6-month delay is attributable to Verizon. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Jeff Stone's recommendation to direct legal counsel to seek remedy for the cost overruns attributable to Verizon, Hideo Sugita stated that there are extenuating circumstances related to the Verizon delays because a number of the vaults are flooded from high ground water. Staff will report back to the Committee on the details of the Verizon delays M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-505, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 03-31-061, with DMJM + Harris for additional construction management services to support construction of the Measure "A" State Route 74 Segment II Project from Wasson Canyon to 7"' Street, for an additional base amount of $1,025,000 and a total not to exceed agreement amount of $3,525,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) forward to the Commission for final action. 10. APPROVE AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-501 FOR ANALOG CELLULAR SERVICE FOR THE CALL BOX PROGRAM Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, reviewed the pending conversion of call boxes from analog to digital cellular service. The retrofit work will be completed by February 2006. He explained that in the interim, it will be necessary to continue analog cellular service. M/S/C (Stone/Seyarto) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-501 to Cingular Wireless for analog cellular service for the Riverside County Call Box Program in an amount not to exceed $48,000; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-507 FOR ENHANCED ACCESSIBILITY AND "B" AND "C" SITE MITIGATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX PROGRAM Jerry Rivera reviewed the scope of service for the agreement with Comarco Wireless Technologies for the accessibility site improvements to the "B" and "C" site call boxes to comply with Caltrans' tranverse wall requirements. • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 5 M/S/C (Stone/Seyarto) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-507 to Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., for enhanced accessibility and "B" and "C" site mitigation improvements to the Riverside County Call Box Program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Jerry Rivera stated that the SB 821 Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the submitted projects for funding by public agencies and recommended approval of the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funding recommendations as shown on the staff memorandum. M/S/C (Henderson/Seyarto) to: 1) Approve the FY 2005-06 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program recommended funding; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Jerry Rivera briefly reviewed the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads, noting that not all of the cities have submitted the required documents. He also noted that since the mailing of the agenda, the City of Perris submitted its plans. In response to Commissioner Henderson's concern regarding large attachments, Eric Haley suggested that staff provide a summary document for large attachments with a full version of the attachment available on the Commission website. The Committee concurred with the recommendation. M/S/C (Seyarto/Stone) to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes June 27, 2005 Page 6 14. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the status of the State Budget, the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill, and the Bay Bridge funding issue. He then provided an overview of SB 561 that includes a feature that eliminates the non -compete clause issue. M/SIC (Henderson/Moore) to: 1) Adopt the following bill position and associated policy position: SUPPORT — SB 561 (Runner and Torlakson); and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 16. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, c74J1NnAr- Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended July 31, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through July 31, 2005. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of July 31, 2005 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report 1 Riverside County Transporta mmission Interfund Loan Activi ort For period ended July 31, 2005 Amount Maturity Date of Loan of Loan Date Lending Fund Borrowing Fund April 2, 2003 $ 300,000 July 1, 2006 Measure A - WC Highway (222) Measure A - WC LSR (227) March 4, 2004 275,000 July 1, 2009 Measure A - WC Commuter Assistance (226) Total $ 575,000 Purpose of Loan Advance to make repairs and improvements to Railroad Canyon Road Measure A - WC Highway (222) Additional local match for the SR71 Widening/Animal Crossing Project Date Commissioned Approved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 V:12005109 SeptemberOudget & Impl1Cisneros - Intedund Loan Activity Rpt AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2005 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at June 30, 2005 is $92,996. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of June 30, 2005. 3 SINGLE SIGN. AUTHORITY AS OF JUNE 30, 2005 ORIGINAL REMAINING CONTRACT CONTRACT CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2004 - $500,000.00 David Tausslg and Associates TUMF program cash flow projection 37,500.00 37,500.00 0.00 Consumer research focus group effort for 47,345.00 46,036.01 1,308.99 Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. Commuter Assistance Fantastic Fundraising Amendment #1 to 04-41.966 Club & Team Ride 2,150.00 2,150.00 0.00 FY05 WRCOG GIS database development and maintenance 25,000.00 6,105.12 18,894.88 Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP Disclosure counsel services for commerical 49,999.00 46,865.00 3,134.00 paper issuance MHV Enterprises, Inc. Original agmt & amend #2 for Rideshare suite 4,260.00 2,237.50 2,022.50 database enhancement project Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, LLC. Consulting services for Implementation of the 25,000.00 24,998.75 1.25 FY05 interstate clean transportation corridor project. Standard & Poor's Moody's Investors Service Gresham, Savage, Nolan and Tilden Commercial paper rating service Commercial paper rating service Legal services for ROW SR-79 & Mid County Pkwy. AMOUNT USED Less Return of Remaining Contract Value Due to Expiration: AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments. AMOUNT REMAINING THROUGH June 30, 2005 Towa Reabrol-DeMorst Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the fourth. quarter. 16,000.00 47,000.00 50,000.00 407,004.00 0.00 407,004.00 592,996.00 16,000.00 10,000.00 31,297.00 223,189.38 0.00 37,000.00 18,703.00 183,814.62 V:12005109 September1Budget 8 Imp \Cisneros - Single Signature Rpl 6-30 • AGENDA ITEM 6C • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve- month period ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 During the past fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements show the revenues received and expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been made for June 30, 2005 and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make j year end accrual adjustments depending upon materiality through August 31, 2005. The financial statements show the Sales Tax Revenue for the fiscal year at 105% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires Sales Tax Revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits them 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 the collections from July 2004 through June 2005. The final accrual of revenue will be made once the September payment, which includes a fourth quarter clean- up adjustment is received. On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues are 13% higher than. the same period last fiscal year. 5 The Commission did not receive the full budgeted amount of Federal, State, and Local revenues as these revenues are realized on a reimbursement basis. As project costs are incurred, staff will invoice the respective agencies. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues were remitted to the Commission by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). During the fiscal year, WRCOG remitted TUMF of $46,325,335 to the Commission. The TUMF remittances were significantly higher than budgeted. Since these revenues are fees from new development and can vary, staff will continue to monitor the revenue and update projections. Other revenues are slightly higher as a result of unbudgeted revenues from the Burlington Northern 'and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and the State Controller's Office. In March 1993 the BNSF entered into a contractual obligation with the Commission to provide outlease revenues related to a purchase and sale agreement. As a result of a merger between Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (ATSF) and BNSF, institutional impacts affected the disbursement of outlease revenues to the Commission. The Commission hired Epic Land Solutions to assist with the collection of outstanding outlease revenues. During the fiscal year, the Commission has received approximately $278,000 in such ,outlease revenues. The State Controller's Office initially estimates the first two quarterly payments for State Transit Assistance (STA) based on prior year revenues obtained from the State Controller's Transit Operators and Non -Transit Claimants Annual Report. During the third quarter the first two quarterly payments are recalculated using the new revenue amounts which may cause an adjustment (under/over) for the year. As a result, the Commission received $585,600 more in STA revenues than originally budgeted. Interest revenues are higher as a result of unbudgeted TUMF revenues. All other revenues were received as expected. Administrative expenditures were under budget by approximately $592,600. Overall, expenditures in Programs/Projects are under budget by approximately $43,813,900. Local Streets and Roads exceeded budgeted amounts. The Local Streets and Roads budget is based on estimated Measure A Sales Tax revenues. Since these revenues are higher than budgeted, the related disbursements to the local jurisdictions exceeded the budget. The Commission will continue to accrue for Measure A Sales Tax disbursements to the local jurisdictions through September with the 4th quarter clean-up allocation received from the State Board_ of Equalization. Staff is seeking a budget adjustment in a separate agenda item. 6 • Listed below are the capital related projects that have significant variances and their status: Highway Engineering/Right of Way • Route 91 Van Buren Interchange ($7,600,000) - The City of Riverside is the lead agency and has experienced delays related to environmental issues. The environmental process is complete and right of way acquisition will commence in FY 2005/06. Construction will not commence for 18 months and the city has requested that the Commission amend the strategic plan to allow the Van Buren funds to be used for the construction phase of the La Sierra interchange scheduled for December 2005. This action was approved by the Commission in July 2005. • Route 74 from 1-15 to 7th Street ($2,406,800) - Expenditures related to right of way acquisition are offset by reimbursements of condemnation deposits from Caltrans upon final settlement of purchases. An accounting change for such reimbursements was made at the beginning of the fiscal year to properly account for actual right of way costs. Such reimbursements were previously reported as revenues. • Route 79 Realignment ($989,000) - Engineering delays were caused by requests of resource agencies to study other avoidance alternative alignments. Additionally, an amendment to the contract was required which resulted in the need for a pre -award audit prior to the issuance of a notice to proceed. • 1-215 Project RCTC/SANBAG ($892,600) - Delays were caused by traffic analysis modeling criteria and concurrence by FHWA. • Commercial Paper Projects ($8,150,000) - Commercial Paper proceeds remain available for right of way and land acquisition as opportunities arise. Highway Construction • Route 86 ($188,400) - The traffic signal project has not been awarded by the County. Contract and commencement of construction is not expected until spring of 2006. • 1-15 Galena Interchange ($2,700,000) - The County of Riverside has not awarded the construction contract due to final approval from Caltrans. Request for proposals will be released in September 2005. • Route 74 ($5,094,000) - The winter rainfalls caused delays in construction and utility relocation and is now forecasted for completion the end of the 3rd quarter in FY 2005/06. • Route 60 ($1,812,600) - The project is complete, however, punch list items are still being reviewed and final payment will be released when satisfied. Additionally, the plant establishment has been delayed due to the rainfalls and is expected to last until the 4th quarter of FY 2005/06. 7 • Route 111 ($311,600) - The widening projects in the City of La Quinta were awarded and construction started May 2005; however, no progress payments have been submitted by the city. Rail Engineering/Right of Way • North Main Corona Station Parking Structure ($1,023,000) - The CEQA environmental document was recently approved, and the NEPA •environmental document was prepared and submitted for approval to the Federal Transit Administration. Final design will not start until all appropriate approvals have been granted and funding is in place. Funding required to complete the project is currently not available. • Riverside Downtown Parking Lot ($263,500) - Start of design was delayed until the Commission approved award of contract amendment in July 2005. • Perris Valley Line ($5,260,000) - The preliminary engineering contract award is rescheduled for the 2"d quarter in FY 2005/06. Additionally, property acquisition has been postponed as a result of the delay in the NEPA environmental document due to public comments on the noise and vibration study, expected to be completed October 2005. Rail Construction • Riverside Downtown Parking Lot ($1 due to the requirements for engineering/planning application to construction into the 3rd quarter completion to convert the temporary also delayed and is now scheduled 2005/06. ,210,000) - Delays in the final design preparation and submittal of the the city has pushed the start of. of FY 2005/06. The construction parking lot to a permanent facility was to be completed in the 1S2 quarter FY Rail Stations ($577,600) - Estimates for potential rehabilitation projects were included in the budget. Staff is developing a station rehabilitation plan for FY 2005/06 to monitor costs going forward. TUMF Engineering/Right of Way • Mid -County Parkway ($2,777,000) - The pre -award audit for the consultant was recently completed and the amendment for Phase II preliminary engineering and a notice to proceed was issued May .2005 resulting in delayed submittal of progress payments. Intergovernmental Distributions are expended as one-time LTF payments made at the beginning of the fiscal year based on claims submitted by CVAG and WRCOG. Unused funds in this category are related to Planning and Programming departmental expenditures. 8 • Capital Outlay expenditures are under budget due to the work that is still being completed on the new Commuter Exchange vehicle. The estimated date of service is September 2005. Staff expects to spend the remaining 50% of the budget in FY 2005/06. Operating Transfers are over budget due to a reimbursement from the Commercial Paper proceeds to the TUMF fund as a result of land acquisition costs for the Mid County Parkway Project. Staff is seeking a budget adjustment in a separate agenda item. An arbitrage rebate calculation was performed pertaining to the 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds for the required computation date of June 1, 2005. The investment yield of 6.55% exceeded the bond yield of 4.60%. This resulted in a profit of $2,141,556 that was earned and due the IRS on August 1, 2005. Staff is seeking a budget adjustment in a separate agenda item. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements 9 a9 W311 VON3DV • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming & Administration SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ended June 30, 2005 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended June 30, 2005 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended June 30, 2005 12 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending: June 2006 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYSIFITCHISeP VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $ 77,925 A3/BEB+ Cash with County Treasurer 162,607.369 Aaa/MR1/AAA/V+1 Local Agency Investment Fund 3,026,369 Not Rated Agency/Treasury Securities: FNMA 1,975,000 AAA/AAA 2.000.000 03/29/04 03/29/O6 2.05% 2,000.000 1,975,000 (25,000) Federal Fann Credit Bank 2.984.070 AAA/AAA 3,000,000 02/15/05 02/15/07 3.50% 3,000,000 2,984,070 (15,930) Federal Home Loan Ban k 1,990,620 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 02/1B/05 08/18/06 3.38% 2,000,000 1,990,820 (9,380) Federal Hone Loan Bank 3,002,820 AAA/AAA 3,000,000 06/15/05 06/29/07 4.01%r 3,000.000 3,002,820 2,820 Federal Home Loan Bank- Mortgage Certificate 3,997,360 AAA/AAA 4.000,000 04/26/05 11/15/05 3.78% 3,998,425 9,997,360 (1,065) Money Market Mutual Funds -CNI Charter 181,007 AAA/AAA 181,007 1.47% 1131,007 181,007 - Federal Horne Lean-MED Term Notts 1,990,000 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 3.47% 1.993,716 1,990,000 (3,716) FNMA Note 1,928,063 AAA/AAA 1,950.000 03)17/04 03/17/06 3.72% 1,951,066 1,928.063 (23,004) FHLB Global Notes 2.467.975 AAA/AAA 2,500,000 01/27/05 05/15/06 3.75% 2,468,808 2,467,975 (833) FHLMC Global Reference Notes 2,471,875 AAAIAAA 2500.000 01/27/05 08/15/06 3.78% 2,478,950 2.471.875 (T075) ....1. Sub4atal 188,700,454 $23,131.007 $23,071,972 $22,988,790 $ (83,182) CO FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Local Transportation Fund 43,759,212 Aaa-MRIIAAAN+1 SUDTotal 43,759,212 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Date % City Ot Canyon Lake 300.000 06I01/09 4.75% Sub -Total 300,000 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDSIDEBT RESERVE First American Treasury 6,197,137 AANAAA U.S. Treasury Notes 15,541.022 AAAIAAA First American Government Obligation Fund 25,560,609 First American Treasury - Held In Trust 943,606 AAA/AAA Sub -Total 48,242,374 TOTAL $ 281,002,039 • SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 77,925 Cash with County 206.366.581 LAIF 3,026,369 Mutual Funds: First American Treasury - Trust 7.140743 First American Government Obligation Sub - Toll Mutual Funds 25,560,609 32,701,352 Federal Agency Notes 22,988,790 U.S. Treasury Notes 15.541,022 Investment Agreements 300E00 TOTAL 281,002,099 (1) Investment with clues is reported as a loan receivable for financial reporting purposes. 15,632,000 04(01/05 05/30105 2.66% 15.925.101 15,541,022 (384,079) Memos of lovast.maota Portfolio Investment Typa cou a rv_/ vc Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 18, 2005. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by. \--11"4444-4) � Chief Financial Officer 14 CoentvAdministrative Center Investment Objectives • Safety of Principal • Liquidity • Public Trust • Maximum Rate of • • Return June 2005 Treasurer's Commentary "An Oil -Soaked Wet Blanket? " Almost all economic indicators seem to be pointing to an improved economy: tat quarter GDP grew at 3.8%, higher than the 3.7% esti- mated earlier in the year; the Unemployment Rate at 5.1% is at its lowest since 9/11, after hitting a peak of 6.3% in 2003; Consumer Confidence hit a three year high .at 105.8; the dollar is stronger and even the federal budget deficit is purported to be shrinking, according to the President. With good news comes bad news, which in this case, are record oil prices which topped $60 a barrel in June. The high price of oil is ham- pering economic growth and continued high oil prices could further undermine the economy and push inflation numbers higher. So far this is not the case. The consumer seems to be optimistic about the econ- omy and continues to spend. If oil prices drop due to slowing demand overseas and if U.S. inventories increase, we could see accelerated economic growth in the coming months, spurring the FOMC to con- tinue to push the Fed Funds rate higher. Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector Durable Goods Orders -for June 24th 5.5%actual vs. 1.5%survey Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -for June 29th 3.8%actual vs. 3.7% survey Consumer Confidence— Index -June 28th 105.8 actual vs. 104.0 survey Factory Orders- June 2nd 0.9%actual vs. l.1%survey ,. Unemployment Rate- for June 3rd 5.2°% actual vs. 5.2% survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was 3.25°%, with a balanced bias. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 3.63% (up 3 bps.) while the 10 year T-Nate was yielding 3.94% (down 10 bps.) For June, the Pool had an increaseof10 bps. in the average monthly yield. The Pool yield should continue to benefit in yield as maturing shorter term securities are reinvested after the FOMC's expected action on August Portfolio Statistics Month -End Book Value Mmih-Erld Market Value _._. Paper Gain or (Loss) 4rcent of Paper Gam or foss Yield Based Upon Book Value F ! Weighted Average MFiturfty (Yrs) Modified Duralion *Market values does not include accrued interest June ; May April March 3,117778438 $ 3,341,044,821 $ 3,635536228 _ $ 3,134,909,172 $ 3062,120,151 , $ 3,043,114,577 i 3,105 755 904 $ 3,328,650 991 i $ � 3,618,941,842 ; $ 3117,398,795 $ 3 048 034 395 ' $ 3,032,382,0621 (12012534) $ (12,393830) $ (16,594386y $ (17510377)T$ (14,085,755)t $ (10,7325* _ -0.39%- 037% -046%' 0.56%. 0.46%j 035% __ 300. 2.901 281 2.63 2491 2 35 z. 0.75 0.711 0.647 0.71i 0.65i. 0 671 0601 058° 0600.68 0.60( 066� THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT. FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: . Aaa/NIR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V3+ BY FITCH RATINGS 15 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR _ M arket Value Federal Agency 2,006,647,179.97 Cash Equivalent & MMF` 316,000,000.00 Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's Medium Term Notes Municipal Bonds Certificates of Deposit LocalAgency Obligatiori Total 492,272,129.45 200,000,000.00 30042,500.00 39,024,094.92 20,000,000.00 1,770,000.00 3,105,755,904 Federal Agency C ash Eq uivalen &MM64.61% 10.17°5 30 days o r Les s 30 - 90 Days __.._, 90 Days - 'Near €._. 'I-2Years 2 - 3 Years Over 3 Years 936,625,458.61 526,414,368.71 590,029,854.40 784,706,680.45 251 232 942.17 16,746,600.00 3,105,755,904 24 Month Gross Yield Trends CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA JN arket Value 2,006, 647,179.97 69,066,594.92 A-1/ P-1orbetter ; 982,272,129.45 I 47,770,000.00 3,105,755,904 N/R Total Market Data 6/30/05 5/27/05 Diff. 3 M 3.116 2.940 0.175 6 M 3.329 3.129 0.199 2 Y 3.633 3.639 -0.005 5 Y 3.693 3.808 -0.110 10 Y 3.913 4.071 -0.157 30 Y 4.191 4.429 -0.238 * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMMO is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. It is a composite index derived from the average of three multi -billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments includ- ing U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements, etc.) portfolios that the Treasurer tracks. Further details available upon request. Page 2 16 410 „ iit+ tWIP"W�4".mc""e v�f1a`^t tFOi&JS6019 -tAPPOMO -{iiMi d'r`Oi - Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2005 Illonth End Portfolio Holdings Report CUS1P • PAR " . DESCRIPTION CPD - COMMERCIAL PAPER - DISCOUNT _- 07389AU84 60,000,00000 BEAR STEARNS AI/P1/F1t 74433GUE4 _ 50,000,000.0_0 PRUDENTIAL FUNDING A11P1/51 02665JUM0 50000,000.00 AMERICAN HONDAA1/PI/Fi 89233GV11: 50,000,000.00 TOYOTAMOTOR CREDIT AN/Pt 0556C2V26 50,00060000 BMW US CAPITAL A1/P1 494,000,000.00 FFCB - FED FARM CREDIT BANK _ 31331TD81 28,800,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 1.60 7/20/2005 COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE • M. VALUE* - _ 1 3 08 7/8/2005 49E71.666.67 99 74 49,871,666 67 Ita s � 3.20 7/142005 49 924 444.44 99.85 49.929 944,44 3 a141 A9.5� 4 7a 308 7/212005 49 ]41,611.i1 99.50 49.747,611.11. 3.10 313317385 5,000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 125Yr 31331TMP3 10,000.00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2VR4c1Yr GAIN/LOSS 8/1/2005 49.702,91657- 99.41 49,702,91667 - ............'.K3IVRIC:4 F -macat^s 2M10 38 314 8/2/2005 49,755.777.78 99-51 49,755,777.78 492,272,129.45 492,272,129.45 28,800E00.00 100.00 _ 28,800000.00 LD MA 3.09 0.02 0 02 3.20 0 04 0.04 0 0.06 0.06 3.12 0.09 0.09 54=911RE 3 16 0 09 0.09 3.13 0.05 0.05 .6B 60 002 225 10;192005 5,600,00000 9963 4981,25000 (1675000) 225 0.26 0.30 �2.20 12/15/2005� 10,000,000.00 99.34 9,934.40000 (_6560000) 220 042 0.46 31331SBW2 5000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 154m. 250 3/6/2006 5,000.000.00 9919 4.959,400 DO (40600 DO iagtr ZIA_M 4� 2O(�Elld� ±- ';- llan �r9_i IMM rid Ttii rrlbk� ( i) ki 3128X2Z65 600000000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YMc6Mo-CFFC 200 3292006 5,000,000.00 98.73 4,93640000 (6360000) .200 0.70 0.75 331T3C3 5,00000000� FED FARM CREDIT BANK175YrNc 260 5/19f2006 500000000 9300 4,950,00000 (5000000) y 260 �089 0.88 313315KN2 000,000 00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK1 5YB9c 3.00 6/272006 4,996,350.00 99.25 4.962,50000 33 65000 3 05 0.95 099 •dIT � t'�'i'�9`.�14Si 4. 14107.4 1 , E•' 300 6/30/2006 IV }+ /e5t,,000,,+00yy0��.00 9925 4,962,500.00 (3750000) 300 095 too , 5,000.00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK AMMO - _ 1331SUR2 x5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK1 5NC a'�,x ryr�pi ANOSEVRE ;I�i�3�E - C6w 31331T6W6 5,000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc 5000,00000 99.97 4998.45000 (155000) 377 .03 109 2.60 9/7/2006 4.996,70000 98.63 4,93125000 (65..45000) 31TXE6' 10,ok000.o0 FED FARM CRED T BANK25YrNc1 Yr 2.07 ,00 --,t ___-_ __ - 11W-t. 31331TKN0 5000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNo6M0 302 9/29/2006 10 000 000 00 97 91 9 790600 00 (200400 00) i1. i ,06:03#4,,IFil�t}r {0 I1, 1/21/2006 5,000,00000_ 9891 4,94.5.300.00 ..V._ (5470000) 1331SYH0 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CRED T BANK15YrNc3Mo 3.78 12/1/2006 5,000,00000 9984 9600,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YMc6Mo P 3.25 12/152006 5 000,000.00 99.19 3 31331SKJ1. 5,000,000.00 FED FARM C_RED TBANK2YrNe6Mo1X 327 1/122007 313315MY6 0,000,00000 rF+.E:Da4FFAFRRM CREDIT BANK2YrNc3Mo 3.52 1/26/2007 .K4!-*?-i.6flJ3kCd W %kt-. "/ ^ >"a, EV,1• Mi 1-" 'f 31331SMU4 3,000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT 0ANK2YrNc6Mo-RCTC 35D 2/15/2007 31331SYD9 5, 000.000.00 FED FARM CRED T BANK2YrNc 3.75 5/25/2007 31331SYN7 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CRED T BANK2YrN ' 1 EWSIPI, .tW$v4.4Miett " 31331SLK7, 8,365,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK25YrNc6Mo 31 J31SSV6 10000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK25YrNc3M 31331SRM7 6.88500000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2.92YrNC 3M 31331SXB4 $ Y 5,000,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNc3Mo 342,160,000.00 FMB- FFEE,,{D', HOME LOAN BANK y�� �G.,,.�`W37.5f 3133X41-IRS 5.000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK18MoNc3Mo r3133X05H8 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2114YrNc3M 104.67646,-( 3133X9B33 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK13MoNc1Mo 3133XA3G0 10 000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 13MoNc3Mo -3133X8TP7 7,315,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK125Nc6Mo1X_ 3133X3ET6 3133X3DS9 31 3133X6VH8 3133X4MF5 5 000000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2Yrtle Yr 500E00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN -BANK 75YrNc 10,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YR9c3MoSiep 10 000 000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2 3/4YrNc3M 31339VJL7 MO 3133X6MC7 10,000��� ,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2VMc31310 3128X3KS1 5,000000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2VMc1Y_r 3.00 6/8/2006 --133XBXF7 10.000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1YMc1Mo 3 �`r���=may' . �..... , ... .. �.._ - sn.... 3.6 6/14/2006 5,000,000.00 bob - tD.9oo.006.00 4,992200.00 (7.800 00 4 959,400 00 (40 600.00 4,94�5,300.00 _ (5470600 9) ,EFdb�m, =k ,ss6,o6o00 (50000.00) 9947 2964.07000 (16,93000 TAIIM*- 500AIN8WA ii 1141- 4,996,093.75 99.81 4,990,65000 (5443.75 3,000,000 DO 3.82 6/1/2007 5,000,00000 9994 4.996.90000 (310000) 3.56 7;2712007 9361,732_42 99.41 8,315,31190 4S 6920.52) 420 s2vzo07 10.000.60000 ioa.00 �tD.000.00000 - 4.13 2/14/2008 6,885,00000 100.00 6,885,00000 - 4 34 5/19/2008 5,000000.00 342,134,794.97 1.]0 9/162005 5 000,000.0C 2.03 i11182005 10,000,00000 2.45 12/162005 5,000,000.00 3.00 1 / 182006 10 000, 000.00 2.42 1/202006 7 3133 285.555 215 1/272006 50o0,000.00 2.00 2/132006 4,990,550.00 2.35 21222006 5,000,00000 3.00 3242006 10 000 000.00 2.10 4242006 10,000,000 00 2.44 4I2RI2006 10 000,000 00 263 _73 1.19 2.07 till 2.07 /.19 1.25 3.02 1 33 78 1.35 39 42 3.25 1 40 1.46 AZIEBASIMSSI 3.27 1.47 .54 3 52 �1. 413 -1.58 3 79 1 1,t 90e 9 1 81 1.90 3.B2 3.58 1 95 2 07 4 20 0.02 2.24 413 002 263 99 81 4,99E0,650 DO (9 350 50 00 DO�4.39 2.69 4.89 340,454,960.30 (1,679,834.67) 00.00 5,000,000.00 ss��.44ii 99.4477 4,973,450.00 99.59 59 99.3�1 99.943,800.00 (5620000 yH1Umc 9,959,400.00 7,254,745.95 9913 4,9�56,•2500.0 98.97 4,94845060 9913 4,956,25000 9. 9s46s06 00 (53,100 oo) 99.47 .� 98.69 88.94 (26,550-00) 403 48.539.60) (43,750 00) (42.100 00 (43 750.1� 2.97 0.99 1.18 t 70 0.17 0.21 2 03 0 34 ,y.0.39 2.45 0 42 0.46 3.00 0.51 0.55 2 44 0.51 0.56 0.53 0.58 0.62 2.09 2.35 00 0 58 0.60 0 65 0.69 0.73 9,868,80000 (1312000 210 077 0.82 AFIK „".. ram 9,893 800.00 106,200.00) 2 44 0 78 �.. S,OOD,0�0e0�-5DO 9901 4,95025000 (49,750.00 �ML Kt+3'ca..,_ lif MCIIFL l0. aim 10,000,000.00 9981 9,98130000 (1E700.00) PayPlpf4 3.00 3 64 0.83 v00.t93 094 ViSE - 0 93 0.96 3133X5ZG6 3 3 33X3HP1 A 33 3 3133MY2J9 3 33X5N53 j� 3 33YG7J5 W 3133XCEB5 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2005 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR • DESCRIPTION 31339XRJ5 20,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YMc3Mo 3133X5PV4 5,000,000.613 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.25YrNC3Ma R 5.000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1YMc t "- 3133XA4K0 5,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANKI.5YMc6Mo1X 3 339YFE7 13,000,60000 31339YPK2 10,000,000 00 31339YR61 10.000,000.00 5,000.000.00 0,000300;00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YMc3Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YMc3Mp&p FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YMCMoSb FED HOME LOAN BANK2 25VMc3Mo FED HOME LOAN BANK2. SYMc3Mo 2,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 7 5YMc6Mo-RCTC 5,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 1 75YMc9Mo 15,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3 c33MM 16,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK25YMc6Mo .. _....... _ _._ rNc 5,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK1.75YMc9Mo1 3133X5SM1 5,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YMc9Mo 3 33X6BA3 5,000-000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YMc6Mo 3133X9718 ,000,000 00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YMc3Mo 3 33X96J4 5,000,000 DO FED HOME LOAN BANK2VMc3Mo 3133X22E4 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YMc3MoSte 33X9GD6 _ 5,000,00000 3133X9GH7 5,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YMc Mo FED HOME LAN BANK2VrNc6Mo 3133X4S93 6,750,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.75YMc3Mo 5,000,000.00 FEN HOME LOAN BANK2YrNc1Yr 3133X85A1 ], 920,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2 25YMc3Mo �5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YMc1 Yr1X 10,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK2YrNctYr1z 31339YKH4 13,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3.5YMc3MoST 3133X9X96 3 33XAAH0 3 33XAFD4 133X4CS8 ....._ 5,805,00000 FED HOME 3133X4HY0 8,215,00000 FED HOME 3133X8524 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2VMc6Moix 3133XBJL0 5.000,00030 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNc1Yrix 3133X92U3 5,000,000.00 FED I OME LOAN BANK2.5YMc6Mo 3133XAAS6 7,020,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.25YMaN n 3733X62Z8 10000,000.00 FED HOME LAN BANK 3VMc3MoSY 3133X6H25 1000000000 FED HOME 3133X9HC7 3133XAU7 3133XA3B1 3133XA026 3 3 3 COUPON 2.11 MATURITY 6/302006 BOOK VALUE1 20,000.000.09 j�.+�rrr�-�evsrrnssAaa�'+; ` 2.03 6/30/2006 4,991,406 25 338 6I30/2006 4,997,900.00 3.18 7/132006 5,000,000.00 2 25 724/2006 225 �7282006 13,000,000 00 10,000,00030 2.38 7282006 10 000,000 00 2 51 7/282006 5,000,000. 00 _��' �X�4Ei0�3u`�krWBfi?!drmj� 2.50 r 8/11/2006 99953313 50 3.38 8/182006 2,000,000.00 xw,xaw 3 00 8/302006 5,000,000.00 250 9/112006 15,000,00000 2.15 9/29/2606 10.000000.00 �63.23 9/292006 5,000,00000 2.15 10/20/2006 5,000,000.00 4Y50-31T WOW: 2.56 10/27/2006 5,000,00000 5,0 3 10 a 11/8/2006 5,000,000 00 PRICE M. VALUE+• GAIN/LOSS 9834 19,668,80000 (33t,200.00 98.28 99.84 99.38 96.25 98.88 98.88 9 98.59 99 5 99.09 98.47 98 00 99.28 97.39 9a�. 98 98.44 999 .06 4,914,05000 {77,356.25) 4,992,200.00 4,968750 00 (31,250.00) 2,772.500.00 YLD MAT' M Du Avg Life 2.11 0 98 1.00 2 11 0.97 00 (5.700.00) 341 096 100 (227,50000 3.18 2.25 0.98 1.01 9,887,500.00 4112,500.00 2.33 1.02 9,8137,500.00 (112,50000) 2.37 7.01 1.08 4.932,80000 (67,200.00 251 101 1.08 9.859,400.00 135,91250 2.52 1.03 1.12 1,990,62000 9380.00) 3.38 1.04 4.954700 00 fi (�4s 4 770,350 DO (229,650 00 1.04 .07 08 1.13 30300)� SO �108 1.17 2.50 7 11 1.20 9,860,000 00 (200000.00) 2.15 1 5 25 9,0(3 4,964,050.00 (35,95000 _ 3.22 1.19 125 d, 895,300 00 (104,700.00) 2 15 1.24 7.31 'tia�xn MV3�` , 4,921,90000 (78,10000) 258 1.27 1.33 Ki < 4 953.150 00 (4- 68�50� �310 129 1.36 (2155000) _245. 0.34 1.38 2.40 11/172006 4,995,00000 99A7 4,973,45000 2.25 1120/2006 4,995,312.50 99.47 4,973,450.00 3.23 11/282006 5,900,000.00 3 09 12/1/2006 5,000,000 00 3.00 1222/2008 6,750,000.00 �.20 i229/2006 43.95 000 00 .. _ ..,.,, Vrh oi. ........ ... 305 1/6/2007 7,916,287.50 345. 1/10/2007 5,000,000.00 3.50 1/182007 9981, 800.00 250 1/30/2007 m 12,99593750 LOAN BANK3YrNc6MoSlep 2.75 3/9I2007 5804,092.97 LOAN BANK3YMc3Mo3tep 300 3/16/2007 8,215,00000 4.00 4/52007 9,995,312.50 4 15 4/172007 5000,000 00 3.25 4/25/2007 5.000,000.00 i0�'.... 3.60 4/27/2007 7,018r903.13 2.25 4/302007 9,998.437.50 LOAN BANK3YMc1Mo 3.21 5/11/2007 10,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK_ 2.5YMc3Mo 3.51 6/1/2007 5,000,000.00 :- 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAD BANK 2YMc1Yr1XLFFC 4.01 6/29/2007 5,000,000.00 5.000,000_00 FED HOME LOAN BANK2.5YMc6M0 3.60 7/132007 5.000 ,000.00 8, 155,000.00 FEOHOME LOAN BANK 25YMc1Yr1 3.75 W242007 3,155,00000 133XBBK0 10,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK25YMC3Mo 4.25� 9/282007 10000,000.00 133X8M44 5.000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YMc3Mo 4,35 10292007 5,000,000 00 133X96N5 5,000100 F HOME LOAN BANK 3YMc1 Mo 3.50 11/162007 5,000,00000 alktfaitatIOACOr XBVA0 5,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2.5YMc6Mo 4 26 72/72007` 000,000 00 133XAYA9 10,000,00000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 275 YMc1Y 4.05 .� 12/24/2067 �000.000.00 133X9TN0 7,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNctMo-DBP 400 12/28/2007 1, 0�00.000000 133 Pegf8a1 4 99.19 9900 98.84 99 09 98�.88 99.44 99.56 7,830,900 00 4,971,900 00 {28 100 00) � 345 i 46 7.53 9,956,30000 (25,500 00 99.13 12386.250.00 109,687 50) 98.94 5,743,350.90 � (60,742 07) 3.10 3,23 3 09 00 3.25 33 1.35 1.36 1.42 1.44 9 1.41 .42 1.48 1.50 99.47 100.06 99.94 98.97 99.53 99.34 98.88 99 34 100.09 99 50 98.97 100.16 00.06 99.13 99.91 00.19 99.91 21,862.50 4,959,400.00 (40600.00 4,950,00000 (50,000.00)0) 6,671, 97000 (78030 i 4,954,700.00 40,300,00.00 (85.387 50) 3.07 360 270 2.76 1.95 1.96 03 1.61 1 55 .59 1.69 8771,378.35 �(43,62165) 3.00 0.67 1.7 10987.50 4.02 0.23 (3,10000) 4.15 1.70 1.80 (51,.00) 325 173 (31,826-93) 3.60 1.73 ..,.. 7.82 (64.037.50) 1.52 3.07 0.79 1.76 82 ' 1.83 (112,500 00) 32.800 3.21 1.78 86 3.51 1.83 1.92 4,70000 4.01 0.95 2.00- 25 _3.60 1 95 2 04 8,070.921 95 (84,078 05) 6 3.75 2.02 2.75 aa�saA-481�6 10,015,600-00 15,600.00 4.25 021 225 5003,150.00 3,1mob. 4.35 0.04 2.33 4,956,25000 (43,750.00) 3.50 225 2.38 4,995,300.00 (4,700.00) 4 26 2.30 2.44 10,018,800.00 18,800.00 _ 9.05 069 2.48 999,06000._ (940.00) 4.00 2.36 2 .50 10006,300_00 4.996.900.00 4,948,450.00 6,987,076.20 0.934,400 00 9,887,5000D 4,967,200.00 5,004700.00 4,975,000.00 June 30, 2.005 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund illonth End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP I 133XAE86 ti.33=ffiliN1 P111~€ 3133XBXT7 5,000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3.5YrNc1Yr 875,710,000.00 FHLC - FHLB - MORTG. CERT. DESCRIPTION 3128X2BW4 33X 3133XSZA9 3128X2TU9 5,000,000.00 FHLB- MORTG. CERT2YrN46M01X M. FARM 5,000,000.00 FHLBMORTG.CERT.1.75YrNc9M1 6,000,000.00 FHLB- MORTG. CERT2YrNC6Motx 3128X35N9 W 10000000.00 FHLB - MORTG CERT 1YrNc3Mo � r�M a i11- 3128X3CD3 10,000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT2YU4c3Mo atngtinitangMEIMMONNA 3128X311319 5,000.000.00. FHLB- MORTG. CERT.2YrNc1Yr 4.00 2/4/2008 10,000,000.00 99.94 9,993,80000 4.00 3/10/2008 10,000,00000 100.06 10,006,300.00 ......... ....34041,41)idbt.4i. WRF,W-I ". `.. i)9 ...,:....,,.�.:......_,.... 4/9/2008 10,000000.00 100.03 10,003,100.00 3,10000 4.50 2.58 278 _ .. ( fir' .e X. dr .�'; F{ . 4.25 12/1/2008 5,000,00000 100.19 5,009,40000 9,40000 4.25 1.30 3.42 875,611,783.21 868,278,774.55 (7,333,008.66) 2.98 1.14 1.43 /28/2005 500000000� 9948 9,974.15000 (2,5,850.00) 1/27/2006 5 000000.00 99.06 4,953,150.00 (46.850.0_0) 99.03 9,951,450 00 (48,550 00) 3/152066 1 or 0000o0 oo 99 81 9,980.600.00 4/26/2006 10 000.00000 98.99 9,898.600 00 (101 400 00) _ 2.50 0.69 0.82 5 000,000 00. py{pµ9 33 4,966,550.00 {{3.�3 4??50 DO P 3.00 0.77 0.90 x.s 1 $,r{i^i�`�'ti'i'I$ - 966,5 '�^,T(33,451r4 33,45 8 %, z,3.00F 1.90 3128X4CJB! 5,000,00000 FHLB- MORTG. CERT 1YrNc3Mo A 9rT`s`1iWc 1e�_=_ 3128X3WJ61 5,000.000.00 FHLB-MORTG, CERT.2YrNc6Mo-CFFC 3128X4AK71 5,000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT.1.5YrN 2.50 9.00 5/26/2006 _4 4 ksFd.: dx x 370 6/30/2006 5,000,000.00 9985 4,992,600.00 (7,40000 300 9/29/2006 5,000.00000 9904 4,951,8500 00 (48,15000) 375 11/15/2006 5,000,00000 99.93 4,996,70000 - - -.0 2F164.4 i6i _ t .use° rrer-- .?�a 7 .Aura_ A :., . . 312844c09 ' 5.000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT.175YrNc 363 2/15/2007 4,997,350.00 99.73 4,986,45000 (10900.00) 366 145 1.63 .�Gki' t!' '� 6 %?za' Fnf= se 7-t �b-1,00) a t1�WA 5,000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT3YrNc1YrixSt 200 3/2/2007 5,000,00000 99.28 4.963.750.00 (3625000) 2.88 147 1.67 3128X2ZB4 i tt MP5P,i YOL,YL4Y4iX5P - -"4d�- - 3128X2F42 28X 128X4BC4,r 3128X4CK5 8X4AT8 8X4AL5 1 '-3126X9AS0 _- FHLB- MORTG. CERT.3YMc6MoSle 3.00 3/8I2007 5000000.00 9844 4,921,95000 7805000) 300 148 1.69 h INO X011 A� 4TS '° 0:00- . ,-iOt -- ,'i ,'100=, 'i h ;-_ FHLB-MORTG CERT2YRNC6M0 350 4/5/2007 7,000,00000 100.01 7,000,63000 63000 _ MOM :ROB S RG -4.0.4it,k aff-‘4Aff1,:412-13"19AAKWI:1:-_ _ MORTG. CERT. i�i9VrNc3Mo u? kk}} 4.15 4I25I2007 5.000,000.00 99.91 kV 4,995,35000 (465000) 415 173 182 �V... vi `4 aiii4g 5A".. a',x,�?Y-40'.1FJM17'_ _ =:5 �T'ES'^c- &3$,I,1 �i'; Wt 5,000000.00 FHLB- MORTG. CERT-2YrNc6Mo 400 6/29/2007 5,000,000.00 9992 4,995,850.00 5,000,00000 FHLB - MORTG CERT.225YrNc1X 4.00 8/10/2007 5000000.00 100.13 5,006650.00 5,000.00000 FHLB-MORTG CERT25YrNc6Mo 5,000.M8.00 FHLB- MORI G. CER T.3YrNC1Yr 4.23 0.10 1.76 3128X4AJ01 5,000,000.00 FHLB- MORTG.CERT.3YrNc3MoSTEP 237,275,000.00 FHLD- FED HOME LOAN DISCOUNT 350.00 (1,289,735.44) Egrommatmw. -$c .:rrk ,- Y/Rm9s-_..40...Q1 '1°1' 24I'1119'i s 0a 67,.79i9iet41 = 1 50,000.000.00 FNMA - FED NAT MORTG ASSOC. ,17: ;��UPPD; _00.0 EEE1fifA sJ(0-1P0A5FOG2. 'Te3iciAfiF:z 3136F4MG6; 10,000,000_00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 225YrNo1Y �F3t iir'fAIM64 W 3136F3V29 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.25YrNc 3136F4 a,775,00000 3136F51-1R5 2,000,000.00 5,000,00000 , �ei„ - .ir,: g-92&m _. aoreOn(j.i"I ,�:ARS 5,000,000 00 7,000,000 00 5.000, 000.00 FHLB FED HAT MORTG ASSOC 2Y 61c6Mo FED NAT MORTG ASSOC_ 2YrNc3Mo-RCTC s2YE 3136F51-607FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2YrNc1 YrSY 3136F5PY1 5000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2YrNc1X 3136F5ED9 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC 2.25YrNc1Y 3136F3T89 10.000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC ' - ' - - - ,ra-, 3136F5JT9 5,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.2.5YrNc1 Yr ;111' 31 36F5LV1 5,000,000.00 25,000,00000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313589MG5 50,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 309,600,090.00 FRMC- FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORG CORP DI SEMMINEMMIRMOMM 3YrNc6Mo 50,000,000.00 AO- LO�yC�AL AGENICY OBLIGATIONS �3�p 420 11/9/2007 5000,000.00 10014 �sea6,75o.00 *MEM, l:? 4.30 5/5/2008 5,000,000.00 100.33 5,016500.00 0,01>8"�'`./ M64.4:64ec'_ee� Wt0§ ' r 3.50 5/16/2008 5,000,00000 100.01 5,000,350.00 237,255,568.94 235,965,033.50 2.00 l27/2006 49,617,666.67 49,617,666.67 - 2.02 2/6/2006 2+T e ail/"-'r^:{'� 2.17 2/17/2006 4773 507 8 2.05 3/29/2006 t 40 3/29/2006 5 000,000.00 OX10.Qi 9,906,250-00 99.03 9,903,100.00 9;. 6FOM 9,995,312.50 99.00 9,900,00000 (95,312.50) 9903 4,,728,730.25 _(44777.56) 2,000.000.00 98.75 2.10 9/19/2006 5,000,000.00 2.13 6/15/2066 9998437.50 99 47 98.72 9 7! 975,000.00 4,973,450.00 4,935,95000 9.896.900.00 2.25 7/28f2006 10000,00000 98.86 9,887,500.00 1•60 _. . -_ ... �V74,100t 2.07 9/29/2006 5,000,000 00 97.91 9695,300.00 (104.700.00) 2.07 5,000,000.00 97.97 9,898,950.00 (101,550.00) 213 2.88 4/12/2007 10,000,00000 98.22 9621,900.00 (176,100.00) 155,979,313.75 (1,540,097.56) 2.13 10/5/2006 COUPON MATURITY BOOK VALUE' PRICE IVL VALUE*: . GAIN/LOSS YLD MAT 4.00 M Dur. 2.41 Aug Life' 2.60 2.02 2/17/2006 5,000.000.00 (6,200.00) 2.02 0.47 0 58 215 0.51 0.64 (1950000 340 0.59 O. 50.00) 2.99 157,519,411.31 7/20/2005 3401,863.89 9912 34,691,863.89 3.04 8/172005 32,674,174.50 308_ 8//31/2005 3.19 9n82005 24.760.444 44 49,477,194 44 06,655,811.76 49,694,819.44 Pay bof 4 99.0 r1 99 04 24,76044444 9 98 95 32,674,174 50 49,477,194 44 306,655,811.76 49,694,819.44 - 4.86 0.09 3.32 0.90 2.98 0.08 2.43 0.5 1.46 0.08 0.58 204 056 0.81 2.19 0.59 0.64 pseaci 0ce 2.05 .5i. (26.550.00) 249 kT�a 64,050.00) 2 10 51.537.50 2. (112,500.00) 233'7.02 1_08 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.76 0.80 0.91 0.96 19 2.27 0.78 3.05 0.05 1.25 1.27 0,83 0.05 312 013 013 3.20 0.1] 017 3 22 3.13 3.03 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.08 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.25YrNc6Mo 3136F56D0 10,000,000.00 FED NAT MORTG ASSOC.3YrNc1YrSt 157,625.000.00 FNMD- FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES ....A ". M _11.01 313589jj3 35,000,000.00 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 313589KN2 33,000,00000 FNMA DISCOUNT NOTES 373589LC5 3 70,000,000,00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 3YrNc3Mo 3 3133XAT56 1Q000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Vr1: 3133%8BM6 10,000,000.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK3YrNc1Mo Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund June 30, 2005 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report 835,000.00 US DISTRICT COURTHOUSE 1,710,000.00 MMF- MONEY MARKET FUND 1000,000.00 AIM STITT GOUT &AGNCY AAAIAaa 26,000,000.00 MTNO • MED TERM NOTES 982GF82 ........... .......... .-_ F. A m.. 0,000,000.00 GE CAPITAL GROUP 30,000,000.00 MUNI- MUNICIPAL BONDS v8]3NBBf,B �79µ11O4v q[ 56 Yu 76886PAV5 1.080,000.00 000,000 00 rot l,daF'y8, 7 000,000 00.000 1,545.000 00 987388BD6 3.50 6/15/2020 - 7,At BOOK VALUE' 835,000.00 1,770,000.00 3.00 7/28/2005 1,000,000.00 2.00 1/30/2006 YOSEMITE CA CMNT COLLEGE AA/VA 3.72 4.00 3.05 CSCDA AAA/Aad DBP - INDUSTRY CA URBANDEVAGYAaa/AAA ROB GO BONDS 2004E AA-/ 1,350,000.00 YOSEMITE CA CMNTCOLLEGEAAA/Aaa 39,035,000.00 NCD - NEGOTIABLE CD 06050..Vm.0 .dJ..9....�. 50000,00000 BANK OF-AME.R,a ICA AI.o*I.P.,1.,m/9 -,1,, 200,000,000.00 REPO• REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 40,000,000.00. MERRILL LYNCH 290,000,000.00 TCD - TIME DEPOSITS 10 000,000 00 ^CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 20,000.000.00 3.93 26,000,000.00 100.00 NI. VALUE* r.GAIN/LOSS. 835.000.00 - 1,770,000.00 - 4f5= 100.00 1000,000.00 - 26,000,000.00 -. 10,000 ,..000.00 99.00 �9,900,4�00. 00 99,600 DO 30.182,400.00 8/1/2006 1,080,075.60 11/15/200P 511/2007 3/1/2007 8/1/2007 1 000,000 00 985,270.00 -1,550,871.00 1.350 . 1.350,2t6.00 39,064,052.20 8/22/2005 50,000,000.00 � . 3.41 9/30/2005 50,000,000.00 00 200,000,000.00 3.25 711f2005 40.000,000.00 290,000,000.00 99.98 1,079.751.60 (324.00) od00. 4 001 l1 oolpoo:oo 1,490:oo 98.41 984.11000 (1,160.00 99.29 1,534,092 30 (16,778.70) 99.99 1,349,905.50 39,024,094.92 100.00 . 50,000,000.00 - 200,000,000.00 - 4o,0oo.00a.00 - 290,000,000.00 .62 10/11/2005 10,000,000.00 100.00 10,000,000.00 - Total 3,123,175,000.00 t. The Market value and yield of short -tern money markel secudlies are based on purchased price. 2. Average Life is the number al years until principal is returned at maturity, weighted by market value. 3. Local Agency Oblgatios have variable rate coupons, spread to Pool. 4_ Modified Duration. The percentage price change of a securty for a given change' 20,000,000.00 . 3,11] 778,437 95 PoOQ y 4 20,000,000.00 - 10.50 (39,957.28) 3.52 UN 14.97 3.49 8.73 10.78 2.96 0.Oa 0.08 2.96 0.08 0.08 2.00 0.53 0.59 30,042,500.00 (139,980.00) 2.66 0.50 0.55 3.70 1 02 1.09 400 118 138 3.86 t.62 7.64 3.49 85 2.09 3.92 1:83 2.09 3.85 1.34 1A8 3.48 025 0.25 3.26 0.14 0.14 3.25 0.00 0.00 3.34 0.00 0.00 3.68 0.28 0.28 1.84 0.14 0.14 3,105755,904.34 (12,022,53361) 306 0.60 075 • "'Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Investment Category California Government Code Maximum Maturity LOCAL AGENCY BONDS 5 YEARS CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT BILLS OF EXCHANGE CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS REVERSE REPOS SECURED BANK DEPOSITS LOCALAGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS Conn Investment Polic Authorized %Limit Quality S&P/ Maximum Ma - Authorized % Quality S&P/ Actual Riverside`Moody's ity .. I Limit I Moody s .. I Portfolio % NO LIMIT 5 YEARS NO LIMIT 270 DAYS 40%�i� 5 YEARS 30% 92 DAYS 20 % N/A N/A 5 YEARS = NO LIMIT N/A - NO LIMIT 3 YEARS = 15%/ $150MM E A/A2/A t 1.26% 2.5% INVESTMENT GRADE 3 YEARS t 180 DAYS . 30% Al/P1/F1 60 DAYS 10% MAX " N/A ( DAILY LIQUIDITY :1% Board Approved 1 YEAR 3YEARS =0%MAX 0.06 % 0.00% 7.08% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% / No more than 30%ot this category maybe invested wkh anyone commercial bank Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days 3 Or must have an investment advisor with not less than 5 years experience and with assets under management of 8500,000,000. Proiected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Monthly Monthly . Month Receipts ;Di sbmts Difference Required MaL Invest Balance Actual 'Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest> 1Yr. 07/2005 08/2005 10/2005 m 12/2005 02/2006 697.4 694.3 3.1 460.9 692.7 (231.8) 1,174.5 772.0 402.5 643.3 655.2 (11.9) 04/2006 1,038.1 735.1 303.0 06/2006 599.8 882.5 (282.7) Totals 8,289.8 8,846.3 556.5) 20.9 425.8 0.1 0.00 414.10 222.2 0.00 364.6 35.0 30.0 64-7 70.0 20.0 535.6 1,114.5 21 17.18°% 35.76% 2,581.4 82.82% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 29, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 74/1-215 Interchange Project Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 Between Caltrans and RCTC (RCTC Agreement No. 06-31-513) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the attached Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 with Caltrans for the preparation of a Project Approval and Environmental Document for the State Route 74/1-215 Interchange Improvement Project in the City of Perris (RCTC Agreement No. 06-31-513); 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This project was included in the original Measure "A" passed by the voters in 1988. A Project Study Report (PSR) that was prepared by RCTC for the project was approved by Caltrans in October 1992. The City of Perris supports the project and has recently requested that the Project Appovals and Environmental Documentation (PA & ED) be completed as soon as possible in order that the City can reasonably deal with development pressures in the vicinity of this project. The proposed limits of this project study will generally be between "G" Street on the west, San Jacinto Avenue on the north, 1-215 on the east, and 7' Street on the south. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) took action on the first set of Central Zone TUMF funding recommendations on February 7, 2005. Included in the approved recommendation was a commitment of $1.0 million of Central Zone TUMF funds to support the deve►opment of PA & ED for the SR 74/1-215 interchange project. At the April 13, 2005 RCTC 22 meeting, the Commission approved a $1.0 million 1988 Measure "A" match allocation to fund this phase of the project on a 50% Measure "A" and 50% TUMF split. Any funds remaining •at the completion of the environmental phase will be applied to the next phase(s) of work (design or right of way). Also at the April 13, 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 05-31-544 to be awarded to David Evans and Associates Inc. to conduct preliminary engineering and prepare a PA & ED for the SR 74/1-215project in Perris for a total not to exceed amount of $994,814. Staff now recommends that the Commission approve the standard Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for this project. The final draft of the Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 (ROTC Agreement No. 06-31-513) is attached for your information and review. The agreement outlines the duties and responsibilities of both RCTC and Caltrans during the PA & ED phase of the project. For this project, RCTC will be the lead agency in the preparation and execution of a PA & ED with Caltrans providing oversight. There are no new financial obligations to be approved with this action. Attachment: Cooperative Agreement 23 District Agreement No. 8-1273 08-Riv-74-10 43.7/44.3 (PM 27.2/27.5) Improve the Existing SR 74/215 Interchange EA 464200 District Agreement No. 08-1273 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT , This AGREEMENT, entered into effective on , 2005, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, actin_ g by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE", and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC" RECITALS 1. STATE and RCTC, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State high- ways within the City of Perris, County of Riverside. 2. RCTC desires State highway improvements to the existing SR 74/215 Interchange referred to herein as "PROJECT", and is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%) of all capital outlay and staffing costs, except for costs of STATE's quality assurance of environmental, design and right of way activities. 3. STATE's funds will not be used to finance any of the capital and support costs for PROJECT. 4. This Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relat- ing to PROJECT. 5. Construction of PROJECT will be the subject of a separate future Agreement. 6. This Agreement will define the CEQA lead agency, CEQA responsible agency, and the roles and responsibilities of the CEQA lead agency and CEQA responsible agency regarding environmental documents, studies and reports and compliance with CEQA and NEPA. 7. The parties hereto intend to define herein the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be developed, designed, and fmanced. 1 24 District Agreement No. 8-1273 SECTION I RCTC AGREES• 1. To fund one hundred percent (100%) of all preliminary and design engineering costs, including, but not limited to, costs incurred for the preparation of contract documents, advertising for bids, and for awarding the construction contract for PROJECT. 2. To have a Project Report (PR), including all necessary environmental documentation (ED), and detailed Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) prepared, at no cost to STATE, and to submit each to STATE for STATE's review and concurrence at appropriate stages of development. The PR and the final plans and specifications for PROJECT shall be signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. 3. To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel who will prepare the PR, conduct environmental studies and obtain approval for PROJECT, prepare the PS&E, and provide the right of way engineering services, and to permit STATE to oversee the performance of right of way activities. RCTC agrees to consider any request by STATE to discontinue the services of any personnel considered by STATE to be unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional . expertise, failure to perform in accordance with the scope of work and/or other pertinent criteria. 4. Personnel who prepare the PS&E and right of way maps shall be made available to STATE, at no cost to STATE, through completion of construction of PROJECT to discuss problems which may arise during construction and/or to make design revi- sions for contract change orders. 5 To not use funds from STATE for any capital and support costs for PROJECT. 6. To make written application to STATE for necessary encroachment permits authorizing entry of RCM onto the State highway right of way to perform surveying and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR, ED, and/or PS&E. 7. To identify and locate all utility facilities within the area of PROJECT as part of the design responsibility for PROJECT. All utility facilities not relocated or removed in advance of construction shall be identified on the PS&E for PROJECT. 8. To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within the area of PROJECT and to protect or otherwise provide for such facilities, all in accordance with STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities. Within Highway Rights of Way". RCTC hereby acknowledges receipt of STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way 2 25 District Agreement No. 8-1273 9. If any existing public and/or private utility facilities conflict with the construction of PROJECT or violate STATE's encroachment policy, RCTC shall make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such facilities for their protection, relocation, or removal in accordance with STATE's policy and procedure for those facilities located within the limits of work included in the improvement to the State highway and in accordance with RCTC's policy for those facilities which are or will be located outside of the limits of the State highway. The total costs to PROJECT of such protection, relocation, or removal within the present or future State highway right of way shall be determined in accordance with STATE's policies and procedures. 10. To furnish evidence to STATE, in a form acceptable to STATE, that arrangements have been made for the protection, relocation, or removal of all conflicting facilities within the State highway right of way and that such work will be completed prior to the award of the contract to construct PROJECT or as covered in the PS&E for said contract. This evidence shall include a reference to all required State highway encroachment permits. 11. RCTC shall require any utility owner and/or its contractor performing the protection or relocation work within the State highway right of way to obtain an encroachment permit from STATE prior to the performance of said work. 12. To acquire and furnish all right of way, if any, outside of the existing State highway right of way and to perform all right of way activities, including all eminent domain activities, if necessary, at no cost to STATE, and in accordance with procedures acceptable to STATE. These activities shall comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, subject to STATE's quality assurance to insure that the completed work is acceptable for incorporation into the State highway right of way. 13. To utilize the services of a qualified public agency or a qualified consultant, as determined by STATE's District Division Chief of Right of Way, in all matters related to the acquisition of right of way in accordance with STATE's procedures as published in STATE's current Right of Way Manual. Whenever personnel other than personnel of a qualified public agency are utilized, administration of the personnel contract shall be performed by a qualified Right of Way person employed or retained by RCTC. 14. To certify legal and physical control of right of way ready for construction and that all right of way parcels were acquired in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, subject to review and concurrence by STATE prior to the advertisement for bids for the contract to construct PROJECT. 15. To deliver to STATE legal title to the right of way, including access rights, free and clear of all encumbrances detrimental to STATE's present and future uses not later than the date of acceptance by STATE of maintenance and operation of the highway 3 26 District Agreement No. 8-1273 facility. Acceptance of said title by STATE is subject to a review of a Policy of Title Insurance in the name of the State of California to be provided and paid for by , RCTC. 16. To be responsible, at RCTC's expense, for the investigation of potential hazardous material sites within and outside of the existing State highway right of way than would impact PROJECT as, part of the responsibility for the ED for PROJECT. If RCTC encounters hazardous material or contamination within the existing State highway right of way during said investigation, RCTC shall immediately notify STATE and responsible control agencies of such discovery. 17. If RCTC desires to have STATE advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT, RCTC shall provide STATE all plans prepared by RCTC or RCTC's consultant on either 4 or 8 millimeter magnetic tape using Micro Station Release.5.0 .dgn files in UNIX TAR or CPIO format. One copy of the data on the magnetic tape, including the Engineer's electronic signature and seal, shall be provided to STATE upon completion of the final PS&F for PROJECT. STATE reserves the right to modify the magnetic tape requirements and STATE shall provide RCTC advance notice of any such modifications. Reimbursement to STATE for costs incurred by STATE to advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT will be covered in the separate Cooperative Agreement referred to in Article 13 of Section III of this Agreement. 18. To obtain, at RCTC's expense, all necessary permits and/or agreements from appropriate regulatory agencies. All mitigation, monitoring, and/or remedial action required by said permits shall constitute parts of the cost of PROJECT. 19. All aerial photography and photogrammetric mapping shall conform to STATE's latest standards. 20. A copy of all original survey documents resulting from surveys performed for PROJECT, includingoriginal field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and appropriate intermediate documents, shall be delivered to STATE and shall become property of STATE. For aerial mapping, survey documents to be furnished are three sets: of contract prints, with one set showing control, a complete photo index - two prints and a copy of the negative, and the original aerial photography negative. 21. STATE's, quality assurance activities referred to in Article I of Section II of this Agreement does not include performance of any engineering services required for PROJECT. These services are to be performed by RCTC. If RCTC requests STATE to perform any of these services, RCTC shall reimburse STATE for such services. An Amendment to this Agreement authorizing STATE's performance of such services will be required prior to performance of any engineering work by STATE. 4 27 District Agreement No. 8-1273 SECTION H STATE AGREES: 1. At no cost to RCTC, to provide quality assurance activities of all work on PROJECT done by RCTC, including, but not limited to, investigation of potential hazardous material sites and all right of way activities undertaken by RCTC or its designee, to provide prompt reviews and approvals, as appropriate, of submittals by RCTC, and to cooperate in timely processing of PROJECT. 2. Upon proper application by RCTC, to issue, at no cost to RCTC, an encroachment permit to RCTC authorizing entry onto the State highway right of way to perform survey and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR, ED, and/or PS&E. If RCTC uses consultants rather than its own staff to perform required work, the consultants will also be required to obtain a "separate encroachment permit. These permits will be issued at no cost upon proper application by the consultants. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED. 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to State Budget Act authority, the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. 2. The parties hereto will carry out PROJECT in accordance with the Scope of Work, attached and made a part of the Agreement, which outlines the specific responsibilities of the parties hereto. The attached Scope of Work may be modified . in writing in the future to reflect changes in the responsibilities of the respective parties. Such modifications shall be concurred with by RCTC's Director of Public Works or other official designated by RCTC and STATE's District Director for District 08 and become a part of this Agreement after execution of the amending document by the respective officials of the parties. 3. The Project Study Report (PSR) for PROJECT, approved on October 6,1992, is by this reference, made an express part of this Agreement. 4. The basic design features (as defined in Attachment 3 of the Scope of Work for PROJECT) shall comply with those addressed in the approved PSR, unless modified as required for environmental clearance and/or FHWA approval of PROJECT. 5. The design, right of way acquisition, and preparation of environmental documents for PROJECT shall be performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices current as of the date of performance. Any exceptions to applicable design standards shall fast be approved by STATE via the processes outlined in STATE's 5 28 District Agreement No. 8-1273 Highway Design Manual and appropriate memorandums and design bulletins published by STATE. In the event that STATE proposes and/or requires a change in design standards, implementation of new or revised design standards shall be done as part of the work on PROJECT in accordance with STATE's current Highway Design Manual Section 82.5, "Effective Date for Implementing Revisions to Design Standards". STATE shall consult with RCTC in a timely manner regarding effect of proposed and/or required changes on PROJECT. 6. RCTC's share of all changes in development and construction costs associated with modifications to the basic design features as described above shall be in the same proportion as described in this Agreement, unless mutually agreed to the contrary by STATE and RCTC in a subsequent amendment to this Agreement. 7. STATE will be the CEQA Lead Agency and RCTC will be a CEQA Responsible Agency_ RCTC will assess impacts of PROJECT on the environment and RCTC will prepare the ED, including the necessary associated investigative studies and complete all technical environmental reports, in order to meet the requirements of CEQA. The administrative draft, draft administrative final, and final ED will require STATE'S review, comment and approval prior to public availability. RCTC must also submit to STATE all investigative studies and technical environmental reports for STATE's review, comment, and approval. STATE will be responsible for the public hearing process. If during preliminary engineering, preparation of the PS&E, or PROJECT construction new information is obtained which requires the preparation of an additional NEPA and/or CEQA ED, this Agreement will be amended to include completion of these additional tasks by RCTC. 8. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1 category found within the existing State highway right of way during investigative studies requiring remedy or remedial action, as defined in Division 20, Chapter 6.8 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, shall be the responsibility of STATE. Any hazardous material or contamination of an HM-1 category found within the local road right of way during investigative studies requiring the same defined remedy or remedial action shall be the responsibility of RCTC. For the purpose of this Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of HM-1 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which State or Federal regulatory control agencies having jurisdiction have determined must be'remediated by reason of its mere discovery, regardless of whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. If RCTC decides to not proceed with PROJECT, STATE shall sign the HM-1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way and RCTC shall sign the HM-1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the local road right of way. If RCTC and STATE decide to proceed with PROJECT, STATE shall sign the HM-1 manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the existing State highway right of way, except that if STATE determines, in its sole judgment that STATE's cost for remedy or remedial action is increased as a result of RCTC's decision to proceed with PROJECT, that additional cost identified by STATE shall be deemed a part of the 6 29 District Agreement No. 8-1273 costs of PROJECT. RCTC shall sign the HM-1manifest and pay all costs for required remedy or remedial action within the local road right of way. STATE will exert every effort to fund the remedy or remedial action for which STATE is responsible. In the event STATE is unable to provide funding, RCTC will have the option to either delay PROJECT until STATE is able to provide funding or RCTC may proceed with the remedy or remedial action at RCTC's expense without any subsequent reimbursement by STATE. 9. The remedy or remedial action with respect to any hazardous material or contami ation of an HM-2 category found within the existing State highway right of way during investigative studies shall be the responsibility of RCTC, at RCTC's expense, if RCTC decides to proceed with PROJECT. For the purposes of this Agreement, hazardous material or contamination of HM-2 category is defined as that level or type of contamination which said regulatory control agencies would have allowed to remain in place if undisturbed or otherwise protected in place should PROJECT not proceed. RCTC shall sign any HM-2 storage manifest if PROJECT proceeds and HM-2 material must be removed in lieu of being treated in place. If RCTC decides to not proceed with PROJECT, there will be no obligation to either RCTC or STATE other than RCTC's duty to cover and protect HM-2 material lei in place. 10. If hazardous material or contamination of either HM-1 or HM-2 category is found on new right of way to be acquired by RCTC for PROJECT, RCTC, as between RCTC and STATE only, shall be responsible, at RCTC's expense, for all required remedy or remedial action and/or protection and shall guarantee STATE that said new right of way is clean prior to transfer of title to STATE in accordance with Article 15 of Section I of this Agreement. The generator of the hazardous material or, if none can be identified or found, the present property owner, whether a private entity or a local public agency, or RCTC, as a last resort, shall sign the manifest. ' 11. Locations subject to, remedy or remedial action and/or protection include utility relocation work required for PROJECT. Costs for remedy and remedial action and/or protection shall include, but not be limited to, the identification, treatment, protection, removal, packaging, transportation, storage, and disposal of such material. 12. The party responsible for funding any hazardous material cleanup shall be responsible for the development of the necessary remedy and/or remedial action plans and designs. Remedial actions proposed by RCTC on the State highway right of way shall be pre -approved by State and shall be performed in accordance with STATE's standards and practices and those standards mandated by the Federal and State regulatory agencies. 13. A separate Cooperative Agreement will be required to cover responsibilities and funding for the construction phase of PROJECT. 7 30 District Agreement No. 8-1273 14. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or right to third parties not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development, design, construction, operation or maintenance of State highways and public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. 15. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 16. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC and all its officers and employees from all claims; suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 17. This Agreement may be terminated or provisions contained herein may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto. 18. Except as otherwise provided in Article 17 above, this Agreement shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the construction contract for PROJECT, or on July 31, 2010, whichever is earlier in time. Signatures on following page. 8 31 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District Agreement No. 8-1273 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) WILL KEMPTON By: Director ERIC HALEY Executive Director By: PATTY ROMO Acting District 08 Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: District Budget Manager CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS AND POLICIES: Accounting Administrator 9 32 District Agreement No. 8-1273 SCOPE OF WORK This Scope of Work outlines the specific areas of responsibility for various project devel- opment activities for the proposed improvements to SR 74/215 Interchange. 1. RCTC and STATE concur that the proposal is a Category 4A as -defined in STATE's Project Development Procedures Manual. 2. RCTC will submit drafts of environmental technical reports and individual sections of the draft environmental documents to STATE, as they are developed, for review and comment. Traffic counts and projections to be used in the various reports shall. be supplied by STATE if available, or by RCTC. Existing traffic data shall be furnished by RCTC. 3. STATE will review, monitor, and approve all project development reports, studies, and plans, and provide all necessary implementation activities up to but not includ- ing advertising of PROJECT. 4. STATE will prepare the revised freeway agreement and obtain approval of the new public road connection(s) from the California Transportation Commission. 5 All phases of PROJECT, from inception through construction, whether done by RCTC or STATE, will be developed in accordance with all policies, procedures, practices, and standards that STATE would normally follow. 6. Detailed steps in the project development process are attached to this Scope of Work. These Attachments are intended as a guide to STATE's and RCTC's staff. 10 33 PROJECT ACTIVITY District Agreement No. 5-1273 ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING PHASE ACTIVITIES RESPONSIBILITY ST ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Establish Project Development Team (PDT) X X Approve PDT X X Project Category Determination X Prepare Preliminary Environmental Assessment X Identify Preliminary Alternatives and Costs X Prepare and Submit Environmental Studies & Reports X Approve Environmental Studies & Reports X Prepare and Submit Draft Environmental Document (DED) X Approve Final DED X PROJECT GEOMETRICS DEVELOPMENT Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Prepare Existing Traffic Analysis X Prepare Future Traffic Volumes for Alternatives X Prepare Project Geometrics and Profiles X Prepare Layouts and Estimates for Alternatives X Prepare Operational Analysis for Alternatives X Approve Project Geometries and Operational Analysis X PROJECT APPROVAL Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Lead Agency for Environment Compliance Certifies its ED in Accordance with Procedures X Prepare Project Report (PR) X Finalize and Submit Project Report with Certified ED for Approval X Approve Project Report X Storm Water Report X Approve Storm Water Report X Approve Recommendations of Value Analysis X X 11 34 PROJECT ACTIVITY District Agreement No. 8-1273 ATTACHMENT 2 DESIGN PHASE ACTIVITIES RESPONSIBILITY STATE RCTC FRELIlVIINARY COORDINATION Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Request 1 - Phase EA X Field Review of Site X Approve Geometries X Obtain Surveys & Aerial Mapping X Obtain Copies of Assessor Maps and Other R/W Maps X Obtain Copies of As-Builts X Send Approved Geometries to Local Agencies for Review X Revise Approved Geometries if Required X Approve Final Geometries X Determine Need for Permits from Other Agencies X . Request Permits X Initial Hydraulics Discussion with District Staff X Initial Electrical Design Discussion with District Staff X Initial Traffic & Signing Discussion with District Staff X Initial Landscape Design Discussion with District Staff X' Plan Sheet Format Discussion X X ENGINEERING STUDIES AND REPORTS Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Prepare and Submit Materials Report & Typical Section X Approve Materials Report & Typical Section X Prepare and Submit Landscaping Recommendation X Approve Landscaping Recommendation X Prepare and Submit Hydraulic Design Studies X Approve Hydraulic Design Studies X Prepare and Submit Bridge General Plan & Structure Type Selection X Approve Bridge General Plan & Structure Type Selection X R/W ACQUISITION & UTILITIES (Used when qualified City is performing R/W activities) Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Request Utility Verification X Request Preliminary Utility Relocation Plans from Utilities X Prepare R/W Requirements X 12 35 District Agreement No. 8-1273 Prepare R/W and Utility Relocation Cost Estimates X Submit R/W Requirements & Utility Relocation Plans for Review X Comment on R/W Requirements X Longitudinal Encroachment Review X . Longitudinal Encroachment Application to District X Approve Longitudinal Encroachment Application X Request Final Utility Relocation Plans X Check Utility Relocation Plans X Submit Utility Relocation Plans for Approval X Approve Utility Relocation Plans X Submit Final R/W Requirements for Review & Approval X Approve R/W Requirements X Obtain Title Reports X Complete Appraisals X Approve Appraisals for Setting Just Compensation X Prepare Acquisition Documents X Acquire R/W X Open escrows and make payments X Obtain Resolution of Necessity X Perform Eminent Domain Proceedings X Provide Displacee Relocation Services X Prepare Relocation Payment Valuations X Provide Displacee Relocation Payments X Perform Property Management Activities X Perform R/W Clearance Activities X Prepare and Submit Certification of R/W X Approve Certification of R/W X Transfer R/W to STATE X X Approve and Record Title Transfer Documents Prepare R/W Record Maps X PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES Provide Quality Control X Provide Quality Assurance X Prepare and Submit Preliminary Stage Construction Plans X Calculate and Plot Geometrics X Cross -Sections and Earthwork Quantities Calculation X Prepare and Submit BEES Estimate X Put Estimate in BEES X Local Review of Preliminary Drainage Plans and Sanitary Sewer and Adjustment Details X Prepare and Submit Preliminary Drainage Plans X Prepare Traffic Striping and Roadside Delineation Plans X 13 36 District Agreement No. 8-1273 and Submit for Review Prepare and Submit Landscaping and/or Erosion Control Plans X Prepare and Submit Preliminary Electrical Plans X Prepare and Submit Preliminary Signing Plans X Quantity Calculations X Safety Review X X Prepare Specifications X Prepare and Submit Checked Structure Plans X Approve Checked Structure Plans X Prepare Final Contract Plans X Prepare Lane Closure Requirements X Approve Lane Closure Requirements X Prepare and Submit Striping Plan X Approve Striping Plan X Prepare Final Estimate X Prepare and Submit Draft PS&E X Finalize and Submit PS&E to District X 14 37 District Agreement No. 8-1273 ATTACHMENT 3 DEFINITIONS Description of Facility It is proposed to improve the State Route 74 (SR 74)/Interstate 215 (I-215) Interchange by ramp improvements, interchange and intersections reconfigurations, and bridge replacement in the City of Perris, in Riverside County. It is also proposed to widen SR 74 (also known as 4i° Street) between "G" Street and the interchange; and Redland Avenue between the interchange and San Jacinto Avenue, as necessary to improve ramp intersections channelization. Design Speed of Interstate 215 The design speed of I-215 at the project location is 112 kmh Between "G" Street and San Jacinto Avenue, the design speed for SR 74 and Redland Avenue is 56 kmh. Number of Through Lanes I-215 within the project limits is a four -lane freeway with 12-foot lanes, 44-foot median and 8-foot shoulders. The existing SR 74 overcrossing is a two-lane, 40-foot wide structure. Auxiliary Lanes Auxiliary lanes are likely but exact numbers and configurations will be determined in the design phase. Special Features Special features such as sound walls, transportation system management plan, HOV lanes, bridge widening, ramp metering and other features will be determined during design phase. Mandatory and Advisory Design Standards Exceptions to these standards will be determined on completion of Geometrical Approval Drawings (GAD) in Project Report phase. 15 38 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Adjustment for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the adjustment of the existing project budget for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, to allow use of approximately $2,013,500 of the $3,041,230 project contingency for anticipated remaining project contract expenditures follows: a) $1,270,000 to cover additional costs associated with construction Agreement No. 03-31-052, with SEMA Construction, Inc., increasing the construction contract contingency amount from $2,380,951 to $3,650,951, for a total contract amount not to exceed $27,570,000; b) $380,000 to cover existing RCTC Agreements with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enhancement Enforcement Program (COZEEP); c) $363,500 to cover anticipated additional costs associated with final design, construction management, and right of way acquisition; 2) Approve the reduction of the Commission's budgeted Measure "A" Matching Funding (11.47%) from $6,000,000 to $4,594,000 in order to be consistent with the policy to maximize use of federal funds, and increase the CMAQ amount from $34,800,000 to $35,456,000; 3) Approve a FY 2005/06 budget amendment of $290,900 for increased project expenditures, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 2000 meeting the Commission approved a Strategic Plan for the 1989 Measure "A" program. As part of the Strategic Plan, every project in the program was updated for cost, and a delivery schedule was estimated with respect 39 to anticipated revenues. The approved preliminary budget for the State Route 60 HOV project in Moreno Valley (East Junction 215/60 to Redlands Blvd) was estimated to be $40,800,000 ($34,800,000 of CMAQ & $6,000,000 of Measure "A" funds). Additionally, per RCTC policy, any CMAQ or STP funded project can request up to 10% additional funding to supplement the project cost. State. Route 60 HOV Funding Summary 1. CMAQ Funds available $34,800,000 2. Measure "A" 6,000,000 Total Funding Available $40800,000 Subsequent to action on the Strategic Plan, the Commission approved a revised. project budget for the Route 60 project of $40,050,000 at its March 14, 2001 meeting. At the June 18, 2003 RCTC meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 03- 31-052, to SEMA Construction, Inc., for the construction of the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, for the amount of $23,919,049, plus a contingency of $2,380,951, for a total not to exceed amount of $26,300,000. The Project was substantially completed, and the HOV 'lanes were opened to the public on March 18, 2005. Landscaping was completed and the Contractor started the 1 year plant establishment period on June 9, 2005. There are a few minor punch items, mostly Change Order Work, that still remain, and RCTC is working with the Contractor to close-out the remaining project issues. The Design Consultant must finalize the As -Built drawings, the Construction Management Consultant is providing minor support for project close-out, and there are some minor right of way acquisition issues remaining. Throughout the construction of the project, staff has monitored progress of the project expenditures against the project budget. The most significant increase in cost is in the construction phase of work. The following is a listing of those costs: Description CHP ` COZEEP Construction Traffic Control Quantity Increases/Decreases Asphalt Price Index & Pay Factor Contract Change Orders to date Initial Budget Actual Cost $ 250,000 100,000 250,000 300,000 1,480,000 40 $ 380,000 200,000 750,000 300,000 1,815,000 Project Budget Increase $ 130,000 100,000 500,000 0 335,000 • Disputed Quantities Potential Unit Price Adjustments Total Construction Budget Increase 0 425,000 425,000 0 160,000 160,000 The primary reasons for the increases in construction costs are: $1,650,000 1► When the project initially began, the contractor found unsuitable material in the median of Route 60 where the project was to be built. Unsuitable material (dirt) was removed, and suitable material had to be brought to the project site. 2) The project experienced approximately 3 months of schedule delay due to rain. 3) Escalating cost of materials (steel, aggregate base and asphalt). There are some additional support services that remain to be completed prior to close-out of the project. Most of the Consultant Agreement Project budgets are almost completely expended in support of the construction effort. It is anticipated that Amendments will be required for the Design Consultant to finalize the As -Built drawings, for the Construction Management Consultant to provide minor support for project close-out, and for minor remaining right of way acquisition issues. Staff has estimated that approximately $363,500 in additional project budget will be required for additional final design, construction management, and right of way acquisition services to close-out the project. Amendments to existing agreements, for these services, may be brought back to the Commission, for approval, at a later date, if necessary. At this time staff is requesting that the Commission approve an internal redistribution of the approved project budget for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley HOV Median Widening Project, to allow use of $2,013,500 of the $3,041,230 project contingency for anticipated remaining project expenditures, as stated above. The existing project budget will remain unchanged at $40,050,000. Additionally, a fiscal budget amendment is required as a result of the revised project budget and anticipated completion of the project in FY 2005/06. As of June 30, 2005, actual project costs incurred were approximately $37,654,100. The FY 2005/06 fiscal budget included $2,105,000 in project related expenditures. Accordingly, the budget adjustment needed is $290,900. Lastly, to be consistent with Commission policy direction in maximizing the use of federal funds, a reduction of the $6,000,000 Measure "A" matching funds to $4,594,000 and an increase of the CMAQ funds from $34,800,000 to $35,456,000 are requested. 41 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y N Year: FY2005/06 FY2005/06 Amount: $2,105,000 $290,900 Source of Funds: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and Measure "A" Budget Ad ustment: Y $290,900 222-31-81401 P3000 $150,500 Right of way acquisition 222-31-81403 P3000 $ 27,200 Right of way support services GLA No.: 222-31-65101 P3000 $190,000 General legal services 222-31-81.102 P3000 $125,000 Design 222-31-81301 P3000 ($348,000)Construction 222-31-81302 P3000 $146,200 Construction Management Fiscal Procedures Approved: , �1i Date: 8/17/05 42 AGENDA ITEM 9 • AMENDED AGENDA ITEM #9 I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Adjustment for the State Route 74 Widening Project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and Th Street in the City of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve an increase to the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7t' Street in the City of Perris from $69,847,655 to $76,446,874 (an increase of $6,599,219), and 2) Approve a F—Y 2005/06 budgct amcndmcnt of $1,060,300 for .seel nreiee+ evn en�i+ren nd I 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7"'Street in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements realign curves and widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project was split in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment II is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7' Street in the City of Perris. The project's estimated cost in the January 2000 RCTC Strategic Plan was $40.5 million. At the July 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved a revised budget of $51.3 million for the SR 74 Measure "A" Project. At that time the budget was increased due to the additional cost to accelerate delivery and right-of-way costs related to environmental mitigation for the California Gnatcatcher. Additionally, the i cost to acquire required temporary construction easements was included in the overall project budget. At the May 8, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved a second budget revision which raised the estimated cost to complete the project to $69.8 million. That project cost increase was $18,515,666. The project increases were primarily due to escalating right-of-way costs of $10,310,000; additional cost of design, construction management and roadway construction to meet Ca!trans design standards of $7,050,609; and the inclusion of construction for the new Greenwald/Meadowbrook connection with Route 74 for $1,155,057. Throughout the construction of the Route 74 Measure "A" Project, staff has been monitoring expenditures in comparison to the approved project budget. There have been several costs that have been higher than anticipated. The following is a listing of those costs: Description Approved Project Budget (5/8/02) Estimated Total Project Cost (8/22/05) . Project Budget Increase Right of Way Costs: Admin Costs Property Costs Gnatcatcher Mitigation Design Costs Roadway Construction Segment I Roadway Construction Segment II Water Line Relocation Segment II Segment I & II Const Mgt Contingency . Greenwald: Right of Way Design Construction Total Project Budget $ 5,000,000 21,763,652 1,000,000 4,083,581. 11,400,000 18,000,000 0 3,210,000 4,235,365 620,000 135,057 400,000 $69,847,655 $ 5,273,000 23,563,652 2,500,000 4,732,048 11,400,000 21,199,120 431,758 4,354,350 1,500,000 857,585 135,057 5 00, 304 $76,446,874 $ 273,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 648,467 0 3,,199,120 431,758 1,144,350 (2,735,365) 237,585 0 100,304 $6,599,219 Right of way acquisition costs have continued to rise. The recommended cost increase, from the revised May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget, is $3,810,585 which includes $273,000 for additional right of way acquisition administrative costs, $237,585 for Greenwald right of way acquisition costs, $1,800,000 to support settlement of land acquisitions for the project, and an additional $1,500,000 for mitigation lands. The mitigation lands recommended in the revised budget figure, if not fully used for the purchase of the land will be applied to fund the non -wasting endowment required for managing the mitigation/habitat lands in perpetuity. The design cost increase is attributed to the unanticipated additional work required to support construction, which included: the requested redesign of the EMWD water line, unforeseen underground utility conflicts, additional support of right of way acquisition, and general support of construction activities. The cost increase, from the revised May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget, is $648,467 (15%). It is important to note that the $431,758 project budget increase identified above for the water line relocation in Segment II will be fully reimbursed by EMWD. The construction cost for Segment II and Greenwald have been impacted by increased costs of materials and labor due to the delays caused by weather, utility relocation and the effects of high ground water. The construction agreement for Segment II and Greenwald was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for a total amount of $20,624,452 plus $1,095,852 contingency, for a total not to exceed ;amount of $21,720,304. Increasing material costs and labor costs due to schedule delays are the primary cause of the $3,299,434 cost increase, from the revised !May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget. The estimated additional cost of construction management of $1,144,350 is mainly due to the extension of time of the construction contract due to the severe weather of last winter and resultant high ground water level which contributed to delaying utility relocations and impeded project construction. At this time, staff is recommending that the Commission approve an increase of '$6,599,219 to the overall project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris. This will increase the project budget from $69,847,655 to $76,446,874. 'Additienaniy A fiscal budget amendment is not required as a result of the revised project budget. and anticipated ce Rpletiea of the prefect . As of June 30, 2005, actual project costs incurred were approximately $56,786,600. The FY 2005/06 fiscal budget included $18,600,000 in project related expenditures, Accordingly, the budget adjustment needed is $1,060,300. and the remaining right of way and legal costs will be completed in subsequent years. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY2005/06 FY2006/06 Amount: $18,600,000 $1,060 3OG Source of Funds: Bond Proceeds, Measure "A" and State_ Highway Operations and Budget Adjustment: N 4-1,060,388 GLA No.: , 222 31 811103 P30916�`L,Right Way Support of Services 222 31 66101 P3001 $a General ,028,400 Legal Services 222 31 81102 P3001 $119,800 Docign 222 31 81301 P3001 ($1,200,000) Construction 222 31 81302 P3001 $157,700 Construction Management Services Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1414,4e4.4•34 Date: 8/17/05 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Construction Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Adjustment for the State Route 74 Widening Project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7' Street in the City of Perris STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve an increase to the project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7t'' Street in the City of Perris from $69,847,655 to $76,446,874 (an increase of $6,599,219); 2) Approve a FY 2005/06 budget amendment of $1,060,300 for increased project expenditures, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure "A" Strategic Plan includes improvements to SR 74, between 1-15 in the City of Lake Elsinore and 7thStreet in the City of Perris, a length of approximately 8.5 miles. The improvements realign curves and widen the existing two (2) lane roadway to four (4) lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a continuous 14 foot paved median. The project was split in two segments. Segment 1 is from 1-15 to Wasson Canyon Road. Segment II is from Wasson Canyon Road to 7' Street in the City of Perris. The project's estimated cost in the January 2000 RCTC Strategic Plan was $40.5 million. At the July 12, 2000 meeting, the Commission approved a revised budget of $51.3 million for the SR 74 Measure "A" Project. At that time the budget was increased due to the additional cost to accelerate delivery and right-of-way costs related to environmental mitigation for the California Gnatcatcher. Additionally, the cost to acquire required temporary construction easements was included in the overall project budget. 43 At the May 8, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved a second budget revision which raised the estimated cost to complete the project to $69.8 million. That project cost increase was $18,515,666. The project increases were primarily due to escalating right-of-way costs of $10,310,000; additional cost of design, construction management and roadway construction to meet Ca!trans design standards of $7,050,609; and the inclusion of construction for the new Greenwald/Meadowbrook connection with Route 74 for $1,155,057. Throughout the construction of the Route 74 Measure "A" Project, staff has been monitoring expenditures in comparison to the approved project budget. There have been several costs that have been higher than anticipated. The following, is a listing of those costs: Description Approved Project Budget (5/8/02) Estimated Total Project Cost (8/22/05) Project Budget Increase Right of Way Costs: Admin Costs Property Costs Gnatcatcher Mitigation Design Costs Roadway Construction Segment I Roadway Construction Segment II Water Line Relocation Segment II Segment I & II Const Mgt Contingency Greenwald: Right of Way Design Construction Total Project Budget $ 5,000,000 21,763,652 1,000,000 4,083,581 11,400,000 18,000,000 0 3,210,000 4,235,365 620,000 135,057 400,000 $69,847,655 $ 5,273,000 23,563,652 2,500,000 4,732,048 11,400,000 21,199,120 431,758 4,354,350 1,500,000 857,585 135,057 500,304 $76,446,874 $ 273,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 648,467 0 3,199,120 431,758 1,144,350 (2,735,365) 237,585 0 100,304 $6,599,219 Right of way acquisition costs have continued to rise. The recommended cost increase, from the revised May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget, is $3,810,585 which includes $273,000 for additional right of way acquisition administrative costs, $237,585 for Greenwald right of way acquisition costs, $1,800,000 to support settlement of land acquisitions for the project, and an additional $1,500,000 for mitigation lands. The mitigation_ lands recommended in the revised budget figure, if not fully used for the purchase of the land will be • 44 • • applied to fund the non -wasting endowment required for managing the mitigation/habitat lands in perpetuity. The design cost increase is attributed to the unanticipated additional work required to support construction, which included: the requested redesign of the EMWD water line, unforeseen underground utility conflicts, additional support of right of way acquisition, and general support of construction activities. The cost increase, from the revised May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget, is $648,467 (15%). It is important to note that the $431,758 project budget increase identified above for the water line relocation in Segment II will be fully reimbursed by EMWD. The construction cost for Segment II and Greenwald have been impacted by increased costs of materials and labor due to the delays caused by weather, utility relocation and the effects of high ground water. The construction agreement for Segment II and Greenwald was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for a total amount of $20,624,452 plus $1,095,852 contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $21,720,304. Increasing material costs and labor costs due to schedule delays are the primary cause of the $3,299,434 cost increase, from the revised May 2002 budget to the current recommended budget. The estimated additional cost of construction management of $1,144,350 is mainly due to the extension of time of the construction contract due to the severe weather of last winter and resultant high ground water level which contributed to delaying utility relocations and impeded project construction. At this time, staff is recommending that the Commission approve an increase of $6,599,219 to the overall project budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7' Street in the City of Perris. This will increase • the project budget from $69,847,655 to $76,446,874. Additionally, a fiscal budget amendment is required as a result of the revised project budget and anticipated completion of the project in FY 2005/06. As of June 30 2005, actual project costs incurred were approximately $56,786,600. The FY 2005/06 fiscal budget included $18,600,000 in project related expenditures. Accordingly, the budget adjustment needed is $1,060,300. 45 Financial Information Y FY2005/06 $18,600,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2005/06 Amount: g1,060,300 Bond Proceeds, Measure "A" and Budget Y Source of Funds: State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Adjustment: $1,060,300 222-31-81401 P3001 $927,000 Right of Way Acquisition 222-31-81403 P3001 $52,400 Right of Way Support Services 222-31-65101 P3001 $1,028,400 General Legal Services GLA No.: 222-31-81102P3001 $119,800 Design 222-31-81301 P3001 ($1,200,000) Construction 222-31-81302 P3001 $157, 700 Construction Management 222-31-81304 P3001 ($25,000) Construction Support Services Fiscal Procedures Approved: \`)' •->"i Date: 8/17/05 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming & Administration SUBJECT: Guidelines for 2009 Measure A Advancement of Local Streets and Roads Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the conceptual framework for the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines; 2) Direct staff to develop specific financing guidelines based on such framework and present such guidelines to the Commission for their future review and approval, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2005 the Commission established a $185,000,000 commercial paper program (2005 Commercial Paper Program) to provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the voter approved 2009 Measure A program. During the planning for the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, Commission staff included amounts to advance projects for other agencies (city of Hemet and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The advance funding agreement with the city of Hemet for $3,000,000 was approved at the May 11, 2005 Commission meeting and has been completed. The proposed agreement with CVAG for advance funding of highway and regional projects is a separate agenda item. Since the inception of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, three additional cities (Blythe, Indio, and Riverside) have expressed varying levels of interest in utilizing the commercial paper program to advance local streets and roads funds. It is likely that other jurisdictions eligible to receive 2009 Measure A local streets and roads funding may request similar advance funding arrangements. Accordingly, the Commission should establish guidelines to be used in the evaluation of any requests for advance funding of eligible local streets and roads projects using the 2005 Commercial Paper. Program. There is precedence, as guidelines for a 1989 46 Measure A recipients financing program using bond proceeds were approved by the Commission in September 1993. The determination of these guidelines can be classified in three general categories: credit criteria, terms and conditions, and general provisions. The proposed conceptual framework for the preparation of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines currently is as follows: Credit Criteria • The jurisdiction is not subject to bankruptcy proceedings, decree, or order; has not admitted in writing its inability to pay debts as they become due; and has not made an assignment for the benefit of creditors or consented to the appointment of a receiver of itself. • The jurisdiction's currently issued debt must be rated investment grade by recognized rating agencies. • The jurisdiction is not in default on any obligations to the Commission or other debt supported by special revenues. • . The jurisdiction is not in violation of any Measure A policies. Terms and Conditions • The term of the advance will not extend past June 30, 2019, commensurate with the first ten year review period. • Repayment of the advance will commence in September 2009 when 2009 Measure A revenues are expected to be received. The Commission will withhold payments from Measure A streets and roads allocations on a monthly basis. • Any prepayment of the advance must be made before December 31, 2007, which ,is prior to the anticipated long-term refinancing of the commercial paper. • The interest rate charged will be based on a variable, rate of 'Y2 percent over the interest paid by the Commission on outstanding commercial paper or long-term debt issued to refinance the commercial paper. The additional 1/2 percent is a partial reimbursement to the Commission's costs of issuance and administration of the advance. • Advance funding received shall be used for projects which meet eligible transportation purposes and are included in the jurisdiction's annual five-year capital improvement plan approved by the Commission. • .The calculated annual repayment may not exceed 75% of the annual revenues for the most recent fiscal year completed. (Such calculations for Western County jurisdictions will be adjusted for the change in the funding percentage related to the local streets and roads program.) 47 • • The jurisdiction must demonstrate that it has met annual maintenance of effort requirements. • A Western County or Coachella Valley jurisdiction requesting an advance arrangement must be a participant in the applicable Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. • The jurisdiction will be required to enter into an agreement with the Commission. Participating Western County or Coachella Valley jurisdictions will be required to also enter into a lease/leaseback agreement or other acceptable security agreement to secure a repayment obligation. . General Provisions • The projects to be funded are subject to the review of bond counsel to ensure that any project will not jeopardize the tax exempt status of the commercial paper or long-term debt issued. • Documentation supporting the expenditures incurred by the jurisdiction must be submitted to the Commission for reimbursement from commercial paper proceeds up to the maximum amount of advance funding approved by the Commission. • A jurisdiction may not pledge its share of future local streets and roads allocations without the consent or agreement of the Commission. • The jurisdiction is expected to meet its repayment obligations and may not substitute or trade funding with other projects. • The impact of other local match commitments made by the jurisdiction related to other 2009 Measure A programs (e.g., regional arterials) will be considered in the determination of the amount and term of the advance. • The establishment and administration of the commercial paper program will be at the sole discretion of the Commission. • The Commission reserves the right to approve exceptions to the guidelines on a case by case basis, to discontinue the program at any time, or to revise the guidelines. Due to the nature and timing of this advance funding program, Commission staff must perform appropriate due diligence procedures based on these guidelines to ensure that: • A jurisdiction has the ability to meet its future repayment obligations; • The reduction in future local street and road allocations as a result of repayment obligations will not have a significant, negative impact on the jurisdiction's ability to maintain and improve existing facilities or construct new facilities; • The Commission does not incur other costs in addition to the carrying costs of the commercial paper program or long-term financing; and 48 • The Commission continues to maintain its 'high debt ratings by demonstrating adequate controls over an advance funding mechanism for local jurisdictions. While it is not the Commission's desire to become involved in local decision - making, it should carefully enter into advance funding agreements that make practical sense now and in the future. Staff is requesting Commission approval of the proposed conceptual framework for 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines. Specific guidelines will then be developed with the assistance of legal counsel and financial advisors and presented to the Commission for their review and approval. 49 • AGENDA ITEM 1 1 • • s • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming & Administration SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2004/05 Budget Amendments STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the budget amendment of $6,500,000 for Measure A Local Streets and Roads expenditures; 2) Approve the budget amendment of $2,141,556 for arbitrage rebate expenditures; 3) Approve the budget amendment of $2,893,216 for transfers related to the reimbursement to the TUMF fund by the Commercial Paper fund for land acquisition costs, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: We are in the midst of year end closing procedures for the fiscal year (FY) ended June 30, 2005. As a result of our preliminary assessment of account balances, Finance management has identified the need for budget adjustments related to Measure A Local Streets and Roads and arbitrage rebate expenditures and to transfers between funds. Measure A Local Streets and Roads Expenditures During FY 2004/05, monthly Measure A sales tax receipts have been significantly higher than the prior year. The increased sales tax revenues directly affect the amount of Local Streets and Roads expenditures that are required to be disbursed under Measure A to the local jurisdictions. Commission staff's current estimate of FY 2004/05 Measure A sales tax revenues, after receipt of the August 2005 allocation representing June transactions and an estimate of the September 2005 clean up allocation for the fourth quarter, is approximately $137,500,000. This estimate represents a 9.6% increase over the FY 2004/05 budgeted revenues of $125,400,000 and a 14.0% increase over the FY 2003/04 actual revenues of approximately $120,565,000. 50 As a result of the revised Measure A sales tax revenue estimate, the FY 2004/05 budgeted expenditures for Local Streets and Roads are $46,632,000 compared to estimated expenditures of $53,001,000, resulting in total excess expenditures over budget of $6,369,000, as follows: Measure A Local FY 2004/05 FY 2004/05 Excess Streets and Roads Budget Estimate Expenditures Western County $ 34,622,000 $ 40,152,700 $ (5,530,700) Coachella Valley 10,850,000 11,819,300 (969,300) Palo Verde Valley 1,160,000 1,029,000 131,000 Total $ 46,632,000 $ 53,001,000 $ (6,369,000) Staff is seeking Commission approval to increase the fiscal 2004/05 budget by $6,500,000 for the Measure A Western County and Coachella Valley Local Streets and Roads expenditures based on the estimated Measure A sales tax revenues for FY 2004/05. Arbitrage Rebate Expenditure In July 2000, the Commission issued $35,825,000 in sales tax revenue bonds to fund the widening and improvements on State Route 74. The bond proceeds for the project were invested in a three-year investment agreement with a bank at an interest rate of 6.66%. For tax-exempt issuers, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code permits the investment of bond proceeds in certain securities that produce a yield (investment yield) materially higher than the yield with respect to the bonds (bond yield) only during certain temporary periods subject to certain .requirements (time test, due diligence, and expenditure test). In June 2004, a preliminary arbitrage rebate calculation was performed pertaining to the 2000 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, and it indicated a potential liability due in August 2005 of $2,146,990 as the investment yield was in excess of the bond yield. This liability was recorded in the June 30, 2004 government -wide financial statements; however, it was not recorded in the June 30, 2004 fund financial statements as the obligation was not payable in the next fiscal period. The calculation was recently performed for the required computation date of June 1, 2005, and the investment yield of 6.55% exceeded the bond yield of 4.60%. This resulted in a profit of $2,141,556 that was earned and due the IRS on August 1, 2005. This was an expenditure and a corresponding liability related to FY, 2004/05; however, no amounts had been budgeted and a budget adjustment of $2,141,556 is required. 51 • • Transfers In connection with the establishment of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, the Commission adopted a resolution in December 2004 which allowed the Commission to be reimbursed with commercial paper proceeds for capital expenditures incurred prior to the issuance of the Commercial Paper Program. In April 2005, the Commission was reimbursed for land acquisition costs of $2,893,216 that were incurred in October and November 2004 by the TUMF fund. The reimbursement was accounted for as a transfer in to the TUMF fund and a transfer out from the Commercial Paper fund; however, no amounts had been budgeted and a budget adjustment of $2,893,216 is required. Financial Information $11,534,772 Uses In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2004/05 Amount: $2,893,216 Sources Measure A Local Streets and Roads Source of Funds: Investment Income Budget Adjustment: Yes Commercial Paper Proceeds 227-71-86104 - $5,530,700 Western County Measure A LSR 254-71-86104 - $969,300 Coachella Valley Measure A LSR 302-19-95201 - $2,141,556 Arbitrage rebate GLA No.: 303-72-97001 - $1,446,608 Commercial Paper transfer out 303-73-97001 - $1,446,608 Commercial Paper transfer out 210-72-59001 - $1,446,608 TUMF (Regional Arterials) transfer in 210-73-59001 - $1,446,608 TUMF (CETAP) transfer in Fiscal Procedures Approved: � V�11-ctav,..4 Date: 8/22/05 52 • AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming & Administration SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 06-31-517 for Advance to CVAG STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-517, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Highway and Major Regional Road Funds," to advance up to $43,300,000 of new Measure A funds to Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) utilizing proceeds from the Commercial Paper Program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the February 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved a $200,000,000 Commercial Paper Program to provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved Measure A renewal (2009 Measure A). On March 30, 2005, a closing meeting was held in San Francisco to ensure that all documents related to the Commercial Paper Program had been completed and signed by the required parties. In October 2004 CVAG's Executive Committee approved a list of transportation projects in the Coachella Valley including regional projects proposed by local jurisdictions (i.e., County, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indio, and Coachella) and Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan land acquisition, and amounts recommended for funding using proceeds from the Commission's Commercial Paper Program. CVAG will require the jurisdictions that have proposed regional projects for funding to provide a local match. CVAG has requested total funding of $43,300,000 as an advance of its share of allocations for highway and regional road funding under the 2009 Measure A. Under the agreement, CVAG would be reimbursed for actual project costs after submitting an invoice with appropriate documentation. Interest will be charged based on a variable rate of 'h percent over 53 the interest paid by the Commission on funds outstanding under the Commercial Paper Program or long-term debt that may be issued in 2008 to refinance the commercial paper. The 'h percent interest noted above is a reimbursement to the Commission for the cost of issuing and administering the advance. CVAG has the option for early repayment by December 31, 2007. Otherwise, advance repayments will begin in September 2009 for a ten-year period by applying a portion of CVAG's highway and regional arterial funds from the 2009 Measure A to the advance payment due. Receipts from. State Board of Equalization relating to sales taxes collected under the 2009 Measure A are expected to commence in September 2009. Staff is requesting Commission approval of this proposed agreement. Commission and CVAG staff and Legal Counsel for both agencies are in the process of completing negotiations for unresolved issues such as indemnification provisions. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $43,300,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 303-72-12301-P8100-8X Fiscal Procedures Approved: vyLPti1.4jt, Date: 8/22/05 Attachment: Agreement #06-31-517 54 • AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-517 AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF 2009 MEASURE "A" HIGIIWAY AND MAJOR REGIONAL ROAD PROJECT FUNDS 1. Parties and Date. This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of , 2005, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC" or "Commission") and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") located in the County of Riverside, State of California: 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 CVAG is a joint powers agency whose member agencies require the maintenance, development and rehabilitation of state highways and regional roads. 2.3 In 1988, RCTC enacted and the voters of Riverside County ("County") approved Measure "A" (1989 Measure `A') which authorized RCTC to impose a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to. twenty years. This tax is popularly ]mown as a one-half cent sales tax. 2.4 The 1989 Measure "A" tax was due to expire in 2009, but on November 5, 2002, a thirty-year extension of the half -cent sales tax was approved by voters of the County ("2009 Measure `A"'). 2.5 The Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") implementing the 2009 Measure "A" provides that its tax funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County and further provides that 50% of 2009 Measure "A" revenue to be disbursed to the Coachella Valley area will be used for State highways and regional road improvements ("Highway and Regional Road Funding") and that the Transportation Project Prioritization Study ("TPPS"), developed by CVAG, will function as the Plan for future needs of the Coachella Valley. It further provides that CVAG will be charged with implementing this segment of the Plan. 2.6 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax ("2009 Measure `A' Funds") are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly. 2.7 RCTC has authorized the issuance of commercial paper in the amount of $200,000,000. (The "2005 Commercial Paper Program"). A portion of the proceeds of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, which was initially established at $190,000,000 based on a direct pay letter of credit, will provide funding for the advance provided herein. 2.8 CVAG has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to CVAG certain amounts which CVAG and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and allocate to CVAG as its share of Highway and Regional Road Funding. These funds shall be RVPUBOA131692347.1 1 of 8 55 used to finance a portion of the cost of highway and regional road improvement projects set forth in Exhibit "A" ("Project"). 2.9 CVAG agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs associated therewith from Highway and Regional Road Funding. 3. Terms. 3.1 Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Funds. A. Amount of Advance. RCTC agrees to distribute to CVAG, on terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed Forty Three Million and Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($43,300,000.00) (the "Advance"). B. Interest. The Advance shall only accrue interest on that portion of the Advance actually distributed to CVAG. Once any portion of the Advance is distributed to CVAG, interest shall accrue from the date of the Advance and said interest shall be payable by CVAG at a rate of Y2 percent over the interest rate paid by RCTC on funds outstanding under the 2005 Commercial Paper Program. In the event the bonds of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program are converted into long-term bonds, CVAG shall pay interest on the outstanding balance of the Advance at a rate of 'A percent over the interest rate of the long-term bonds. The above -described. 'V2 percent interest rate shall reimburse RCTC for the cost of issuing and administering the Advance. C. Repayment of Advance. CVAG shall repay the Advance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, to RCTC in one hundred -twenty (120) monthly installments commencing on September 1, 2009, until September 1, 2019 ("Maturity Date") amortized over the period beginning from the date of distribution of funds to the Maturity Date, to be calculated by RCTC based on the amount of the Advance, with each installment due no later than the thirtieth (30`h) of each month, until the Maturity Date or repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and unpaid interest, whichever is earlier. D. Early Repayment. CVAG shall have the right to repay the entire unpaid principal balance of the Advance, plus accrued interest, without penalty, no later than December 31, 2007. CVAG intends, but is not obligated to seek funding from alternative sources to repay Advance. Such alternative sources include eligible TUMF funds, as well as grants and appropriations from the Indian Gaming Distribution Fund as well as applicable state and federal programs. At CVAG's reasonable request and to the extent possible, RCTC will cooperate in assisting CVAG to obtain and utilize these alternative funding sources for early repayment of Advance. 3.2 Repayment. A. Authorization to Apply Highway and Regional Road Funding to Payments. For so long as any obligation of CVAG under this Agreement remains outstanding, CVAG hereby instructs RCTC to apply CVAG's portion of any Highway and Regional Road Funding, which would otherwise be reserved for CVAG under the Plan, toward paying any due but unpaid obligations of CVAG to RCTC under this Agreement. RVPUBVDAB\692347.1 2 of 8 56 • • B. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify CVAG of the calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(A) above, and any amounts then due to RCTC from CVAG, within thirty (30) days of RCTC's calculation and application of such amounts. RCTC's calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. Commencing on September 1, 2009, CVAG shall pay to RCTC any balance due within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC of such amount. 3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following: A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement and such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. B. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority and power of CVAG to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems reasonably necessary. 3.4 CVAG's Representations and Warranties. CVAG hereby makes the following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding: A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and any and all related documents (collectively "Advance Documents") are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or . commission or other authority. B. No Default. CVAG is not in default, nor is it aware of any events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default on any obligation of CVAG to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of CVAG. C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance of the Advance Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law, statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which CVAG is a party or by which it or the 2009 Measure "A" Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the 2009 Measure "A" Funds by reason thereof. D. Solvency. CVAG is solvent. E. Litigation. There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or threatened against or affecting CVAG and relating to the Advance, or the Advance Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby. F. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted in writing by CVAG to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct, and said statements truly represent the financial condition of CVAG as of the date thereof and the results of the operations of CVAG for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in RVPUB\DAM692347.1 3 of 8 57 accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of business. CVAG has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not reflected in said statements, and CVAG has not entered into any special commitments or substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial condition or operations as now conducted. 3.5 CVAG's Affirmative Covenants. CVAG agrees that so long as the Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC- shall otherwise consent in writing: A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for the projects identified in Exhibit "A" in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Plan relating to Highway and Regional Road Funding for the Coachella Valley. B. Records and Reports. Maintain an accounting of the Advance in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and maintain and furnish to RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information relating to the affairs of CVAG or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request from time to time. C. inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC, in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith. RCTC shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection. D. Notice of Default. Promptly notify RCTC in writing of the occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of Default hereunder upon giving of notice. 3.6 CVAG's Negative Covenants. CVAG will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding, without RCTC's prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on CVAG's share of Highway and Regional Funding other than liens in favor of RCTC. 3.7 Rights and Remedies. A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the California Commercial Code ("Code") in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by CVAG: B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement between CVAG and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by CVAG shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between CVAG and RCTC RVPUB\DAB\692347. I 4 of 8 58 • (whether or not there are other parties in addition to CVAG and ROTC) shall be separate and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy. 3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at RCTC's option, constitute an event of default (each an "Event of Default") and CVAG shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof. A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to RCTC by CVAG or any of CVAG's officers, employees or agents now or hereafter which is incorrect; false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; -or B. CVAG shall fail to pay, perform or comply,with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement, or any agreement delivered pursuant hereto; or C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of CVAG; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against CVAG; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents CVAG from paying any sums owed by CVAG to ROTC. 3.9 Indemnification. CVAG shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend RCTC from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, - including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys'fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which arise, result from, or relate to CVAG's breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements, covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained herein. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement. 3.10 Procedures for Distribution of the Advance. A. Initial Payment by CVAG. CVAG shall be responsible for initial payment of all Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Project costs, CVAG shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of those eligible costs associated with the projects described in Exhibit "A". Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to CVAG, and documents evidencing CVAG's payment of the invoices or: demands for payment. CVAG shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly. B. Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from CVAG, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Project costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by RCTC to CVAG within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of CVAG for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, CVAG may appeal RCTC's decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC's Executive RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 5 of 8 59 Director. The CVAG may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the full RCTC Board of Directors, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the procedure for CVAG's submittal of invoices to ROTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "13-, attached hereto. C. Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Project audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to CVAG in an amount in excess of the Advance, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Project costs, CVAG shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC. 3.11 Miscellaneous. A. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by one party hereunder shall be implied from any omission by the other party to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. . Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by one party to or of any act by the other party requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. B. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC and CVAG and no third person, other than a permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. C. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with -return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by U.S, mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: RCTC: CVAG:. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Executive Director Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above. RVPUB\DAB \692347.1 6of8 60 • • D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element. F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. G. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. J. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, CVAG will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement, and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF GOVERNMENTS By: By: Robin Lowe, Chair Marion Ashley, Chairman Executive Committee APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 7of8 61 By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 8 of 8 62 Toni Eggebraaten CVAG Counsel Exhibit List Exhibit A Transportation Project Prioritization Study Exhibit B Procedures for Submittal, Consideration and Payment of Invoices RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 63 RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 EXHIBIT "A" The CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study 1999 Update 64 EXHIBIT `B" PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES 1. RCTC recommends that CVAG incorporate Exhibit "B-1" into its contracts with any contractors or local jurisdictions to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices for professional services to CVAG and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of CVAG contractor costs. Exhibit B-1 will not be a necessary submittal for a construction contract. Each month CVAG shall submit an invoice for eligible Project costs incurred during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director with a copy to RCTC's Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit `B-2". 3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor or local jurisdiction used by CVAG for the Project, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended by each contractor or Contractor for the month and for the entire Project to date. A sample of acceptable task level documentation and progress reports is attached as Exhibit `B-4". All documentation from CVAG's contractors or local jurisdictions should be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit `B-3". 4. If CVAG is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by CVAG staff for eligible Project costs, CVAG shall detail the same level of information for its labor, including applying the established overhead rate for CVAG, and any expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors. Charges for each task and milestone associated with the projects listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the invoice. 6. Each invoice submitted as support documentation by the contractor or local jurisdiction shall include a certification signed by the Contractor's or local jurisdiction's Representative or his or her designee which reads as follows: "I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors or sub- contractors listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 1 65 7. RCTC will pay CVAG within 30 days after receipt by RCTC of an invoice. If RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid. 8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) CVAG has obtained a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or sub -contractor used on the Project; (ii) CVAG has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment or Certificate of Acceptance for construction contracts, if appropriate; and (iii) CVAG has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC. R V PUBIDAB1692347.1 2 66 EXHIBIT B-1 Elements of Compensation For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, CVAG will pay the Contractor compensation as set forth herein. The total compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT ) ($_INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written approval of the CVAG's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Contractor's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Contractor's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is , and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. 1 67 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs The Decimal Ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Contractor Firm's Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The fixed fee is $ 1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified' Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE [ insert charges J Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $ /hour Photocopies $ /copy Blueline $ /sheet LD Telephone $ /call Fax $ /sheet Photographs $ /sheet Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Contractor's office nearest to CVAG's office must have CVAG's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. R V PUB\DAB\692347.1 2 68 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify CVAG in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES sample_l Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour Drafter/CADD Operator $ :00 - $ .00/bour Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Contractor only. All rates for subcontractors to the Contractor will be in accordance with the Contractor's cost proposal. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Contractor shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to CVAG's Executive Director with two (2) copies to CVAG's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by CVAG's Representative. 3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The RVPUB\DABV692347.1 3 69 charges for each individual assigned by the Contractor under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to CVAG such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subcontractors or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification . signed by the Contractor's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 4. PAYMENT 4.1 CVAG shall pay the Contractor within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should CVAG contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid: 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Contractor has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. RVP1JB\DAB\692347.1 4 70 0 EXHIBIT B-2 Sample Cover Letter from CVAG to RCTC Date Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 ATTN: Accounts Payable Re: Project Title - Invoice #_ Enclosed for your review and payment approval is CVAG's invoice for service that was rendered by our contractor or local jurisdiction in connection with Agreement No. effective (Month/Dav/Year) . The required support documentation received from each contractor/sub- contractor is included as backup to the invoice. Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Authorized Agreement Amount: $0,000,000.00 Total Invoiced to Date: Total Previously Invoiced: Balance Remaining: Amount due this Invoice: By: Name Title cc: RVPUB\DAB\692347.1 1 71 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 • $0,000,000.00 EXHIBIT B-3 Sample Letter from Contractor to Local Jurisdiction/CVAG Month/Date/Year Mr. John Wohlmuth Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Accounts Payable Invoice # For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project] This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX effective Month/Date/Year . Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year Total Base Contract Amount: Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) $000,000.00 $000,000.00 TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $000,000.00 Total Invoice to Date: Total Previously Billed: Balance Remaining: $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 Amount Due this Invoice: $000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed, By: Contractor Name Title RVPUH\DA131692347.1 2 72 EXHIBIT B-4 Sample Progress Report REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year PROGRESS REPORT: #1 A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods TASK O1 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation 2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action Problems None C. Work Planned Next Period Corrective Action None TASK 01 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans 2. Responding to review comments RVPUBIDA131692347.1 3 73 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH:. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Program and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment with Pepe's Towing Service to Provide Freeway Service Patrol Service on Beat #18 and Beat #25 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-510, Amendment No. 3 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-071 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc. to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #18 on SR-60/I-215; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-45-51 1, Amendment No. 1 to Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Agreement No. 02-45-072 with Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., to increase the hourly rate from $42.50 to $43.75 for Beat #25 along 1-15; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program currently contracts with three tow truck companies, Hamner Towing, Pepe's Towing, and Tri-City Towing, to provide roving tow truck service on five segments or beats of SR-91,'1-. 215/SR-60, and 1-15. The agreements cover the normal days and hours of operation, reimbursements and penalties, and uniform and equipment requirements of the program. At its May 8, 2002 meeting, the Commission awarded the tow truck service agreements for beats #18 and #25 to Pepe's Towing Services, Inc., at the hourly rate of $42.50 per truck. The awards were for three fiscal years beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2005, along with two one-year options to renew. After the initial three-year contract period, Commission staff contacted Pepe's Towing to ascertain if it would be willing to continue to provide service for an additional year at the same rate of $42.50 per truck hour. While Pepe's management stated that its desire was to continue with the program, it went on to 74 say that increasing fuel and insurance costs had .affected its operation and, therefore, it requested a rate adjustment to off -set its escalating costs. At the March 2002 RFP pre -proposal meeting, several tow companies had asked if a price adjustment would be included in the agreement or considered if costs increased unexpectedly. Staff responded that Commission practice was not to include any such language, but that contractors have the right to request an . adjustment and the requests would be considered on a case by case basis. In June 2005, Pepe's submitted a request to adjust its hourly rate. Staff reviewed the mileage driven by .all fifteen (15) tow trucks and determined that on average, the trucks drive 27.7 miles every hour they are on patrol. Using an estimate of 9 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, staff estimated an average of three gallons of fuel was consumed every hour of service. Multiplying the June fuel price of $2.49 by 3 resulted in an estimated cost of $7.47 per hour. Staff then reviewed Pepe's 2002 proposal and found that it had used an estimate of $2.00 per gallon for fuel. Multiplying Pepe's estimated $2.00 cost by 3 results in a cost of $6.00 per hour, a difference of $1.47 per hour. Based on the rising fuel cost, staff offered a one-time adjustment of $1.25 per hour. This adjustment would raise Pepe's hourly rate to $43.75, a 2.9% increase. Pepe's management is satisfied with the adjustment and has agreed to continue service on FSP beats #18 and #25. As a point of information, the next lowest responsive bidder three years ago was at $45.00 per hour for beat #18 and $44.75 per hour for beat #25. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $17,680 Source of Funds: State of California (80%) SAFE DMV Fees (20 /o) Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v44.4,:ii:41 C Date: 8/15/05 75 • AGENDA ITEM 14 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee I FROM: Brian Cunanan; Staff Analyst Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a three-year contract, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #1 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost not to exceed $43.75 per hour per truck; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for. Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for tow truck Service provisions for the Freeway Service Patrol program on Beat #1 (SR-91 freeway from Lincoln Ave to Orange County line — Figure 1). Bids were due August 5, 2005, and proposals were received from three tow service providers — Hamner Towing, Armada Towing and Hadley Tow. An Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from the California Highway Patrol Inland Division, Ca!trans District 8, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Commission staff reviewed the proposals for completeness and responsiveness. Site visit interviews were conducted with Hamner Towing and Armada Towing on August 10, 2005. Hadley Tow was disqualified from the evaluation list due to rates that were 18% above the average rate across all tow providers in the Riverside County FSP program. The Evaluation Committee spoke with each of the company representatives about their proposals and their understanding of the program's requirements. Each was asked a set of standard questions in addition to some questions concerning their individual proposals. After all visits were completed, the Committee discussed the proposals and 76 site visits and finalized their scoring of the proposals_ based on the criteriaset forth in the RFP. Figure 2 breaks out the final evaluation scores by category. Figure 1 Beat #1 SR-91 Freeway from Lincoln Ave. to Orange County Line Based upon the average score of the six Evaluation Committee members (CHP, Ca!trans, SANBAG, and Commission staff) the Committee recommends that Hamner Towing be awarded a three-year contract effective November 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008 with two one-year options, to provide tow truck service for the FSP program on beat #1 at a cost not to exceed $43.75 per hour per truck. Beat #1 currently requires two (2) trucks and operates from 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Hamner Towing has been involved with the Riverside County FSP program since its inception and has been servicing Beat #1 for the past 12 years. Figure 2: Freeway Service Patrol Evaluation Scores Criteria Qualifications of the Firm Staffing and Project Organization Work Plan Cost and Price Completeness of Response TOTAL ' Recommend Award of Contract Max Score 25 points 25 points 15 points 25 points 10 points 100 points Hamner Towing (Corona) Avg. Score 23.17 22.83 13.50 21.17 9.33 Armada Towing (San Bernardino) Avg. Score 21.33 21.50 12.67 24.17 8.17 s All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from State funds and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to 77 • continued funding from the. State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. A budget adjustment of $14,900 will be required to cover the increased costs due to increased towing service labor rates. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $14,900 Source of Funds: State of Califomia (80%) SAFE DMV Fees (20%) Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \AG4.4dae.:44,1 Date: 8/17/05 78 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 31, 2005, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 15, 2005 for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 27, 2005 meeting and to the Commission on July 13, 2005. At its July 13, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved the Plans for all but seven (7) cities: Beaumont, Cathedral City, Coachella, Indio, Lake Elsinore, Norco and San Jacinto. Subsequently, we have received the required Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation from the cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto. The other five cities have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds 79 for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plans for Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto 80 { RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM F1'2005 - 200 6 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Pagel of 5 Prepared by: --David S. Solomon Phone #: (951 ) 674-3124 x242 Data: item No. • ST-02 ST-04 ST-07 ST-0 ST-11 TR-OC TR-le "ect Name / limits Transfer to General Fund Annual curb, gutter & Sidewalk Pavement Mgmt Program Annual Traffic Striping Program Casino Dr. Bridge Relocate Power Poles Signal Grand & Ortega SR74/I-15 Interchange i PreprinvvsnsMtmoasureASyrta„n Project Type Transfer of Funds Repair Pavement Maint Roadway Striping Seismic Retrofit Pole Relocation Signal Installation Interchange Total Cost Measure A ($00O'si Funds (saws) 480 80 100 80' 600 600 100 100 164 - 164 400 217 468 65 1,550 700 $2,O06 * 't,*� This amount is higher than the Annual Disbursement projection foi g ' ; FY2005/06. However carry-over funds for these projects are i•.programmed for these projects. '; RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 200 6 - 200 7 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Page 2 of 5 • Prepared by: David S . Solomon j Phone Ei_ (951) 674-3124 x242 Date: item No. Project Name 1 omits Project Type Total Cost ($00W0 Measure A Funds ($000'4 Transfer to General Transfer of 480 80 Funds Funds ST-02 Annual curb,gutter,& sidewalk Repair 100 80. ST=04 Pavement Mgmt Program Pavement Maint 800: .800 ST-07 Annual Traffic Roadway 100 93 Striping Program Striping TR-04 Signal Grand & Ontario Signal 173 • 65 Installation $1,118 82 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A' LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM_ FY 200 7 - 200, 8 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Page 3. of 5 Prepared by: David S . Solomon Phone#: (951) 674--3124 x242 Dare: Item No. ST-02 ST-04 ST-07 Project Name / Limits Transfer To General Fund Annual-curb,gutter & sidewalk Pavement Mgmt Program Annual Traffic Striping Program ft'ePmintneremMMteesweAfryrform , Project Type Transfer of Funds Repair Pavement Maint Roadway Striping 83 Total Cost ($000's) 480 100 1000 100 Measure A Funds I$000's) 80: 80 1000' 93 $1,253 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAAMPORTATM CON1M/SSION - MEASURE W LOCAL I VNQS PROGRAM EV 200 8 - 200 9 Agener City of Lake Elsinore Page 4 of 5 Prepared by:: Bavid S. Solomon Phone#: (951) 674-3124 x242 Date: Item I No. ST-02 ST-04 ST-07 ' Project Name !Limits Transfer To General Fund Annual curb,gutter & sidewalk Pavement Mgmt Program Annual Traffic Striping Program PrepmrhoorshilmeasipeQ,Sy,tgm - Project Type Transfer of Funds Repair Pavement Maint Roadway Striping Total Cost ($000's) 480 100 1,000 10a Measure A Funds ($000's) 80 80 1,000 • 93 $1,253 . 84 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A'. LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 200.9 - 20010 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Page 5 of 5 Prepared by: David. S _ Solomon Phone:: (951). 674-3124 x242 • Date: Item No. Project Name !.Limits Project Type Total Cost (S000's) Measure A Funds (S000's) Transfer to General Transfer of 4.80 80 Funds Funds ST-02 Annual curb,gutter & sidewalk Repair 100 80 ST-04 Pavement Mgmt Program. Pavement Maint 1,000 1,000 ST-07 Annual Traffic • Roadway 100 93 Striping Program Striping $1,253 Prwn'kvh.e.eef. hvum-aea....h e.1— - 85 I ru. Riverside County Transportation Commission — -Measure'A' Local Funds Program- ---- - -- - —•FY• 2006-2010 - - - City of San Jacinto - Local Streets and Roads- CIP Item No, Project Name/Limits 1 Lyon Ave, widening from De Anza to Ramona Blvd. 2 East Main St, Pavement Rehab Loan 3 Ramona Exp. Widening (within City limits) 4 Misc. Traffic Control Devices & Studies - citywide 5 Speed humps, surveys, and studies 6 State SL Pavement Rehab - City limits 7 Miscellaneous Downtown Improvements Totals Total Cost Measure A Project Type ($000's) Funds ($000's) Comments Street Widening 332.25 Loan Payment 250 Widening & 5000 Road Imp. Traffic Safety 68 Traffic Safety 90 Pavement Rehab 1325 Pavement Rehab 1,000 Fiscal Year 332.25 Prel. Engineering underway 2005-2006 250 Project completed - 5 yr. loan on going repayment 1500 Prel. Engineering underway; 2005-2006 TUM fees to be utilized in 2006-2007 addition to Measure "A" funds 50 On -going on going 40 On -going on 280 Prel, Engineering underway 2005-2006 partially funded by STIP 2006-2007 1,000 On -going 8066.25 3452.25 2007-2006 2008-2009 2009-2010 • AGENDA ITEM 16 - - 9, -- RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: August 22, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the following bill and associated policy position: SEEK AMENDMENTS - SCA 15 (McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks) SEEK AMENDMENTS - ACA 22 (LaMalfa, R-Richvale); 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative update, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update — President Signs H.R. 3 On July 29, the United States House of Representatives and Senate approved H.R.3, the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill which is now known as SAFTEA LU. The total price tag for the six -year bill, which has been signed by President George Bush, is $286.4 billion. Overall, the bill represents a significant increase in transportation funding throughout the nation and in California. A contentious point in negotiations regarding the bill involved the amount of guaranteed return for each state from federal gas taxes. Currently, "donor" states including California are guaranteed a return of 90.5 cents from federal gas tax receipts collected within the state. The new bill will gradually raise that percentage to 92 percent. Despite the current 90.5 percent guaranteed return, some states get less than that, while some get far more. California gets back 91 cents for every gas -tax dollar it sends to Washington. The State of Alaska, by comparison, gets $6.60 for every dollar. Texas does the worst, earning a mere 86-cent return on its dollar. Other states with low returns inc►ude Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Arizona. 87 The 92 percent reimbursement means an extra $500 million in road money for California over what it would have received under the old formula, which translates into an additional $20 million to $25 million for Riverside County. In addition to federal dollars that are returned on a formula basis, H.R. 3 also. contains funding for various federal transportation programs which include the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program, transit capital funding programs, and safety programs. Overall, California will receive $21.6 billion for transportation investment during the life of the bill. This is about $7 billion more than what was received in TEA-21. The portion of the new bill that often gets the most notoriety is in its funding authorizations for specific projects known as earmarks. One person's high.priority project can be viewed by another as pork, but this bill provides an opportunity for Congressional representatives to receive funding .for projects in their districts. Congressional members with seniority or key committee assigments have been known to use their clout to wrangle funding for more projects. In terms of earmarks, specific projects are included in multiple sections of the bill. The most common, spanning more than 300 pages, is the funding category known as High Priority Highway Projects. Riverside County's representatives were successful in obtaining funding for a number of projects highlighted by $15.8 million for the soon -to -be -formed Riverside Orange Corridor Authority for a new corridor between Riverside and Orange County. Other earmark highlights include $8 million for the I-15/Cajalco Interchange in Corona, mulitple earmarks totalling $8.8 million for interchanges on 1-10. and SR 86 in the Coachella Valley, and $1.2.million for a new Inland Empire Transportation Management Center. When they passed the version of H.R. 3 earlier this year, staff presented a report to the Commission on which projects had been included in the bill. All of the projects that had previously appeared in the House version of H.R. 3 remained but the funding authorization for all the High Priority Highway projects were cut by 20 percent. Two additional Riverside County projects were added to the original list - $5 million for grade crossings in Riverside, and $400,000 for the restoration of Victoria Avenue in the City of Riverside. Here is the .full list of high priority projects for Riverside County: • SR 86 & Avenue 66 highway grade separation: $3.6 million • 1-10 & Indian Avenue Interchange: $2.2 million • Inland Empire Transportation Management Center: $1 .2 million • I-15 Cajalco Interchange: $ 8 million • Riverside Orange Corridor Project: $15.8 million • Grade Separation at Sunset Avenue in Banning: $1.6 million 88 • Widen and Improve County Line Road in Calimesa: $1.6 million • 1-10 & Palm Drive Interchange: $2.2 million • SR 79 Improvements in San Jacinto Valley: $2.4 million • I-15/SR 79 South Interchange: $1.6 million • Design and Construct new interchange at Portrero Road & SR 60: $1.6 million • 1-15 Winchester Road Interchange: $1.6 million • 1-15 Cal Oaks Road Interchange: $1.6 million • Various Transportation Improvements in Desert Hot Springs: $1.6 million • SR 86 and Avenue 50 highway grade separation: $800,000 • 1-215 Los Alamos Road Interchange: $1.6 million • SR 74 and 1-215 Interchange: $800,000 • Restoration of Victoria Avenue in Riverside: $400,000 • Riverside Highway Grade Separation (exact wording} $5 million This year, there were three additional categories for even larger earmarks. .The first, and most important to Riverside County was Project of National and Regional Signficance with the official abbreviation of PRNS and derisively referred to as PORN by some Senate staffers. This category was hotly debated by the Senate which opposed the category in favor Of a higher guaranteed rate of return and Congressional members who wanted the program to pay for big -ticket items of national economic significance such as grade crossing in Southern California and improvement of the rail yards in Chicago. The Commission joined with others in seeking a $900 million earmark for the Alameda Corridor East. The money would be split evenly between Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties and would be used to mitigate the . impacts of ever-increasing freight traffic. A deal was eventually brokered in Congress with Bakersfield Representative Bill Thomas playing a key role not only with this bill but also with the approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Thomas is also the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Unfortunately, the sought after $900 million earmark was reduced to $125 million. The good news is that needed wording in the bill to ensure that Riverside County is defined as part of the Alameda Corridor East was included, which means that Riverside County will be able to receive at least a quarter of this money and will be in line for future funding. Of all the projects in the PRNS category, the Alameda Corridor project received one of the largest amounts of funding and it has been designated as a high priority corridor for future funding. Other Southern California projects receiving funding in the PRNS category included $100 million for the Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, $1.40 million for the Bakersfield Beltway System and $55 million for the road system in and around the former Norton Air Force Base. The Norton project also received $20 million in the High Priority Highway Projects category. 89 In yet another funding category known as the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, a total of $490 million was earmarked for projects in Bakersfield including the Centennial Corridor Loop, widening of Rosedale Highway, and improvements to State SR 178. Mayor Antonio Villaragosa's last-minute lobbying efforts with Congressman Howard Berman resulted in $130 million for an HOV Lane on 1-405 in the San Fernando Valley. Public transit is also part of the bill amounting to approximately 1.8 percent of the funding total. Once again, earmarks are part of this process. For rail projects, the Perris Valley Line extension was included in the bill and is eligible for future federal transit funding. Riverside, County high priority bus earmarks include $836,000 for Sunline Transit, $418,000 for RTA's Advanced Traveler Information System and $418,00 for an intermodal center in Temecula. The overall bill is more than 1300 pages long and governs almost everything involving the federal government and surface transportation. This includes policy that allows tolling on interstate highways in specified cases and the ability to allow hybrid vehicles to be driven solo in HOV lanes. Staff will continue to analyze the overall impact of the bill and will return to commission with additional information as actions are taken by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations to implement the bill. A technical corrections bill will likely follow to deal with the many drafting errors that took place in the hurried late night negotiations that took place prior to the final vote. In conclusion, H.R. 3 can be celebrated as a major Congressional accomplishment although a more critical viewpoint would argue that the $286.4 billion total is about $100 billion short of the amount truly needed nationwide. Others can be skeptical of a process that results in funding anamolies made possible by Congressional perogative. For example, why should federal transportationfunding be used to refurbish the Apollo Theater in Harlem, or to fund an unpopular bridge in Alaska to be named. Don Young Way or to provide more than;,$700 million in funding to Bakersfield where Kern County might not have enough money to provide a local match to the federal dollars? The Commission should begin work immediately for the ongoing education of Congressional members of the area's ongoing transportation needs in order to capitalize on future funding opportunities. The process to gain Congressional approval for any project can take years or even decades. With major items such as a new corridor and the Mid County Parkway on the horizon, it's not too early to start planning for a future transportation bill. In addition, the current federal bill 90 • • also funds a number of ongoing programs such as Borders and Corridors that will provide future appropriations opportunities. State Update — SCA 15 & ACA 22 Could Impact Land Acquisitions In June, the United Stated Supreme Court ruled on Kelo v. New London regarding the issue of the use of eminent domain. Ms. Kelo sued the City of New London, Connecticut, to block the acquisition of her residence arguing that it violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment contains a "public use" clause that limits the taking of private property. The final line of the Amendment reads: ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In addition to the residence of Ms. Kelo, there were a total of 15 properties owned by nine people. Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There was no, allegation that any of the properties were blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area. The Court upheld the use of eminent domain in this case, stating that the development plan of the city could be considered a "public use." The Court decision has resulted in a significant backlash from many who disagreed with the use of eminent domain for a private development. The dissenting opinion authored by Justice O'Connor sums up the position stating: "Today the Court abandons this long -held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it mightbe upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public --in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property --and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent." Senator Tom McClintock has been especially vocal in his opposition to the Court's ruling on Kelo and has authored Senate Constitutional Amendment 15 (SCA 15) and Assemblyman Doug Lamalfa has authored a similar bill Assembly Constitutional Amendment 22 (ACA 22). SCA 15 and ACA 22 contain language that would impact the acquisition of private property through eminent domain for public uses. The bills require a judicial 91 determination on the evidence submitted that the local agency seeking to acquire the property has proven that no reasonable alternative exists. The bill language also requires that the property taken must be owned and occupied by the condemning entity or may be leased only to entities governed by the Public Utilities Commission. The property taken must be used only for the stated public use. Finally, the bills provide that the original property owner may re -acquire the property if it no longer is used for the original stated public use. Purchase price would be the sum originally paid for the property through eminent domain proceedings or market value, whichever is less. Both bills are attached as part of this staff report. The language of both bills might raise a number of hurdles in the way of the Commission's efforts to acquire needed right-of-way for transportation projects. Specifically, it has the potential of requiring many more court proceedings than are currently necessary as part of the eminent domain process. Another concern with the bill is that it would create anew scenario requiring "... an independent judicial interpretation on the evidence that the condemnor has proven no reasonable alternative exists." Defining what might be reasonable, especially in terms of transportation facilities and corridors will prove to be especially irksome if not impossible. A letter from Best, Best and Kreiger attorney Kendall McVey is attached and provides a detailed look at the potential pitfalls contained in SCA 15. As for the next steps for both SCA 15 and ACA 22, is that both were only recently introduced and action cannot be taken until a bill has been in print for 30 days. For both bills, this means that August 14 is the first date that either bill can be considered or even assigned to a Committee. The Legislature returns from their summer recess no August 15. Either bill will require a 2/3rds vote for passage and if approved would appear on the next statewide ballot. The Legislature will begin its interim study recess on September 9 which makes it . somewhat unlikely that action can be finalized this year. The bill could certainly return in January when the second year of this Legislative Session continues. The Kelo decision has sparked widespread discussion and interest in many political circles and has even proven to be fodder for radio talk shows. The irony is that California law would already prevent a taking similar to what happened in Kelo v New London but a number of redevelopment cases involving eminent domain in California have received considerable media attention. After the meeting of the Communications and Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on August 10, a small delegation of RCTC Commissioners including Chairman Robin Lowe and Commissioner. John Tavaglione traveled to . Sacramento to share concerns regarding provisions in these two bills. Staff concurs with that approach 92 • • and believes that a prudent position would be to take a formal SEEK AMENDMENTS position on the bill and work to see changes for the rest of this year and next year when it is likely to receive additional attention. Attachment: Legislative Matrix 93 '- and a Re-eferred to Committee on Transportation and Appropriations with author's amendments 5/10/05. SUPPORT 1 /12/05 Y . i ACA 4 (Plescia) This measure would delete the provision authorizing the Governor the Legislature to• suspend the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund for a fiscal year during fiscal emergency, specific to Proposition 42. ACA 9 (Bogh) This measure would change the vote requirement to 4/5 of the membership of each house of the Legislature in order to enact a stature suspending in whole or in part the transfer of motor vehicle tax revenue from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund, specific to Proposition 42. Referred to Committee on Transportation and Appropriations 4/21 /05. SUPPORT 3/18/05 ACA 11 (Oropeza) D This measure would delete the provisions authorizing the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fundtobe suspended. The measure would authorize the Legislature to loan funds in the Transportation Investment Fund to the General Fund or any other state fund or account, or to local agencies, under conditions that are similar to conditions applicable to loans of revenues under Article XIX of the California Constitution, and would require interest to be paid on a loan that is not repaid within the same fiscal year as it was made, specific to Proposition 42. Referred to Committee on Transportation 4/21 /05. SUPPORT 3/18/05 J1CA 22 (LaMalfa) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. Introduced on July 13, cannot be heard in any committee until August 14 Staff Recommends: SEEK AMENDMENTS ACA X 1 4 (Keene) This measure would, on and after July 1, 2006, prohibit the transfer of funds from a special fund to the General Fund as a loan, with specified exceptions. Any funds that were transferred prior to that date from a special fund for the purpose of making a loan to the General Fund and that have not been repaid would be required to be repaid over the next 15 years. In exchange, Proposition 42 would be permanently protected in the future. Amended. Re -referred to Committee on Budget Process 4/12/05. WATCH 4/13/05 SB 427 (Hollingsworth) This bill would exempt from CEQA requirements the construction of any overpass, onramp, or offramp that is built on an existing State Department of Transportation (CAL -TRANS) right -of- way. Referred to Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Set for hearing 4/25/05. Hearing canceled at request of author. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 371 (Torlakson) This bill would allow state, regional, and local transportation authorities to try design -build contracting under specific criteria and for these projects to be audited to determine the success or failure of use of design -build by these transportation entities. _ _ ._ Set for hearing 5/9/05 in Senate Appropriations. Hearing canceled at request -of' author. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11/05 F:1users\preprint\js\ egmat.doc • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION = UPDATED Aug. 11, 2005 n v ® ' % ff,, W"u t i 1 1 AR �di (L ii i� � w "' & I I i ldk �wA..s .. r �a�a e�i'r ., �k}� 3 bile' &I �� �, xv ^�.-ly �.i�� d i'�: 1+. .A.� ,., ., _- .i r� AB 426 (Bogh) This bill would require Caltrans to convert all HOV lanes on state highways in Riverside County that currently operate on a 24-hour basis into .part-time. HOV lanes that operate as mixed -flow lanes except during peak periods, subject to any required approvals of the federal government. 5/4/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set first hearing. Referred to suspense file. Held under submission. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 4/13/05 AB 453 (Benoit) This bill would extend the time limit that is currently in place under state law for state funding of railroad grade crossings. 6/22/05 — Passed Assembly 72-0, Passed Senate Transportation & Housing SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 850 (Canciamilla) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to enter into comprehensive development franchise agreements with public and private entities for specified types of transportation projects subject to certain requirements and conditions. The bill would require a franchise agreement to allow the department to acquire by condemnation or negotiation the financial value of a competing toll facility if it opens a competitive state facility in the same corridor. 5/11/05 — In Committee on Appropriations. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 4/13/05 voAB 1197 il•Gordon) This bill would create a new joint powers agency in the SCAG region to oversee airport planning and policymaking known as the Southern California Regional Aviation Commission. The provisions of the bill would mandate that the new Commission include representatives from county transportation commissions such as RCTC. Referred to Committee on Transportation on 3/10/05. WATCH 4/13/05 AB 1266 (Niello) This bill would generally authorize the Department of Transportation to award contracts for projects using the design -sequencing contract method, if certain requirements are met. Passed from Committee on Transportation 5/3/05. Re -referred to Committee on Appropriations. Held. SUPPORT 4/13/05 AB 1699 (Frommer) This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to authorize certain transportation authorities to use a design -build process for bidding on one highway construction project within the jurisdiction of the applicable transportation authority. Passed Assembly 45- 31.. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11/05 AB 1714 (Plescia) This bill would require the construction of the more affordable skyway structure and would limit the use of additional toll revenue to seismic retrofit projects such as the Bay Bridge repair. The state's responsibility of $300 million will be for the demolition of the old bridge. The rest of the money needed to complete the new bridge would have to be raised from a combination of increased tolls, local bond sales and existing state and federal highway appropriations. AB 1714 reflects the Governor's position on the Bridge issue. Passed from Committee on Transportation 5/2/05. Re -referred to Committee on Appropriations. Held. SUPPORT 5/11/05 FAusers\preprint\js\ egmat.doc .. ri @_m r_ SB 705 (Runner) This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to contract using the design -build process for the design and construction of transportation projects. The bill would require the director of the department to establish a prequalification and selection process. Set for hearing 4/19/05 in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. Hearing canceled at request of author. SUPPORT 4/13/05 SB 1024 Torlakson & Perata) This bill would enact the Safe Facilities, Improved Mobility, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2005 to authorize $7,688,000,000 in state general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including the seismic retrofit of toll bridges, levee improvements, restoration of Proposition 42 transportation funds, port infrastructure and security projects, trade corridors of significance, emissions reduction projects, environmental enhancement projects, and transportation needs in cities, counties, and cities and counties that meet certain requirements relative to provisions of housing needs in their communities, subject to voter approval. Passed from Transportation and Housing Committee 5/4/05. Passed Senate Appropriations 5/27/05, OPPOSE 5/11/05 SCA 15 (McClintock) o Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. Introduced on July 13, cannot be heard in any committee until August 14 Staff Recommends: SEEK AMENDMENTS FEDERAL LEGISLATION H.R. 3 (Young) The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 3 authored by Alaska Republican Don Young which provides a six -year renewal of the Federal Transportation Act. Known as SAFETEA-LU (Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), H.R. 3 authorizes the expenditure of $284 billion over six years on federal transportation programs and also sets a number of federal transportation policies. Signed by the President on Aug. 10 SUPPORT 4/13/05 F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc