Loading...
10 October 24, 2005 Budget & Implementation74572 • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Monday, October 24, 2005 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, rt Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS ***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 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, October 24, 2005 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1" 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 (June 27, 2005 and August 22, 2005) 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 October 24, 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 September 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 first quarter ended September 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 period ending September 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2005 Page 3 FY 2006-10 MEASURE A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT AND INDIO Pg. 10 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 Beaumont and Indio as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS Pg. 17 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2005 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs as submitted; 2) Approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs as submitted, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FY 2004-05 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Pg. 24 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2005 Page 4 10. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-550 FOR OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 11. Pg. 29 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $ 1,175,933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; 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. 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Pg. 38 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing (Attachment A); 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Caltrans Headquarters, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE Pg. 45 This item is for the Committee to: 1) • Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2005 Page 5 13. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Pg. 70 This item is for the committee to: 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; 2) Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in construction contingency costs ($90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM TEN YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT Pg. 72 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment to Contract #05-31-561 with Bechtel Infrastructure to provide a scope, schedule and cost to support the Commission's effort to develop a 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Ten Year Strategic Plan including: • An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure; and • An objective based assessment of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Highway Program (Including the Mid County Parkway) as generally described in the agenda item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Pg. 76 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee October 24, 2005 Page 6 16. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 A.M., Monday, November 28, 2005, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2005 10:00 A.M. NAME 6-da_ rE 66-Lc kaxi to (Av e/114,g490%47 Mrr1s ` e.7 (2U- REPRESENTING v )3 is-,001/, kS7 Z62-4 c TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL # /e e�� Zfi1eaet ee6d Extve.- r 7 e. - Ss 6-14 Ve hA VI IALA lak DO • 74041( 4fNV3aV1• •TY. i • AGENDA ITEM 4 Minutes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, June 27, 2005 MINUTES 1. 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 $15.540 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. 8. 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 Anneal 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/S/C (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 11 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 Caltrans 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 groundwater. 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 "6" and "C" site call boxes to comply with Ca!trans' 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 2006-20.10 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/SIC (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/S/C (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, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" (Due to lack of a quorum, the Commissioners present operated as a "Committee as a Whole". Recommendations from the "Committee as a Whole" were submitted to the Commission.) Monday, August 22, 2005 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Magee at 10:04 a.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Juan DeLara Hank Hohenstein Bob Magee Anneal Moore Jeff Stone Robert Crain Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Ron Meepos Gregory Pettis Kelly Seyarto John F. Tavaglione The Chair declared the meeting as a meeting of the "Committee as a Whole", due to lack of a quorum. 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted revision to the Agenda Item 9, "Funding Adjustment for the State Route 74 Widening Project Between I-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris". Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 27, 2005 Approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting when a quorum is present. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Buydos/Stone) 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 July 31, 2005. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2005. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the twelve- month period ended June 30, 2005. 6D. QUARTERLYINVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. 7. STATE ROUTE 74/INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 8-1273 (RCTC AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-513) BETWEEN CALTRANS AND RCTC Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, reviewed the cooperative agreement that outlines the duties and responsibilities of RCTC and Caltrans during the Project. Approvals and Environmental Documentation (PA & ED) phase of the project. Chairman Magee expressed concern regarding timeliness issues experienced with Caltrans and requested the language in the agreement referencing prompt reviews and approvals and timely processing be . revised to address this concern. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 3 Eric Haley responded that staff will work with Caltrans to put specific timelines in the agreement. Commissioner Jeff Stone amended his motion to include direction to the Executive Director to work with Caltrans to place the appropriate language in the agreement. M/S/C IStone/Buydos) to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to work with Caltrans to work with Caltrans to place the appropriate language in the agreement; 2) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 8-1273 (RCTC Agreement No. 06-31-513) with Caltrans for the preparation of a Project Approval and Environmental Document for the SR 74/1-215 Interchange improvement project in the City of Perris; 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 60 MORENO VALLEY HOV MEDIAN WIDENING PROJECT Hideo Sugita reviewed the background and budget history of the project. M/S/C (Stone/Buydos) to: 1► Approve the adjustment of the existing project budget for the State Route 60 Moreno Valley High Occupancy Vehicle (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; Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 4 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 CMAO. amount from $34,800,000 to $35,456,000; and, 3) Approve a FY 2005-06 budget amendment of $290,900 for increased project expenditures; and, 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. FUNDING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN 1-15 IN LAKE ELSINORE AND 7T" STREET IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Hideo Sugita provided a detailed review of the increased project costs and cause for the increases. In response to Chairman Magee's concern regarding the project schedule, Hideo Sugita indicated that the project schedule has been impacted by approximately 10 months. At Commissioner Stone's request, Hideo Sugita explained the land acquisition process utilized by the Commission. Commissioner Stone expressed concern for the continuing escalation of property value and other project cost. M/S/C (DeLara/Hohenstein) to: 1) Approve an increase to the project "budget for the State Route 74 widening project between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore and 7th Street in the City of Perris from $69,847,655 to $76,446,874 (an increase of $6,599,219); and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. No - Stone 10. GUIDELINES FOR 2009 MEASURE "A" ADVANCEMENT OF LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview of the conceptual framework for the 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Financing Guidelines. • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 5 M/S/C (Moore/Stone) 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 its future review and approval; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Theresia Trevino reviewed the FY 2004-05 budget adjustments. At Chairman Magee's request, Theresia Trevino explained the arbitrage rebate expenditure related to the profit earned and due to the IRS. M/S/C (Stone/DeLara) to approve the budget amendments of: 1) $6,500,000 for Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads expenditures; 2) $2,141,556 for arbitrage rebate expenditures; 3) $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 Theresia Trevino presented a request from CVAG for an advance of its share of allocations for highway and regional road funding under the 2009 Measure "A". M/S/C (Stone/DeLara) 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. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 6 13. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT WITH PEPE'S TOWING SERVICE TO PROVIDE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICE ON BEAT #18 AND BEAT #25 Jerry Rivera,Program Manager, briefly reviewed the amendments for towing service for the Freeway Service Patrol program, including a rate adjustment for fuel costs. M/S/C (Stone/Hohenstein) 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 60/1-215; 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. No - Berg 14. AWARD OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-531 FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE M/S/C (Stone/Hohenstein) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-531, 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 the Commission for final action. No - Berg Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 7 15. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF LAKE ELSINORE AND SAN JACINTO Jerry Rivera presented the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto. He noted that not all of the cities have submitted the required documents. M/S/C (Stone/DeLara) to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Lake Elsinore and San Jacinto; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill. He then provided an overview of SCA 15 and ACA 22 that affect the use of eminent domain. M/S/C (Hohenstein/DeLara) 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 No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 18. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 22, 2005 Page 8 19. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:59 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 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 September 30, 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 tha the interfund loan activity be reported on a monthly basis. The attached report details all interfund loan activity through September 30, 2005. The total outstanding interfund loan amounts as of September 30, 2005 are $575,000. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report • 1 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Interfund Loan Activity Report For period ended September 30, 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 Commission Approved March 12, 2003 December 10, 2003 V12005\11 November\Budget & Imp! \Cisneros-Attach,Sept Interfund Loan Activity Rpt.xls AGENDA ITEM 6B • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 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 first quarter ended September 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 first quarter ended September 30, 2005 under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2005 is $438,765. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2005. 3 CONSULTANT AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2005 SCAG Advanced Marketing MHV Enterprises, Inc. 1. AMOUNT USED A Less return of remaining contract value due to expiration: AMOUNT USED, net of adjustments AMOUNT REMAINING through September 30, 2005 Towa Reabroi-DeMorst SINGLE SIGNAlik AUTHORITY AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Amendment # 1 for travel demand analysis for San Jacinto branch linell-215 corridor study. Commuter assistance mall -house fulfillment services - Amendment# 3 softwaredevelopment programming& support services Michele Cisneros Prepared by Reviewed by Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter. • ORIGINAL CONTRACT REMAINING AMOUNT $500,000.00 12,235.00 61,235.00 61,235.00 $438,765.00 PAID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT 000 8,031.84- 4,406.25 12,438.09 12,235.00 16,968.16 19,593.75 48,796.91 VA2005111 NovemberEtudget 8Impl1Cisneros-Attach. 1 sl Ctr Single Signature Rptxis 1 • AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 24, 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 period ending September 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: i During the first three months of the fiscal year, staff has monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The first quarter of the year is primarily directed toward completing end of the year activities. Staff expects most of the categories to present a more realistic outlook by the end of the second quarter. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the first quarter at 8% 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 at the point of sale. 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 collections for July 2005. On a cash basis, the Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues are 17% higher than the same period last fiscal year. Federal, state and local government reimbursements and other revenues are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. 5 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee revenues are slightly under budget. This resulted from the receipt of the September 2005 revenues of $4,574,497 from WesternRiverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) on October 10, 2005. The expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget. General administrative expenditures are higher due to one-time payments in September for the Commission's FY 2005/06 membership dues with Self Help Counties Coalition, California Council of Governments (CALCOG), and Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Office lease and utilities are slightly over as a result of the rent payment due by the 1" of each month. The October rent was paid on September 29, 2005. Highway construction and rail engineering report negative actual amounts. This resulted from the estimated expenditure accrual adjustments made at June 30, 2005 for goods and services received but not yet invoiced. The adjustment is then carried over to the new fiscal year as a reversal awaiting the offsetting actual invoice from the vendor. The Commission expects to receive the original invoice during the 2' quarter of the fiscal year. The Coachella Valley regional arterial program provides reimbursement to the cities for projects they have completed. This program is administered by Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and requests reimbursement from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. This category is slightly over due to claims submitted by CVAG during the 1st quarter. 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. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and notify the Commission of any unusual events. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements — September 2005 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, state & local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total. revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease & utilities General administrative expenses Total administration Programs/projects Salaries & benefits General legal services Professional services General projects Highway engineering Highway construction Highway right of way/land Rail engineering Rail construction Rail right of way TUMF engineering TUMF construction TUMF right of way Local streets & roads Regional arterial Special studies FSP towing Commuter assistance Property management Motorist assistance Rail operations & maintenance STA distributions Specialized transit Planning & programming services Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Cost of issuance Total debt service Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Total financing sources/uses Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2005 Fund balance September 30, 2005 W sms/preynntlmalq,or,erEes/master Quarterly QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/05 BUDGET $ 144,629,700 43,608,200 45,825,000 8,055,752 5,453,600 247,572,252 1,608,000 98,500 1,068,200 375,000 1,128,200 4,277,900 2,087,500 1,397,300 1,316.700 2,505.200 30,871,000 26,720,800 55,572,700 7,660,000 2,089,000 5,050,000 21,280,000 12,102,000 26,120,000 49,465,500 8,569,900 1,671,600 1,355,580 2,765,000 80,300 2,158,144 6,587,900 5,617,000 5,036,500 43,300 278,122,924 1,191,400 855,000 28,669,500 8,345,200 400,000 37,414,700 321,861,924 (74,289,672) 46,551,700 46,551,700 55,000,000 54,600,000 (19,689,672) 230,537,100 ACTUAL $ 11,514,700 118,302 7,093,264 128,504 337,857 REMAINING BALANCE $ (133,115,000) (43,489,898) (38,731,736) (7,927,248) (5,115,743) 19,192,627 (228,379,625) 383,819 5,459 139,508 105,915 439,919 1,074,620 458,986 103,892 200,881 128,507 548,049 (842,635) 633,189 (1,505) 158,805 751,958 2,298,146 3,372,262 2,398,632 271,436 228,964 605,679 3,423 77,425 1,439.126 874,568 1,111,171 5,907 14,826,866 855,673 34,569 171,491 171,491 16,963,219 2,229,408 8,509,091 8,509,091 2,229,408 279,262,635 1,224,181 93,041 928,692 269,085 688,281 3,203,280 1,628,514 1,293,408 1,115, 819 2,376,693 30, 322, 951 27,563,435 54,939,511 7,661,505 1,930,195 5,050,000 20,528,042 12,102,000 23,821,854 46,093,238 6,171,268 1,400,164 1,126,616 2,159,321 76,877 2,080,719 5,148,774 4,742,432 3,925,329 37,393 263,296,058 335,727 820,431 28,669,500 8,173,709 400,000 37,243.209 304,898,705 76,519,080 (38,042,609) 38,042,609 (55,000,000) (54,600,000) 21,919,080 48, 725, 535 $ 210,847,428 $ 281,492,043 $ 70,644,615 PERCENT UTILIZATION 8% 0% 15% 2% 6% 8% 24% 6% 13% 28% 39% 25% 22% 7% 15% 5% 2% -3% 1% 0% 8% 0% 4% 0% 9% 7% 28% 16% 17% 22% 4% 4% 22% 16% 22%u 14% 5% 72% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 5% -3% 18% 18% 0% 0% 121% 134% 7 • • • R�euebsme�wa�eun4yxwuJe E40Z601.9Z $ 965099509E $ 06Z'HU EZ $ Z09901 $ 2L0'995'99 , $ 9L9'990'E $ L66'994b $ 669'69 $ (l6'991.ZEL $ LL9'9001 $ 9E6'Z5L'L $ 900Z'OE legweldeS°seems pund 99979Z'6Ll ZL4'1.96'69 6£9'£9999, 193'00L 691'149'E9 SZE'966'E 060'La9 OLE'69 Bbl'996'bEL 00£'COE'6 094'OZ9'e 900Z'L 6614 ammaq punt 904'6Z2'9 9Zl'9099 (64E'SEL'4) L909. - EL6'L4fi'E (L69'099) (660'01.6'C) fill (BE£'09LZ) - 1E9990 (999'99L) smuemq pun) m e6ueLla LON (0) 910 CO9'9 - LOl - - (909'9L6'1) - (L95'9Z9'9) - sesememncs 6upueug lelol •,. - spaeomd puce 160'609'9 O9 - - 909'9L6'1 - L9511Z99 9289 PO Ia)sUe116699960 460'6059 119VE05'9 - LOL - - - - - 9999 ulumsueplem led0 sus/vs/lams 6LausLaI lagj0 90992Z'Z 690'904 (64E'9£L'1.) 996'Z 6(6'9969 (L69'OL9) 19699E6'L) al. C6899L'E (£ na/ (909L9L) SamBpeedxe(la pun) lenO senuenex sseox3 6(Z'Ea 9L S9L7L9'1 L96'91.1'£ £L9'999 909 ZO)9. 096'09 9E059LZ 999'999 LE9'96L'E seaweed,* ploy 1.-60LLL - L69'ILI. - - - - - - e06uaS map lelol eouens910 woo La' LLL - L69'LL4 - - - - - - - /swami mdp(1ud egWes me/5 699'4£ - - - - - - - 69S'ZL (9C9'l) (591.9E) - Ammo lesda0 EL9'999 - - - - - - - - £L9'9E9 uognqumux pLuewwexoWes9 9999E9'14 - 15Z'40L'I - L96949'£ £LOLL) 909Z000 096'09 999'999'9 LLL'ea 999'£SB'L spefmo/sluw6m1 mai _ L06'S - - - - - - - - L06'9 ' seuWes 61.9www6md g 6uluueld lLL'LLl'L - - - - - at L46 Z96'69L - - Pawl pezgepadS 9991/L9 - - - - 999'999 - - - - - sucgnqulslp V1S 9Z I.'6£9'L - - - - - - - - - al'6E0'1. eOUWaWlew g sUolNlaap OaN SZOLL - - - - - - - S29'LL - - eoummsse lsuopul £ZO£ - - - - - - - - E69'E Luawanceem Spedmd 6L9'909 - - - - - - - 699909 - - eaueLmsse Jarmwo° 096'9ZZ - - - - - - - 59Z 6L9'992 - • 601/60L6Sd 9E9'LLZ - - - - - - LOL'06 - - 69L'094 6091516 IM09118 9E996E7 - - - - ZE996E'Z - - - - muepe 1eu646eN Z9Z'ZL£'£ - - - - 1.09'95L 096'09 101.9999 - - spew g 51e948 I¢001 99:96YZ - - - 914'96Z'Z - - - - Sem/01464 dW01 - - - uapwlsum 9W01 956' 199 - - - 996' la 6u - - - - - - em )o l46 lryill IlaU CO 3099SL - - - - - - - 909'95L - - co srumum 1196 1309'0 - - - - (909'1) - - Buueew6ue 9e)x 69 L'E£9 - 000'00L'L - - - - (1.16'990'L) - - pueerlem Lo l46u SemLIPH 15E9'00 - - - - - - (5E9'Z99) - usePlulsum Aemg6IH 690'909 - - - - - - - 690'899 - - 6uueaw6ue Aemq&H LOS'9A - 99 - - - 6E09ZL - - spefoxd lwaum0 L99'00Z - - - Ell, 56 - - 2906E1 95 099'59 swim's leuOlsselad Z6S'EOI. - 199'1. - LZL'61. - - Z10409 8999 991i51 sessees le139 lweue0 996'999 - - - 999'99 - 9090 - 1.1.999L 69E'LC LOL'Ea - sumueq g seuels5 speleud/swwWld OZ9'9L01 - - - - - - - 9L099 E09'Z206 6/6'6E9 - - - - - - - ELO'a 996649 21.6'90L - - - - - - - - 91. 09 669'001. 909'6EL - - - - - - 9E2'9 OLL'Z£L 656'9 - - - - - - - 99Z 9609 6L6'£9£ - - - - - - 526'9L 969099E LZ9'Z6l'64 L99'L£E 909'9ZL 99Z'£60'L LOE'9Lt 00[1491 L $ 940'ZOl £6 CLEL 996'Z 099'990'9 990'201 £6EYEL 966Z (99£`6E) 99Z'C60'L $ $ 9l6'E 1.16991.'9 690'1.9 9L9'E09'9 999'al. E60'9919£ 9160E £Z9 al. 606'63 6996/ 9E4 L99'9 - L96'ZZL (5299) 9ZI0ZZL L $ 09Z'99l'Z $ 096'09 $ 25L'Z999 $ - $ 009.906'Z $ 1V101 - 301AN3S WVN00Nd N0113ONISNO9 OM 30NV1SISSV A3llVA A3lltlA A1N000 3dVS ONnd 03NI91/100 1e30 N3dtld A1NnOO lad NOLLVOIM - 11SNVN1 Vl131-10V00 30213A NN31S3M /dSd 11f83N30 1V3IN3W0100 1.12131S3M view INn NOLLV1210dSNtlN1 3LVIS Oltld tl 3NOStl3W 90/0S/0030N3 SH1NOW 33NHLNOd N31Ntln01S1 ONnd Ae SltlnlOVAlN3lNtlnb NOISSIWWOO NOIIV1NOd SNtlNl A1N1100301S213AIN wpm/Lampe Imo/ sesuedxe ex/wp /mune mmuso serylpn g eSee1 sopa seaulas leuolssalmd ses roes Jebel mmuao s Wee g seueleS uomussmupc saxempuedmg Sanumek Ia101 lsemme - senumeuxe410 (4161111) ee9 uals69.61uuO9u11 000epodsuwl sWewesmgwlal luewwen06 Mass g elels'Iwepal xm soles cenuexeN NOILdI210S30 • Riverside County Tra ation Commission Highway and Rail Cons ion Status Summary October 151115 Project Contractor Status Advertise Open Bids Award Start Const Finish Const Route 60, Moreno Valley HOV SEMA Construction 12-May-03 12-Jun-03 18-Jun-03 8/25/2003A (Contract # 03-31-052) Lake Forest, CA NOV Lanes Operational 311812005A 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 61912005A 61912006F Notes: Contractor is completing remaining Punch Item Work 121112005F Staff continues to negotiate with Contractor to settle remaining CCO's & Claims Route 74, Segment II Riverside Const Co., Inc. 3-Nov-03 20-Jan-04 11-Feb-04 (Contract # 04-31-031/032) Riverside, CA Project 'A"Rt74 Seg ll Mainline 5/17/2004A 913012006F Project 'B"Rt74 & Greenwald intersection 6/21/2004A 121112005F Notes: Significant Project delays due to weather & Utility Relocation Staff negotiating with Contractor for matenal cost increases Riv-Dwntwn Temp Lot Upgrades Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Finalizing Contract 15-Nov-04 16-Dec-04 12-Jan-05 5/31/2005A 91812005A (Contract # 05-33-523) Corona, CA Bonds & Insurance 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 6/19/05A 6119106F Note: Project was completed on schedule and within budget V:12005\11 November\Budget & Impl\Highway and Rail Construction Status Summary.xls AGENDA ITEM 7 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 24, 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 Beaumont and Indio 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 Beaumont and Indio as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive 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 Plan (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 15, 2005 for submission to the Commission on July 13, 2005. The required Five -Year Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation have been received from the cities of Beaumont and Indio, two of the four cities that have not yet submitted their plans. The remaining two cities, Coachella and Norco, have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds 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 Plan for City of Beaumont Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for City of Indio 10 z 000`SLS$ u2!saQ 8umuad 000`0SL$ uogulglugsual anuaw ap;sroag 01 hails 4,9 •anuany laotu teag 010Z 000`OSS$ Asa0 $utpuad 000`00L$ un�lelc1 u a q � < {s Ke0 Ximoiluci jaiiI o11 as �3S �g anuany eiuenpdsuvad 600Z OUO`SZS$ uBcsKi 8uipuad 000`OOZ` is uoptwgmali pue 8uivap m, anuany kua:ij of anuany luoumeag `Swoi.n?d AMA 3P0 800Z 000`005S 981sa0 8utpuad 000`0S6$ noprumgvgal anuany aupdS pueppri of anuany tura `hails ,48 LOOZ 000`SLb$ ase 9d u8tsa Q 000`0S9$ uor�el gtlag �Senv>1xed AanEA xe0 o; pails 4,9 `anuany ur[ed 900Z «V» 3111lSVHL1[ SflIVIS I SOD 1V101 adAI IDarOiId sithi T/3mmst J.Daroud aeaik pasta i jo z aged SOoZ' 3agoa�p :a1sQ ;uatupsdag %wits, orlon,' :/fq pa.tndaad mouynuag;o SmD :tomtit OTOZ-90H �Cd 1A1V1100/1a1 Satslal «V„ gunsvau KOIssIMOO uoiivixodstorts AINI103 amsuamH • N RIVERSIDE-GOUN-T -Y-TRANSPORTATION-GOMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2010 Agency: CITY OF INDIO Prepared by: AMER H. MODARRESSI Date: September 23, 2005 tem Project Name/Litnits Page 1 of 5 Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" No. - ($1,000's) funds ($1,000's) 1 Monroe St.(52 Ave to 1-10) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 8,500 $4,250 Construction 2 Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd.) Final design, R.O.W Construction $ 9,200 $1,100 Engineering, Construction 3 Jefferson /1-10 Interchange Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $20,000 $1,841 Construction engineering and Construction 4 Highway 111(Jefferson St. to lvladison St.) PreLiminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 5,592 $ 2, 392 Construction 5 Varner Road (Adams St. to Jefferson St.) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $ 4,000 $2,000 Construction engineering and. Construction GRAND TOTAL $ 47,292 S11,583 w Agency: CITY OF INDIO • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.-----•--- • MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 Prepared by: AMR H. MODARRESSI Date: 5eut.23.2005 Item Project Name/Limits Page 2 of 5 Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" -No. ($1,000's) funds ($1,000's) l Monroe.St.(52 Ave to I-10) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $4,000 $ 2,125 Construction 2 Jefferson Street (Highway 111 to Indio Blvd.) Final design, R.O.W Construction $4,000 $ 1,000 Engineering, Construction 3 Jefferson /I-10 Interchange Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $2,000 $ 200 Construction engineering and Construction 4 Highway 111(Jefferson St. to Madison St.) Preliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W., Construction engineering and $ 1,200 $ 200 Construction 5 Varner Road (Adams St. to Jefferson St.) :'reliminary engineering, final design, R.O.W $ 4,000 S.2,000 Construction engineering and Construction GRAND TOTAL $ 15,200 $5,525 00r17$ 00Z4LT$ 'IHZOZ (INV11 J uouormsuo0 pia SuRaaulSua uogonusuop `•As011 000`Z $ 000`4 $ `capap pug `Suxaau!Sua 6seu uipm uopt uisuo0 pua Suuaaulgua uoporuvuop Os uostpeyi ox -Is uosiagaf)I 11 ArATI2iii b 005 $ 000`5$ M'O'31 `uSrsap [Rug `$uiraau[Sua kligunur[axd uogonupuo0 `SuixaatOug aSusgoxalul OI-I/ uosxagaf £ 001 $ OOZ`S$ uouonusuop M-cy `uSpap Iu4I uoparuisuo0 put Salxaau[Sua uononusuo0 `•M•O• I ( pAgi o?puI am I I AtttALI2m) palls uosxa;3a f Z 00VIS 000`£ $ `uSrsap pug `Suua2m9ua facutunlaxd (OH oI 2Alr Z5)1S aoxuoyAI 1 (s,000`1Si sPuri3 1sA.000`1Si -014 „y„ 9.M613014,1 )so0 jel0y adiq laaroxd S3o£aftd sl u ryouaelsl;oa ford wan 500Z'CZ 'ldag :MU ISSMI VCEOIN 'H 2iIWb' L49 Pandald OIQPII 30 Ano :Aotiosv 800Z-LOOZ A3 L1IVZI001Id SQI11-1111'OOT “Vn a2Il1SV3111 I�IOISSIY1WICf0 NOILIN-1110dSNI IEL A-INTRO3 21:LIM:MARI - LIS`I$ Z68`6$ TVIDZ axVUO • uouon,usuoo pue 8utzaaul8ua uoponzlsuoa ` Ail..6'ZI Z6I $ Z6£ $ `uillsap pug lupaaalSua ,Lteup.uFptd uopoTuvuoo pus 4upaautSaa uouoruusuop (•IS uoslpeyq of •IS uosza3 n)I i 1 4tuta gi b 000`I $ 000`S$ Noll '1.12?sapput; '8uuaaul8uotImuuullazd uopu ulsuoD pus SupaaulSua uoponzlsuop ` Avcrx o2usgozaluloil/ uoszaBor £ SZ9 $ 0051 $ `u$lsap pug `5upaaur$ua t euumlazd (0/1 of aAV ZSYIS ao.taoNI I (s,000`IS) sPun3 0,000`I$) 'oN "Vs, aznseayAl lsoo IsIoL OCIA1, IaaCozd S 3o y a8ed s3nui oureN laarord mall SOOZ `£Z .;dos :also issaa Haow 'H 11II/Ir :A4 Pondwd 600Z-80021LI NIVIMOILI SaTVDCYI u' 9, a-MISTHIN moissIInavoaisiOnv:L astsmI,L 1L: NflOO amsuanm • OMNI d0 AlID :,CbuaBy IVI S lbl $ DOWS$ 000`S$ 11/10s CINlvx9 uopanxgsuop puu Supaau!Sua uon.ormsuoD NOT `112P2p 1eu13 lu *otaua k eanutia.ld aSuegaiovui 01-if uosiajjzi £ (Mart$) STBIT (9,00`1S) 'OM „y„ =now is00 tElo L adki, paCoad S 3o5 aSed S4Ur i/auiei i l 2 OM mail SOOZ "£Z 'lan :aqua ISSaltuvuow 'H ENV :Acl PIE&�d 010Z-600Z AA IAn'1I902Id SQNfI3 IVD07.4411.» axasvaig KOISSIK11I0a-AtOLL-V:L-1I0dSNY21 :2aNfl00-a0iSIMAIII OIum ao .A1.IO louaWV • AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Amendment to Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2005 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs as submitted; 2) Approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs as submitted, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive their Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure A plan for the City of Palm Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 14, 2004 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Palm Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2005 Measure A plan to include FY 2003-04 projects continued to FY 2005 and to add six (6) new projects to FY 05. The Measure A plan for the City of Desert Hot Springs was approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2005 meeting. The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2006 Measure A plan to move one project, the 17 Hacienda Avenue project from FY 2007-08 ;to the current year and transfer a current year project, the Mesquite Avenue Improvements, to FY 2007-08., The developer adjacent to the Hacienda Avenue project has begun to construct their off site improvements. This revision will allow the city to do the other half of the improvements to this section of roadway at the same time to eliminate the bottle necking at this location and improve the safety of the school crossing at the entrance to the school. Attachment: Letter from the City of Desert Hot Springs with revised schedule Revised schedules for City of Palm Springs 18 74088 JR City of Desert Hot Springs September 22, 2005 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 y5©EDWE SEP 3 0 2005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: City of Desert Hot Springs Measure "A" Five Year Capital 2005-2006 — 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Dear IVlr. Rivera: The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting a transfer of the Mesquite Avenue Project FY 05-06 with the Hacienda Avenue Project FY 07-08 within the City's current Measure A Program. The Developer adjacent to the Hacienda Avenue Project has begun to construct their off site improvements and this is an good opportunity for the City to do the other half of the improvements to this section of roadway at the same time to eliminate the bottle necking at this location and improve the safety of the school crossing at the school entrance. Please find the attached program revisions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 760-329-6411; Ext. 243, if you have any questions or if you require additional documentation. Sincere] an Patneaude Assistant City Engineer Enclosures Cc: Corky Larson John Soulliere Linda Kelly X.29.23 65950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 • Telephone (760) 329-641 I • www_desert-hot-springs.us 19 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE 'A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 May 23, 2005 Item No. Project Name/Llmits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A' $ 56-1 City Wide Striping I�rovements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 56-2 Mesquite Avenue Improvements - Ocotillo to Ironwood Pulverization and Reconstruction $200,000.00 $100,000.00 56-3 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Miracle Rd to L. Morongo Street improvement $2,900,000.00 $315,000.00 56-4 MSW D Sewer Projects - Joint Projects City Street Imprv. Sewer Assessments $500,o00.00 $250,000.00 56-5 Two Bunch Palms AC Pavement Cap Cap out Two Bunch from Cuando to Verbena $100,000.00 $50,000.00 56-6 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $100,000.00 Totals $3,975,000.00 $840,000.00' Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007. 2008 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 May 23, 2005 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 78-1 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View to McCarger Street/Storm Drain Improvements $1,500,000.00 $50,000.00 78-2 Palm Drive - Pierson to Aventura Slurry Seal Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Improvements $300,000.00 $25,000.00 78-3 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $50,000.00 78-4 Multiple Streets - Club Circle, Catalpa, Acacia, etc Street Improvements - Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $50,000.00 78-5 West Drive Slurry Seal - Pierson to Two Bunch Slurry and Sealing Improvements $150,000.00 $38,000.00 78-6 Streets with MSW D Street and Sewer Improvements $500,000.00 $125,000.00 78-7 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Totals $3,825,000.00 $363,000.00 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 September 22, 2005 Item No. Pro ect Name/Limits Pro'ect Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 56-1 Cit WideStri•ine Im•rovements lliailigio - • - -T r- .111.1111.1•e $25,000.00 $25,000.00 + 6 : +As_•urte7AY-' uBarom_rioxem __(ambito`tO1rOn ®:d ao '!r ,F 1 ': aFtS a . , 00;00 aQ. ti 'a10o o9a 00 56-3 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Miracle Rd to L. Moron•o Street Im provement $2,900,000.00 $315,000.00 56-4 MSWD Sewer Pro'ects - Joint Pro'ects Ci Street Im•rv. Sewer Assessments $500,000.00 $250,000.00 56-5 T, • B P- I AC P- , - - t C- !„111.11111111111. Ca. • t , o : lc f • C - • • t• V=rbena $100,000.00 $50,000.00 56-6 Cit Wide Slurr Seallm•rovements =- „ $250,000.00 $100,000.00 ADD FROM 2007-2008 - 78-1 Hacienda Avenue- Mtn: View to McCarter Street/Storm Drain Im•rovements $1,500,000.00 $50,000.00 r _ ^r. � _ ,1, r_ - - -- G7 , r��,fx�� _ _ _ - I L-__[ r v _.- _ nm pry Y F _ F).7JlUl i Itidai/ ) :r.. f : ! .,5_;.I +3 `2raz i"'y P 0 __ 1 �5�.!} ..J �i+.._ � J.u., Yl.. _ ,.a�.'. 1t. t,�_.:_.-__ �._ i y y f �1 3�11. rvl iks ,,_ dt%.2 1`V� , F 4144 ; :. I' PROJECT ADD 1 _-_ ( MOVE I i - Totals - - - - 5,675,000.00 $990,000.00 Agency: Prepared By: Phone If: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007.2008 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 September 22, 2005 Item No. Pro'ect Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost ^"'+a ' . Y . i-, t� i wwa. ✓T 4 ;" ° • E P° PI a . ° er ., - .:1 Yl� I T • e[ItS` � �1 St eet_tSto ro � l� m �. 4ve ,- . j$11> $QQ„o ; o Tao F �� D V s 5 _ 00190 = ... 78-2 _`_ Palm Drive - Pierson to Aventura Slurr Seal Slurr Seal and Crack Seal Im•rovements $300,000.o0 $25,000.00 78-3 Cit Wide Slur Seal Im•rovements Slurr Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $50,000.00 78-4 Multi•le Streets - Club Circle, Catal•a, Acacia, etc Street Im•rovements - Reconstruction $1,100,000.00 $50,000.00 78-5 West Drive Slur Seal - Pierson to Two Bunch Slurr and Sealin. Im•rovements $150,000.00 $38,000.00 78-6 Streets with MSWD Street and Sewer Im•rovements $500,000.00, $125,000.00 78-7 Cit Wide Stri•in• Im•rovements y0Op - •-1j6a111a!: •,yAM111 $25,000.001 $25,000.00 111111111111 ADD FROM 2005-2006 56-2 Mes•uite Avenue Im•rovements - Ocotillo to lronwoo Pulverization and Reconstruction $200,000.00 $100,000.00 _. F—, 4_ ..al %-ti7 § i�t6VA Di:oNtE7f," U i-f-_._..�____i �a_�° ,T ,TuR, Ilk.] ,71fwin-- .,r —, . 16XO 00�0 00 �p0'4J6 _e'l PROJECT ADD -� I ; , 1 MOVE Totals 5,525,000.00 513,000.00 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT TO AGENDA ITEM ##8 RIVERSI ON MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM -REVISED Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer) Date: June 14, 2004 - FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO. _..-__. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEAS. "A" FUNDS 1. Amado Rd, Calle Alvarado & Ave Caballeros (near Cony. Center) Street Improvements 175,000 175,000 2. Gene Autry Trail RR $ridge g WW Wash Design Phase (NEPA Environmental) 2,481,000 61,000 3. Indian Canyon Drive Os WV/ Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 141,000 4. Traffic Safety Projects Various Locations 40,000 22,806 5. North Indian Canyon Drive (Side Street Closures) Street Reconstruction 75,000 75,000 • 6. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Project (FY 03/04) * . Install Sidewalks -Ramon Road 51,000 3,711 ♦ 7. Gene Autry/Ramon Median Landscape * 2000/01 TEA Grant (Local Match) 1,152,000 53,000 ♦ 8. Slurry Seal Program * Various Locations (Contract Crews) • 200,000 156,782 1 9. Bridge Repairs Various Bridges 02/03 Plan 37,000 37,000 ♦ 10. Belardo Road Bridge # Federal PLH-D Grant (Local Match) 03/04 Plan 4,083,000 236,000 ♦ 11. Indian Canyon Drive - Widening • # Widening from 2 to 4 lanes (thru wash) 02/03 Plan 200,000 33,000 ♦ 12. Mesquite/Desert Way # Street Widening 03/04 Plan 525,000 522,750 ♦ 13: -PM-10 Paving -Match -- -- _.... _..- _RM-10-Dust-Control-Measures- ----- — 11,150 11,150 ♦ 14. Indian/I-10 Interchange New 6-lane interchange 03/04 Plan 1,600,000 200,000 ♦ 15. Gene Autry/I-10 Interchange New 6-lane interchange 03/04 Plan 12,228,000 494,817 ♦ 16. Indian Avenue UPRR Bridge # Construct 6-lane Railroad Crossing 03/04 Plan 2,000,000 40,000 Page 1 of 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM-REV/SED Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2003/2004 continued to 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO. _ ,._. _ PROJECT NAME/LI -It PROJECT TYPE ', __ TOTAL COST MEAS. "A" FUNDS ♦ 17. Traffic Signal Flow Improvements R Signal Modifications 7,453 7,453 ♦ 18. Traffic Signal at Racquet Club & Caballeros " New Traffic Signal . 150,000 8,732 ♦ 19. S8821 Sidewalk FY 02/03 * Install Sidewalks behind curbs -Racquet Clb 40,000 30,704 ♦ 20. ARHM Overlay Various Locations (Contract Crews) 03/04 Plan 200,000 198,384 Previous-03/04Continued to 04/05 TOTALS $4,771,000 $492,000 Amended 03/04 Continued to 04/05 TOTALS S27,255,603 S2,508,289 02/03 Plan - Was approved in previous 02/03 five year plan • 03/04 Plan - Was approved in previous 03/04 five year plan * - Project complete and funds remaining # - Banking funds for future ♦ - Additional project Per our conversation and the attached letter, Items #6420 are being added to this table, Note: These are current RCTC approved FY2003/2004 Projects that need to be "continued" to FY 2004/2005 Page 2 of 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM -REVISED - Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Senior Civil Egineer) Date: June 14, 2004 FY2005-2009, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program (FY 2004/2005)-REVISED ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL . COST. MEAS. "A" FUNDS 1. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Contract) Various I ocations (Contract Crews) 600,000 600,000 2. ARHM Rubber Asphalt Street Overlays (Contract) Various Locations (Contract Crews) . 173,578 173,578 3. Annual SB-821 Sidewalk Safety Project (1) Install Sidewalks behind curbs -Farrell Drive 125,947 85,947. 4.. Gene Autry Widening across Whitewater Wash Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 3,180,000 796,000 5. Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement - CVAG Street Improvements 10,422 10,422 6. Traffic Safety Projects Various Locations 40.000 40,000 ♦ 7. Belardo Road Bridge Federal PLH-D 4,083,000 73,456 ♦ S. Indian Canyon Drive Widening RCTC STP 99/00 Grant (Local Match) 200,000 73,609 ♦ 9. .Indian/1-10 Interchange New Interchange (City Share of Joint Project) 1,300,000 127,913 ♦ 10. Indian Avenue UPRR Bridge HBRR Federal Grant 200,000 30,720 ♦ 11. .Indian Canyon Q WW Wash Design Phase 2,000,000 9,000 ♦ 12. Bridge Repairs Various Bridges 42,000 5.642 Previous FY 2004/2005 TOTALS , $4,054,000` $1,630,000 Y, Amended FY 2004/05. TOTALS $11,954,947 S2,026,287 (1) Includes remaining funds of $45,243 from Item #7 and funds of $30,704 from Item # 19 of the 2005-2009 5-Year Plan, 2003/2004 cont to 2004/2005 Project Table, for a total of $75,947 in shifted funds. • Additional project _: _ $er our phone conversation and the attached letter, Items #7-# 12 are being added to this table. Page 1 of 1 • AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Request from the City of Banning to Reprogram FY 2004-05 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004- 05 SB 821 funds, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Banning was allocated $202,500 in FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds for construction of six (6) sidewalk improvement projects. The City will provide a 50% match of $202,500 for the six projects. The construction contract for Project No. 2005, "A. C. Overlay, Pavement Rehabilitation and Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets and Site Improvement at the City Yard" was awarded by the City Council on September 27, 2005. The six projects were included in the award. As indicated in the city's letter dated September 28, 2005, one of the projects came in under the estimated cost by $11,959 and four (4) of the projects came in over the estimated cost by $15,444. The city is requesting to reprogram the unused portion of SB 821 funding ($5,979.50 or 50%) from the one under -spent project to the four over -spent projects. Should the Commission approve the city's request, there would be no additional cost to the Commission, and these funds have not been made available to any other agency. 24 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Art. 3 Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: A601-62-86106 P 2210 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)' it Date: 10/17/05 Attachment: Letter from City of Banning 25 11APA' � � CALIFORNIA . • • 74084 CB/JR CITY of BANNING TABLi sHED y q g 3' 99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141 J SEP 712:45517 RIVERSIDE , TRANSPORTATfOf ;ctON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT September 28, 2005 Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Assistant Director of Planning Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Re: Request to Reprogram FY 2004-05 SB-821 Program Funds for Nicolet Middle School, Nicolet Street, Williams Street, 20tk Street, George Street and Hoffer Street Sidewalk Projects Gentlemen: The City of Banning received six SB-821 Grants in Fiscal Year 2004-05 for the following sidewalk improvements: 1. Nicolet Middle School, on Alessandro Road from Wilson Street to George Street, and on George Street, from Alessandro Road to Florida Street, in an amount of $33,500.00 2. Nicolet Street, from San Gorgonio Avenue to Hathaway Street, in an amount of $55,000.00 3. Williams Street, from Sunset Avenue to Sunrise Avenue, in an amount of $36,500.00 4. 20t Street, from Wilson Street to Nicolet Street, in an amount of $18,000.00 5. George Street, from Sunset Avenue to Sylvan Avenue, in an amount of $14,500.00 6. Hoffer Street, from Phillips Avenue to Hargrave Street, in an amount of $45,000.00 Total Amount: S202,500.00 The construction contract for Project No. 2005-01, "A.C. Overlay, Pavement Rehabilitation and Sidewalk Improvements on Various Streets, and Site Improvements at the City Yard," includes the above listed sidewalk improvements as part of Bid Schedules III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, respectively. The contract was awarded by the City Council to Silvia Construction, Inc., on September 27, 2005. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a table of the SB-821 Grant, estimated cost, actual bid price, and reprogramming request for each Bid Schedule. 26 Due to the underrun on Bid Schedule VIII (unused $5,979.50 in SB-82I funding or $11,959.00 in total funding) and the overruns on Bid Schedules IV, V, VI, and VII (short of $7,722.00 in SB-821 funding or $15,444.00 in total funding), the City would like to request the reprogramming of the extra funds available in Bid Schedule VIII ($5,979.50) to Bid Schedules IV, V, VI, and VII. Please note that Nicolet Middle School (Bid Schedule III) is the only project with funding that matches the original Grant amount of $33,500.00. This would ensure that the City of Banning receives the total available SB-821 grant funding of $202,500.00, which was awarded previously. Note that the estimated six SB-821 project costs were $405,000.00 and the actual total bid amount submitted by Silvia Construction, Inc. is $411,280.00. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and should you have any questions, please contact me at',(951) 922-3130. Sincerely, Wit+" R/ ,s- Ann Marie Loconte Associate Engineer Attach. 4ocz-A1:11— Copy: Duane Burk, Public Works Director Kahono Oei, City Engineer Bonnie Johnson, Finance Director • 27 00'0$ <OS'6L6`S>$ 00.00e1$ OS-££S$ 00' I ILI$ 00'S£S`Z$ 00'0$ 111m0 1 Z811S Jo 2utuzulaiOaidag 00'08Z`I1t$ 00'000`S0t$ 00'005`ZOZ$ 1aa11S 00.6S6`11$ 00-INAL$ 00'000`06$ 00'000`St$ EPIJoi3 IIIA 00'0017`Z$ 00-0017`1£$ 00'000`6Z$ 00'OOS`ti$ 00'L90`IS 00"L90`L£$ 00'000`9£$ 00-000`8I$ 1.00gS ,DOZ IA 00'ZZV£$ 00.at/9L$ 00'000`£L$ OW00S`9£$ 00'SSS`8$ OWSSS`811$ 00'000`01i$ 00'000`SS$ V/N 00'S6L`69$ 00.000`L9$ 00'00S`££$ 2utpund jo aouvg !mot pTg lso7 luau [envy palmu nsg iZ8-EIS • Tunowy boy 1aa.11S &loop SILMMTm panS PtoatN IIA AI imps aippil�lI PiooiN III uoptoo7 ompauoS pjg AGENDA ITEM 14 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 for Operation of a Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 11 Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,175,933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for over ten years and provides roving tow truck service on five beats on SR-91, I- 215/SR-60, and 1-15 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for fiscal year 2005-06 provides for continued State funding in the amount of $1,175,933 and requires a local match of $293,984. This is an increase of $104,565 in State funds over the funding level for FY 2004-05. The Commission's FY 2005-06 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program includes $1,009,200 in State funding and $252,300 in local matching funds. The additional State and local match funds are not being requested at this time. Staff, along with the CHP and Ca!trans, will review the hours of operation and service level to determine if any additional service is warranted. Any State funds not claimed in the current fiscal year may be carried over and claimed in FY 2006-07. Annually, the program provides approximately 32,500 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside county freeways. The Commission contracts with three tow truck 29 operators to provide thirteen tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The programs day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: 2005-06 Amount: $1,009,200 Source of Funds: State of California Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 201-45-41505 Fiscal Procedures Approved: v�‘....stijyvv Date: 10/17/05 Attachment: Freeway Service Patrol Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 30 • FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) Agreement No. FSP06-6054(043) Project No. FSP06-6054(043) Location: 08-RIV-Var-RCTC EA: 08-924922L THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2005, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq., authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic -congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrol for FY 2005-2006, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost $1,469,917.00 State Funds $1,175,933.00 Local Funds $293,984.00 and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached. For Caltrans Use Only I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Officer a _OL1$1,175,933.00 Vi Chapterl statutes) Rem 1 Fiscal V .: * • . , ram I BC I Category (Fund Source I $ 38 12005 i 2660-102-042 I2005/2006120.30.010.600 I C 1262040 1114-042-T I I iris q 33.DO 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I/ Page 1 of 7 31 Non -Fed FSP NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 STATE AGREES: 1]. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. I 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,175,933.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3i To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $188,149.28. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the. initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential • month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice: (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work .is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of. this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisionsand/or regulations of Section III; Article 8, of this Agreement. • Page 2 of 32 Non -Fed FSP • • 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4! STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used ;for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. I6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two ;signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7: Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S PROJECT, 'participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs -and shall contain the Information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be ,mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to 'prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ,ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9: COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. II) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that 1., Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2., those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in 'accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Page 3 of3 Non -Fed FSP C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the California Transportation Commission. 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and non ihe'basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment touchers or invoices. Page 4 of B4 Non -Fed FSP • • 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each Maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make Such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish opies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State` • employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE on demand. 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Atl obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of , resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be July 1, 2005. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 5 of A Non -Fed FSP 3'. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope. of service and equipment MI required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless " mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, 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 ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or. in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising 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 ADMINISTERING AGENCY, 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. 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJECT equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable. Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreernent in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to • terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 6 of S6 Non -Fed FSP. • 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2007. However, the non -expendable equipment and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation By: Riverside County Transportation Commission. By: Office of Project Implementation, South . Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: Page 7 of 377 Non -Fed FSP • AGENDA ITEM 1 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: 2005 Transportation Enhancement Program Funding Recommendations TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing (Attachment A); 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Ca!trans Headquarters, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Enhancement (TE) program provides federal funds for transportation related projects that enhance the quality of life, in or around transportation facilities. Projects must be over and above required mitigation and must be directly related to the transportation system in order to be eligible for TE funds. TE funds are apportioned to the State and are included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). All project delivery timelines that apply to STIP projects will be applied to TE projects. At the June 8, 2005 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the evaluation criteria that was developed and approved by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the release of a Call for Projects for TE funds. The STIP Fund Estimate was adopted on September 29, 2005 indicating a TE target amount of $18.8 million for Riverside County. It is important to note that of the $18.8 million available for TE programming in the STIP, there are three outstanding TE projects from the previous transportation bill (TEA 21) that have not been obligated totaling approximately $1.2 million. Therefore, the amount of available programming capacity for this TE Call for Projects is $17.6 million. 38 RCTC staff worked closely with the TAC in developing the evaluation criteria (Attachment B) to ensure consistency with statewide TE criteria and federal eligibility requirements. The TAC was also designated as the Evaluation Committee to score the project applications and develop a recommended list of projects for the Commission's consideration. The Call for Projects stated that agencies were allowed to submit up to 3 projects (5 for the County of Riverside) with the minimum TE request per project set at $350,000 and maximum set at $1.5 million. We received a total of'32 project applications requesting $32 million in TE funds. The TAC convened on October 3, 2005 to evaluate the project applications. All local agencies were given the opportunity to summarize their respective projects. and answer questions. All projects were evaluated using the Commission's approved evaluation criteria and scoring was done on a consensus basis by the TAC. TAC Funding Recommendation Attachment A presents the TE funding recommendations. All projects are grouped by score and listed in alphabetical order. The TAC recommended funding those projects that scored 17 through 25 points. The TAC also recommended funding those projects that scored 16 points if the local agency did not have another project that scored 17 points and above. Therefore, only three of the six projects that scored 16 points (Cathedral City, Indio, and Palm Springs), are recommended for funding. The City of Banning's project application was not scored due to the TE request exceeding the maximum amount and discrepancies with the local match. In order to fund as many projects as possible (at $17.6 . million), the TAC recommends a 5.58% decrease for those projects that are recommended for funding (projects #1 through #18 on the project listing). Caltrans Approval of Recommended TE Project Listing Caltrans is responsible for final approval of TE projects. Upon approval .by the Commission, the projects will be submitted to Caltrans Headquarters for review and final approval. The State will review the projects to ensure consistency with state and federal eligibility requirements. If Caltrans determines projects or portions of projects as ineligible for federal reimbursement, we will report this back to the TAC and Commission. • 39 • • Programming TE projects in the 2006 STIP The estimated timeline for programming TE projects will be as follows: November 8, 2005 November 9, 2005 December 9, 2005 Dec 9 - Jan 9 January 30, 2006 April 27, 2006 RCTC Approval Submit projects to Caltrans Headquarters Receive Final Approval from Caltrans Review Project Schedule/Determine Programming Years Submit 2006 STIP CTC STIP Adoption Once we receive final approval of the TE projects from Caltrans Headquarters, we will review the project schedules with the lead agencies and Caltrans Local Assistance to determine the appropriate programming years consistent with the funding targets identified in the 2006 STIP Fund Estimate. TE funding targets are distributed over the five years of the 2006 STIP as follows: Fiscal Year (000's) 2006/07 $ 5.705 2007/08 $ 4.091 2008/09 $ 3.245 2009/10 $ 3.230 2010/ 1 1 $ 2.544 Total * $18.815 *Total includes: 101.2 M for TEA 21 carryover projects; and 2017.6 17.6 M for 2005 TE Funding Recommendations. Only a few projects will be able to proceed beginning July 1, 2006. However, RCTC staff will work with the California Transportation Commission on the possibility of advancing projects that are ready to proceed. In early 2006, we will work with Caltrans to provide a TE training course. This training course will be mandatory for all lead agencies receiving TE funds to ensure that they understand the process and timelines for: 1) allocating funds through the California Transportation Commission; 2) obligating funds through Caltrans Local Assistance; and 3) invoicing and final close out procedures. The intention of the training course is to prevent funds from lapsing, ensure projects are reimbursed, and maintain project schedules. Attachments: Attachment A - TE Funding Recommendations Listing Attachment B - RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation Criteria 40 • Attachment A 2005 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funding Recommendations.., aj' a 1 ac - tt4i', "' YEW �'!dt b w: e. a 1 �k :: .. y9jd 1�:€,gs7 71 '"'.. m..YY �},`�E 'Total •- Tier Ili ,:, r Proposed _ n r C, « 5 Y IN 0 gime p%,F:;TE `1r Rogues ...., $ 1,500,000 TE Fundmq Adj 5 , :Reduefkn of O!}91naj�E, .. :RO.gl)1 $ 93,700 sir:u nts ! }•. Raelsed ttilbTolal , i.i�t�411eRf..; 5� 1 d16 Y s "300I C y.QvleP,dTE fluMlToter" $ 1,416,300 % II h �" a �: 4 F41 ) _:Nz ",,, _ » r _: o i wn+,.'g, '___' ...G _`'6 -m"-9 $ 3.784,000 G .i` ' r � ..�. $ 5,284,000 ° 1� i 4�{•" -, t ♦ , DIVISIOn. Pornts (30 Poss} -. 25 m • - BUbmllted TE i ... Rumm�9 C,M.. ...,TOt$l. $ 1,500,000 Wvu :• •A,�Y� 1 .,vrn,+,g Riverside 'i.`i^Y ?}r' County Santa Ana River Bike Tr - Hidden Valley Wildlife Reserve Segment $ 1,500,000 2 Perris Penis Gatewa Project $ 450,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,750,000 22 $ 1,950,000 $ 450,000 $ 25,110 $-' `•424890I. $ 1,841,190 3 Beaumont Historic San Timoteo Canyon Bike and Pedestrian Faciitities Project $ 1,500,000 $ 1,102,613 $ 2,602613 20 $ 3,450,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 83,700 F 1,i'�: J7`4J'6 flOA.'s $ 3,257,490 4 Corona Downtown Enhancement and Beautification Project • Sixth St and Main St Enhancement $ 1,500,OCW $ 5,400,000 $ 6,900,000 20 $ 4,950,000 $ 1 500,000 $ 93,700 :: 1 416 300i $ 4.673.790 5 Moreno Valley Sunnymead Blvd Median Beautification and Enhancement Project $ 1,500,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 4,090,000 20 $ 6,450,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 93,700 •• IE ,c rtily $I 1416300? $ 6,090,090 6 Corona East Sixth Street $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 3,000,000 19 $ 7,950000 $ 1,500,004 $ 83,700 6 l;,,1416000; $ 7,506,39D 7 P=1 D- ,M• - - /-v.?Terre►emi9lFr-nd•1.=or.E:rsa aer. P .: t $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 800,000 19 $ 8,350000 $-400,000 $ 22,320 `$J `'1i377690, $ 7384,070 6 Riverside Alessandro Blvd Median Construction and Landsca•i • $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000.000, 19 $ 9,350,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 55 800 I$i'Li':r.444200 $ 8,828,27D 9 Riverside 15R60lMarket St IC Landsca• in. $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 19 $ 9,850,000 $ 500,000 $ 27,900 i"472100- $ 9,300,370 10 RTA Perris Multi -modal Transit Center - Phase 1 $ 1,432,400 $ 1,516,200 $ 5,265,700 19 $ 11,282,400 $ 1.432,400 $ 79,928 ;$-. aA;362472. $ 10,652,842 11 T- - ul= IWI RdlSR79 N• C• d• B--•hfi•v•• P•= $ 1,200,000 $ 1,185,000 $ 2,385,000 19 $ 12,482400 $ 1,200,000 $ 66,960 $It%' 11133,040.. $ 11,785,882 12 Palm Desert IMontere Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Landseapine Project $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,200,000 18 $ 13,082,400 $ 600,000 $ 33 480 ,t1 '; 566 520" $ 12,352,442 13 RCTG Greenway Corridor Pro ect for the Perris Valle Line $ 1,179,000 $ 1,179,000 $ 2,358,000 18 $ '' 14,261,400 $ 1,179,000 $ 65,788 y$3; "'. 321,- $ 13,465,614 14 San Jacinto Francisco Esludillo Heritage Park Transportation Enhancement $ 500,000 $ 150,000 $ 650,000 18 $ 14,761,400 $ 500,000 $ 27,900 t" g $ 472,1013, $ 13,937,714 15 La Qulnta Jefferson St Beautification $ 471,500 . $ 172,110 $ 643310 17 $ 15,232,900 $ 471,500 $ 26,310 ', '„}f. i'i¢4s"'(90•. $ 14,382,904 16 Cathedrai City Cathedral Canyon DrlTerrace Rd Bikeway and Pedestdan Faclltles $ 471,643 $ 125,374 $ 597.017 16 $ 15,704,543 $ 471,643 $ 26,313 /$ qa i t 44$325=. $ 14,828,230 17 Indio Hiehwa 111 Enhancement Project- $ 1,500,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,100.000 16 $ 17,204,543 $ 1,500,000 03,700 S'. i;188 3011 $ 16.244.530 18 Palm S•rin•s Gene Tr Gatewa Landsca•in. lm•rovementdds $ 1 456 000 $ 764,000 $ 2,220,000 19 $ 18,660,543 $ 1456,000 $ 61,245 $i 1;07 'S6 $ 17,619,285 i i 4;9;v� lt, s�.r,a34Tajjj�fliit#mtlald�)4�dmPlde#K�, "` ,+, n. IRw61YI F1 P pg•a;;a •.r7P0e0A:'I�„.'d"inl� e�a�Y�i0Q:0 w..M.i�6Sui:¢ - $ 193r44I1',(43' $ 18,660,543 $ 1,041,258 i 17s19285 <-_Totals !_ rst a+inn-i:� M Me'8lai'1='$andacapi• "dfir rid,:..-�` 4CiFS.,•,: ;tll' �y •it) • A.• 0,:0c"6i�'7a^�'• e:«:I�'i�`2•:400;:I•.G' 1 a a ::;t�`-.d.4,3 i1411R-iverewe�'u .,.,t -'_ xT. 1A dI_a-_., ;' ":r r.rzra+ .h`t � hltl ':� 4.$a.S,�.,--_- .r irs '..;a:: r ee �€� Qd'd 'F .� �'. '•7°'49.61 «r :'9a rw y, _ '>r 5 a i .,. G�"}�'d��-t�� of:3ka�a� ig�,=;.,r: 22.:lakes Elsirjwr`:e6 firNs3 ` - 16h'.B9autli-ic8 �•.!!!> •':3 aeap 1,1111a` .:11 27666 i„i':. -z, - CieiA= $ rM661_66d01 i>:i ?'ffi1-"s`2,c�7t 5.4i6 Agency Project Amount �. MlifSiOtb Ill i, „ .:.a:-'ffiiinn 4igriCadnd •Y•=1"�-•t ha. �.;,1„„, `t' ,; a _.., 6;1 -5 164 �,dll:+6113';:.m'_ 98.2" rflitiyl-br=p .,,g 5, Cathedral Cit Ramon Rd Corridor $ 311,571 z/(:,249fz P14460.-apuniy,;j%9e rruC,-�,'1,. y -". :s cry! i ^» 7 -'.;. e'%A j q_..�_ ;; ): 'spg ;p;j7;ggj}.:;:.§.650(pgQ:: =1 5&T»tt¢0, i`7r^2.4.568,'$,63;: Hemet State St Bicycle! Pod Path $ 519,571 JI f sb ' P. 1 �%a a d,i 4� 3f1b" r+ _•{n`g nhsou 'Ipp r rP S j+05Gt0 )y , r. j, }{'Sr11,150r0 °t 4ai. orco Santa Ana River Trail $ 364,174 ,";'25;-�PI €d...a. •, ' .�' r?:!291::"- ...:.,�"; *a.; n1E-0 • Py.o e"pb- p 3..6.3.1¢.?:..'_':.•.,„"•,1r� 6A• a9f �- Total $ ,195,r31 •:ry a..2C�n. 4.ad5e•arsl1, $ ,F :�, `E am.® .- .��. =6 3'.: .r•e iv.Ight.WCH„re roo i1:S,:Si7_t1?ga:di1 fF."i' f&' Total Projected TE Apportionments 18,615,000 "' �a t `:P{m311"l.Y�'._1f:C 1a., � 9! ae �,a i1�A9! �`w -P t9 Imo '.- ' 6@0�•0i't4,aA 6(irm.°L1,�'x W,,d:C�e,aa 6.- ...i..16 'v. 179 ^jilj,w"1.`-T. L086 TEA21 llnobllgated Carry Over $ 1,195,316 !,t $17.211:`bbsW. }'L't1-¢•T1V?�I.ir1I-e irf^[ii9rft`Efl,m"':.s'as._t.9�.si'$r":k.560:Q9I..:k.gE".'. �.-�'.^ W-• ir�Y„ Revised TE Available Projection: $ 17,819,684 1, dji fEdjt01-.6 ;. Oil 6-13, i=$�p'.°.� i ion; •irsi -'-°,'P,tfaa¢3f i1#a e.Y�: .7i1�uP of R ._,.7�:•,; 29,2.0&t• million total TE projected available 2. $1,195.316 TEA21 TEA enobl,galed carryover 3. TE available for 2005 Call for Projects Is $17,619,584 4. To fund down :o #16 (Palm Springs Gene Autry project) requires a 5.56% reduction to all above original TE requests :. -t 1n109" :i;:E •`�Y''• -14Ornps u; "'°`?t'F "6',:«.$ "�:23}, A.O•;.. •,`.AA 11 Ardpt. "'.,.32N 4::r'.,.°.=1.al8,815 _.=.• 32 protects i:} I, - 1 j . j Totals § ' 32030,915 ::$ 28.42a 664 $ 62.77-J" .p Notes: 1. Projects # 1-16 are recommended for TE funding. Projects #19-32 are not recommended for TE funding. 2. Geographic Funding. Balance: Western County funded projects total $12,993,514 or.73.75%, Eastem County funded projects.totai.$4,625,77.1 or.26.26%. - 3. Projects #16, 17, and 18 scored 16 points and were recommended for funding since these local agencies did not have another project that scored 17 points and above. • Attachment B RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation Criteria June 8, 2005 Project Evaluation and Scoring Criteria Once projects are submitted, they will be evaluated in two Tiers. Tier I establishes a "Project Screening" to ensure that the project is eligible for TE funds. If any of the applicable screening criteria are not met, the proposal will not be ranked or evaluated any further. RCTC staff will conduct the project screening and notify the agencies if their project proposal(s) does not meet the Tier 1 criteria. Tier I - Project Screening - Project proposals must address the following: 1) Project's direct relationship to transportation system 2) Describe how proposed project is over and above a normal project (for environmental mitigation projects, proposed project must not be in lieu of standard mitigation requirement) 3) Consistency with federal, state, regional or local land use and regional transportation plans, goals, and policies 4) Financial viability — complete the funding schedule provided. 5) Proposed project must be well-defined, well -justified, and ready -to - go in the year proposed — complete the project schedule provided. 6) If the project requires on -going maintenance, the maintenance program must be described. 7) Describe air quality impact, if applicable. If projects pass the above screening criteria, Tier II will be applied. The Tier II criteria will be applied by the Technical Advisory Committee/Evaluation Committee. Tier II — Project Evaluation/Scoring Criteria The following four (4) Divisions encompass the twelve (12) project eligibility types. Projects must apply under one Division. If a project proposal is a combination of more than one Division, the Division that fits the majority of the project should be selected. Division A: Division B: Division C: Division D: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Historic/Archaeological Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Environmental Mitigation 42 All project submittals must answer questions #1 through #4: #1. Describe how the project improves overall quality of life, community and/or environment and the nexus with the transportation system (mode(s) of transportation). (0 — 5 points) #2 Describe the degree of regional and/or community support for the project. Provide supporting documentation. (0 — 5 points) #3 What percent of the total project cost is the local match? Match 15 —19% 20 — 29% 30 — 39% 40 - 49% 50% and up Points =1 =2 =3 =4 =5 #4 Describe the level of project readiness and provide supporting documentation. In addition, include the level of coordination required with affected agencies. (0 — 5 oointsl Level of Readiness Points Council or Board Resolution supporting project 1 Demonstration of work in progress (env. doc., PSR/PSRE) 2 State/Federal Approval of the environmental document: CEQA/NEPA 3 State/Federal Approval of CEQA/NEPA and PS&E documents 4 Right of way certified, ready for construction 5 Answer the two (2) questions that correspond to the Division the project is applying under. Division A: Bicycle (Class 1), Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way . Projects 1) What is the need for the proposed facilities or programs and is it consistent with local plans? (0 - 5 points) 2) Describe the regional significance of the project and its connectivity with regional pedestrian and bike trails/transportation system. (0 — 5 points) Division B: Historic/Archeological Projects 43 1) Specify the current recognition of historical or archeological significance. Please indicate whether the recognition is federal, state, local or other measure of significance. (0 — 5 points) Recognition ID No. (if applicable) Points Local Landmarks Program 1 Regional Archaeological Information Ctr. 2 California Register of Historical Resources 3 State Points of Historical Interest 3 State Historical Landmark 4 National Register of Historic Places 5 Note: Projects will receive points from one recognition category only. 2) Will the project enhance, preserve, or protect a historic archaelogical resource and what agencies are impacted or involved? (0 — 5 points) Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Projects 1) How are the scenic or aesthetic resources rare, unique, or regionally significant, or how does the potential exist for landscaping or scenic beautification improvements? (0 — 5 points) 2) How does the project preserve, rehabilitate, or develop scenic or aesthetic resources? (0 — 5 points) Division D: Environmental Mitigation 1) What is the regional significance of the environmental problem(s) associated with the transportation project? (0 — 5 points) How does the proposal solve the problem and how is it over and above standard mitigation requirements? (0 — 5 points) 44 • AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Development of Project Management Database STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation' of a Project Management Database; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ' Currently, RCTC staff monitors nearly 400 transportation projects funded with state, federal, and local Measure "A" funds. Purposes for monitoring and tracking projects are as follows: • Project delivery (project status) • Reimbursement of state and federal funds • Reporting emissions reductions • Maintaining consistency with state and federal transportation plans and programs • Reporting Timely Use of Funds (AB 1012) We are currently utilizing Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, and other project scheduling software to accomplish the many needs for reporting and monitoring. projects. However, having multiple databases, set up for different purposes, are causing a significant amount of time spent on contacting appropriate staff to obtain_ the necessary information. For example, if a change in description is made during the environmental document phase on a Measure "A" project, the project manager needs to make sure the change is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) if it is a STIP project. Currently, the project manager must consult with three different staff persons review and update 45 this information. This same process must be followed by our local agencies when requesting project information. Staff is proposing the consolidation of all relevant project information into one '"Project Management Database". The database is envisioned to be web -based and include Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities as well as graphical displays and/or digital photos. A key component of a web -based database is to allow the users to obtain up-to-date project status on individual projects or project categories. It is the intention that this database would be available and accessible to each local agency and the County, subregional'agencies, 'transit operators, and Ca!trans to review projects and update project information. This will significantly reduce the time it takes us to update and verify project information. The database will also be developed to provide customized report modules for the various users such as Commissioners, project managers, and RCTC programming staff. Attached is a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for review and approval. Currently, $30,000 of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) is programmed in this year's budget. We anticipate the bid amount will be approximately, $50,000 or higher. Additional funding would be budgeted in the 2006/07 budget. The estimated timeline for the RFP is as follows: November 9, 2005 November 16, 2005 January 27, 2006 February 10, 2006 March 8, 2006 RCTC Approves RFP Staff Releases RFP Proposals Due Consultant Selection Contract Award Staff estimates that the Project Management Development would occur over a 6- month timeframe. On -going maintenance costs and the ability to update/upgrade the database are also a component of. the RFP. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $30,000 Source of Funds: Planning -Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 106-65-65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: vl/te4zdz.:4.� Date: 10/18/05 Attachments: Attachment A — Draft Request for Proposals 46 Attachment A November 16, 2005 Subject: Request for Proposal (RFP) to Develop a Web -based Project Management Database Dear Planning and Information Technology Professionals: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) is seeking proposals from qualified professionals to develop a web -based project management database. The successful bidder will provide RCTC with a fully tested project management database that will allow multiple users with the capability of generating a variety of reports. The database will include, at a minimum, 500 projects and will include GIS mapping and other graphical features. This effort will be funded with local funds and is expected to be complete within six months. General submission requirements are listed in Attachment "A". The Scope of Work (SOW) is described in Attachment "B". In addition to the attached requirements, please be aware of the following: 1. Technical Proposals must be received prior to 2:00 p.m. on the designated date below in the Calendar of Events; 2. Eight (8) copies of your Technical Proposal shall be submitted; 3. The Technical portion of the Proposal will be considered public information; 4. In addition to the Technical Proposal, each firm shall submit one (1) copy of your cost proposal in a separate sealed, self-addressed envelope; 5. If you are selected, RCTC intends to enter into a contractual agreement with your firm to become an integral part of the contract documents. See Attachment "C" for the Model Consultant Agreement; 6 Any contract awarded as a result of this RFP will be awarded without discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; 7. The Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form must be completed, see Attachment "D". If the Conflict of Interest Form is not submitted with the RFP, the RFP will be rejected; and 8. Based on the evaluation of the submitted proposals, a short list of firms may be established to be interviewed by the Evaluation Committee. The Committee will select the top ranked firms and negotiations will begin immediately to finalize the personnel, hours, hourly rates, use of sub - consultants, and other direct costs that will be required to complete the agreement between RCTC and the selected firm. If agreement cannot be reached with the top ranked firms, the Evaluation Committee will identify the next most responsive and qualified firm and the negotiation phase will 47 be repeated. This process will be continued until agreement is reached with a qualified firm(s) that can provide the required services identified in the Scope of Work. The estimated timeline for the selection process is as follows: Calendar of Events Distribution ofRFP Nov 16,2005 Proposals are delivered to 'RCTC prior to 2:00 p.m. Jan 27, 2006 Short List of proposals by Selection Committee (if necessary_) Feb 3, 2006 Interviews of Short List Firms by Evaluation Committee (if necessary) Feb 10, 2006 Award of Contract by Commission Mar 8, 2006 Eligibleproposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Experience and qualifications of the firm 10% 2. Experience and qualifications of key staff 20% 3. Work Plan/Project Approach 25% 4. Knowledge of transportation project management and implementation. 5. Cost Effectiveness 30% 15% 1. Experience and qualifications of the firm — • Specialized experience or knowledge of firm in developing similar project management databases. • Demonstrated competence of the firm, including sub-contractor(s) to perform SOW requirements • Demonstrated experience in working with the public sector • Knowledge of project implementation and funding programs 2. Experience and qualification of key staff — • Professional qualifications and experience of key project personnel • Relevant experience of the project team in developing web -based databases • Proposed team/personnel's experience appropriate for technical and management requirements of the project Staff with knowledge of project implementation and funding programs 3. Work Plan/Project Approach — • Appropriateness of technical approach to the project as it relates to the SOW • Understanding of the project goals and objectives • Understandingof the project issues and potential conflicts including user rights and control of data input 48 4. Knowledge of transportation project management and implementation • Understanding transportation fund cycle from programming to obligation and expenditure of funds • Understanding project monitoring requirements including schedules and fund timelines • Understanding project life cycle from environmental to construction phase 5. Cost Effectiveness — • Proposal must meet the SOW requirements and provide RCTC with a database that is affordable and manageable to maintain: Cost score for each proposal will be determined by using the formula below: Low Proposer's Cost/Price x Weight for Cost/Price = Cost Effectiveness Score Proposer's Cost/Price The full content of this RFP, including attachments, will be made available on the RCTC web page located at www.rctc.org. Any firm obtaining the information through the RCTC web page, and who is anticipating submitting a proposal, is asked to send a letter acknowledging the receipt of the RFP to the address below, so that the firm can be added to the notification list and receive any addendums or changes to the scope of work. Prospective firms are encouraged to promptly notify RCTC of any apparent major inconsistencies, problems, or ambiguities in the Scope of Work. All inquiries and responses to this request for proposals should be submitted to: Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Shirley Medina 4080 Lemon Street, 3n1 Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 (951)787-7141 Sincerely, Anne Mayer Division Head, Programming and Administration Attachments: A. RFP Submission Requirements B. Scope of Work C. Model Consultant Agreement D. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form 49 ATTACHMENT "A" RFP Submission Requirements 1. Technical Proposals must not be more than the equivalent of 25 single sided 8 A by 11-inch pages in length (not counting the front and back covers of the proposal or section dividers that contain no information). The font size should be no smaller than 11 pt. 2. Name the prime and sub -consultants that will comprise the team and identify the executive officer of each company. 3. Identify the proposed Project Manager for the team who will be the sole point of contact to RCTC day to day operations. 4. List the key personnel who will participate in performing the scope of work. Provide a resume for each listed team member. (Include sub -consultants key personnel who will be completing a portion of the scope of work). 5. Provide an organizational chart depicting the relationships•between the team members and agencies. 6. List recently performed, relevant projects that indicate the past performances and abilities of the proposed team. Include a key client contact person with their current daytime phone number. 7. The Technical Proposal shall include a cost proposal provided in a separate sealed envelope. The cost proposal shall include a cost analysis for each task identified in Item 7 above. A manpower analysis table must be included that lists the job classifications, compensation level, and proposed hours of, personnel assigned to the various Project tasks. 50 • ATTACHMENT `B" Scope of Work The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is seeking to contract with a consultant firm to develop and implement a web -based project management database system that will include Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities. The consultant will also include a database maintenance plan in the proposal. BACKGROUND The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) currently monitors transportation projects including project schedules, funding, and expenditures through a variety of methods including, Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, and other project scheduling software. RCTC has experienced difficulties in coordinating the various schedules, funding, and reports due to the large number of projects, complexity of issues related to various deadlines, and lack of a uniform and centralized database accessible to the users of this information. The various users include programming and planning staff, engineers, and executive management. A key component of an improved project management database is to allow the users to obtain up-to-date project status on individual projects or project categories. Further, the project management database would also provide for future expansions or modifications beyond the initial set up of the system. A web -based database system that has already been developed, tested, and implemented is preferred to accommodate at least 500 projects that would also include mapping capabilities. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The Scope of Work includes the development of a web -based database that will accommodate at least 500 projects and their associated implementation phases, funding, programming documentation, construction activities, mapping, and other pertinent data. Currently, project information is available using Excel and Access software programs. Updated information is provided to programming staff via email, paper copy, or verbally. This information and other project information will be provided to the successful bidder for incorporation into the new project management database system. Multiple users will access the project management database, via the web, which will require different user rights. It is envisioned that project information would be updated by Project Managers from each local agency in the County, subregional agencies, transit operators, and Caltrans. This would require a specific report module that would be updated and then reviewed by RCTC staff for completeness and accuracy prior to accepting the updated information. Other inputs would be performed by RCTC programming staff and Project Managers/Engineers. The database must be "user friendly". For example, as the user logs into the database various menus or tabs should be displayed in a neat and organized fashion so that the user can easily pull up the project information that they are interested in without spending too much time searching for the information. The database must also allow for customized 51 reports based on specific information such as fund source, local agency, construction year, etc. Mapping capabilities should also be included allowing the user to view the project location(s) as well as digital photos or other visual displays. TASKS AND DELIVERABLES RCTC proposes the following tasks and deliverables for consideration. If the Bidder chooses a different approach that meets the Scope of Services, the Bidder may submit a complete description of the approach (tasks, deliverables, and schedule) as a proposal submittal. TASK 1: Proiect Management Planning and Reporting The successful firm will designate a single point of contact, a project manager, for the. web -based project management system. The successful Firm will review, at a minimum, the following documentation: • A logical approach to solve RCTC's requirement • A Work Breakdown Structure, Dictionary, and Index, which decomposes the scope of work. • A project plan using a scheduling tool indicating who is responsible for each task. • An assessment of the critical path and resources, to ensure the completion of the scope of work on time and within budget. • A Resource Matrix indicating human and capital requirements including personnel assigned and number of hours per task. The successful firm will identify all tasks in sufficient detail to permit task -by -task assessment of progress based on milestones, deliverable accountability, resource identification and allocation. TASK 2: Requirements Definition and Acceptance The Bidder must provide an analysis and a recommendation of the best approach to meet the overall goals of the project management system including user rights and associated costs. TASK 3: Database Design, Documentation, and Acceptance The Bidder will furnish the elements necessary to depict the project management system application data entry, database and user information output design. TASK 4: Database Dictionary The Bidder will integrate existing project information and allow for the incorporation of additional information that the user may enter on the project management system. 52 TASK 5: Internal Data Integration The web -based database will allow for readable and efficient report display and generation including GIS map displays. TASK 6: Web Based Data Entry The Bidder will develop a Data Entry graphical user interface that meets the needs of programming and project monitoring requirements. TASK 7: Web -Based User Query/Reports The Bidder will develop the capability of generating reports and queries to integrate the display of various data sources allowing for a readable and efficient report display including GIS map displays. The database will also be designed to accommodate future report modifications or new reports. TASK 8: Data Security The Bidder will provide RCTC with assurances that the sensitive data will be safely and securely stored off -site. TASK 9: GIS Capability The Bidder will integrate a GIS capability into the project management system and determine the best integration methodology. TASK 10: Project Management System Test Plan The successful firm shall test the delivered system for RCTC's acceptance based on RCTC's approval of the system test plan. TASK 11: Training and User Guide The Bidder will provide training to all designated users on how to optimize the project management system for their purposes. Separate training sessions will be provided for the different types of users. The consultant will also prepare a user manual with detailed instructions for data entry, information access, and report generation and printing procedures. TASK 12: Database System Expandability The database is expected to allow for future expandability of additional projects and data fields. The Bidder must indicate how the database would allow for these provisions. TASK 13: Maintenance Plan A maintenance plan must accompany the RFP and identify post -implementation maintenance/updates and associated (monthly and/or annual) costs. 53 CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS The consultant should have extensive knowledge and experience with building and developing transportation project management databases. The consultant should be familiar with transportation project management, funding, and reporting processes as well as current technologies in system development. Knowledge and expertise in Geographic Information System (GIS) and integration of GIS with transportation data is important. PROJECT BUDGET AND SCHEDULE The total project budget for development, implementation, and testing is $50,000. Maintenance of the system must also be identified in the bid including a detailed description of the maintenance effort and associated cost (monthly or annual fee). The project is expected to be completed within six (6) months upon receiving a "Notice to Proceed" from ROTC, which includes the development, implementation and testing period. 54 Agreement No. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR [___DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ] SERVICES WITH [___CONSULTANT___] 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of 200_, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMIS- SION ("the - Commission") and [___NAME OF FIRM__] ("Consultant'), a [___LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORA_TION___]. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing `__INSERT TYPE OF SERVICES _] services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the [___INSERT PROJECT NAME___] Project ("Project') as set forth herein. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and . 55 incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Anyadditional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by. law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel: Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnelwill perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event. that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this; Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: 56 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates [___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission=s representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission=s Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates [ INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall ,be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising 57 therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure nor alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. - 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on. any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance,: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, ,personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. L_INCLUDE ONLY IF APPLICABLE - DELETE OTHERWISE___] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 '_INCREASE IF NECESSARY OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS NOTE] per claim. 58 3.12.4Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors; officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured 59 retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed [___INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___] ($[___INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT___]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of 60 Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 61 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: Commission Floor 92501 Attn: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Riverside, CA Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall' have and retain all right, title and interest _(including copyright, patent, trade . secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, 62 • estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, .documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the 63 Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, 'arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants; agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged .negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant=s own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its. directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and ,volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein. provided. Consultant=s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission 'or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 64 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code 65 Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant=s principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is indentured. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No "Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one 66 time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day=s work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one- half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Consultant shall forfeit to Contractor as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Chairman Signature Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title 67 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS Govemment Code Section 84308, 2 California Code of Regulations 18438.1, Et Seq No Commissioner of the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall receive or solicit a campaign contribution of more than $250 from Bidder, or Bidder's agent, during the time of: 1) Bid solicitation; 2) Consideration of Bids received; and, 3) Awarding of a contract based of a Bid (collectively referred to as the "Proceeding"), and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. This prohibition does not apply to the awarding of contracts that are competitively bid. In addition, Commissioners cannot participate in any such matters if they have received more than $250 in campaign contributions within the last year from anyone financially interested in the Proceeding, such as Bidder and/or Bidder's agent. Pursuant to these requirements, Bidder shall disclose any campaign contribution in an amount of more than $250 made by Bidder, and/or Bidder's agent, to any Commissioner within 12 months from the date of these Bid Documents/Request For Proposals (as applicable). For the purposes of this disclosure obligation, contributions made by Bidder within the preceding 12 months shall be aggregated with those made by Bidder's agent within the preceding 12 months or the period of the agency relationship between Bidder and Bidder's agent, whichever is shorter. In addition, Bidder and/or Bidder's agent shall not make a contribution of more than $250 to a Commissioner during the Proceeding and for three (3) months following the conclusion of the Proceeding. The disclosure by Bidder, as set forth, herein, shall be incorporated into the written record of the Proceeding and shall be made available to the public for inspection and copying. The following is a list of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission: Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Paul Marchand, City of. Cathedral City Juan DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel; City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta 68 • Bob Magee / Robert Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside - District I John Tavaglione, County of Riverside - District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside - District III Roy Wilson, County of Riverside - District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside - District V I/We hereby disclose the following political contributions of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months to any Commissioner: Date of Contribution Amount of Contribution Recipient (Attach Additional Sheet, If Necessary) Date of Disclosure (Same As Bid Date) BIDDER: Signature of Bidder Name Title 69 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: TUMF Regional Arterial Priority Project Recommendation for the City of Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; 21 Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in construction contingency costs ($90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission took action at its September 8, 2004 meeting to establish a five- year Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program for the period FY 2005 to FY 2009. In response to the Commissions' Regional Arterial Improvements Call for Projects process, 24 local jurisdiction projects were approved as eligible to receive funding. To date, the Commission has allocated $46.7 million in TUMF Regional funds to local jurisdictions and $25 million has been set aside for the Mid County Parkway and SR 79 realignment projects. While the 24 projects were approved as eligible, a "first come first serve" funding approach was put in place as an inducement to complete project development (PA&ED) and design (PS&E) phases. Within that context, the Commission did not allocate funding for right of way or construction phases programmed in FY 2007 through 2009. The City of Riverside has requested in writing that the Commission authorize construction funding in the amount of $905,000 for FY 2006. Their original request sought funding in FY2007 for the Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets. The City's right of way acquisition process is 70 moving forward more quickly than anticipated and construction of the project is expected to begin in early 2006. In addition, Staff is seeking authorization to allocate up to 10% of the maximum eligible construction costs pursuant to the current Nexus Study as approved by the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The 10% represents a contingency- amount of $90,500 allowable under the TUMF program and would only be authorized upon completion of the project and submittal of appropriate documentation by the City. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $995,500 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 210-72-81301 P5122 Fiscal Procedures Approved: �s-."l Date: 10/17/05 71 AGENDA ITEM 14 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 24, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program Ten Year Strategic Plan Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment to Contract #05- 31-561 with Bechtel Infrastructure to provide a scope, schedule and cost to support the Commission's effort to develop a 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Ten Year Strategic Plan including: • An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure; and • An objective based assessment of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Highway Program (Including the Mid County Parkway) as generally described in the agenda item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 2, 2005 Commission Workshop in La Quinta, staff was provided with general direction to develop the information necessary to assess the delivery status of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program (including the Mid County Parkway), as well as, develop an objective set of project measurements, including State recognized performance measures, to support the Commission in establishing priorities for the first 10 years of the 30 year Measure "A" program. This effort will require the involvement of an Ad Hoc Committee to be established by the Chairman to receive and assess project information, provide direction to staff and make recommendations to the Commission on project priorities for the development of this Strategic Plan. Over the next 6-9 months there will be several related activities the Commission will be involved in or receive information on such as, an updated Measure "A" revenue forecast and an assessment of the possible use of tools such as 72 public/private partnerships in financing and delivering capital project improvements. This work effort, leading to the identification of project priorities, will take place while the Commission considers: • the development of the 2006 STIP; • the recommendation(s) emerging from the Route 91 Major Investment Study (MIS); • the expected completion by Caltrans District 08 of major, Project Study Reports (PSRs) on several projects contained in the .2009 Measure "A" highway program. The PSRs are anticipated to be completed in January and June 2006. Additionally, the Commission directed staff to administer the Western County Freeway Strategic Study which is to establish whether or not there exists a quantifiable relationship between new population growth and highway capacity to establish a fee on new development to support highway capacity improvements. With respect to the Coachella Valley Highway Program, development for the 2009 Measure "A Program, the Coachella Valley Association of Government's project prioritization process is underway and is anticipated to be completed in January 2006. DISCUSSION: The 2009 Measure "A" Program includes nearly every stretch of the state highway system in Western Riverside County. For the routes included in the program, project data sheets, including an initial scope and cost were developed by Caltrans District 08 and were used as the basis for inclusion in the Measure "A" 2009 extension program. The: estimated cost of the highway program at that time (April 2002) was $1.66 billion with the Measure providing an estimated $1.02 billion and state and federal sources providing $640 million. Since 2002, the State has been diverting transportation funds to support other State priorities, and we will have an opportunity in January during the 2006 STIP development process to obtain useful insight on the relative health of the federal and state transportation funding condition. At that time we will also see if a portion of the proposed "pay back" of transportation funds will be secured for project commitments in the 2006 STIP. Additionally, since the cost estimates for the 2009 Measure "A" highway program are 3 years old, we need to update the estimated cost to deliver because of the 73 • rapid rise in land valuations and the relatively recent price escalation of material costs (concrete, asphalt, aggregate base, steel, wood, etc). Since seven of the 2009 Measure "A" projects have cost estimates which are in excess of $100 million and with the MCP having an estimated $1.5 billion construction value, a thorough assessment of each project will be required. The assessment will include an analysis of the potential for segmenting projects and will be accompanied by a determination of what level of environmental document would be required in order to clear the entire project or a segment of a project for early delivery consideration. As was mentioned previously, Caltrans is currently working on several PSRs for the following 2009 Measure "A" projects: • Route 91 — Pierce Street to Route 241 includes Route 91 westbound to northbound connector to Route 71 • I-15/Route 91 — 1-15 northbound to Route 91 westbound • 1-215 from Route 74 east to the 1-15/1215 split • 1-15 from 1-15 /1-215 split south to the San Diego County line The above PSRs are scheduled to be completed in draft in January 2006 and there ' are two additional PSRs under development which are anticipated to be complete in June 2006, which will examine the entire 1-15 and 1-215 within Riverside County to determine where logical project lane segments can be added in existing Caltrans right-of-way with minimal impact to structures. The assessment of the 2009 Western County Highway program will require establishing project scope, provide corridor and segment level traffic analysis, environmental screening, cost/benefit analysis, coordination with Caltrans, coordination with local agencies and the other activities aptly named "the moving parts" which are necessary for the Commission to consider before making project priority decisions. In summary, the "moving parts" include a new revenue forecast, 2006 STIP development, MIS alternative(s) decision, identification of projects that may be appropriate for consideration in public/private finance/delivery partnerships, whether or not design/build legislation will be forth coming, and who knows what will become our next issue(s). 74 Staff recommends that the Commission use Bechtel Infrastructure to provide" an objective assessment of the scope, cost, issues and challenges related to the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program of projects and update the delivery status of the 1989 Measure. Staff estimates that the cost to support this effort will be between $400,000 and $700,000 and will likely be funded through the Commission's commercial paper program. Staff recommends that this work be undertaken by Bechtel Infrastructure because: 1) Bechtel previously performed similar work for the original 1989 Measure "A" Program: 2) Bechtel has almost 18 years of successful project delivery oversight experience serving as the Commission's Manager of Project Delivery for all capital projects; 3) Bechtel staff has a clear working knowledge of the Commission's policies and relationships with Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, and Local Agencies;' 4) Bechtel has a broad array of internal experience and skills which can provide the Commission professional advisement on all aspects of engineering; 5) Placing this work with Bechtel will allow Bechtel to serve as an informed delivery oversight agent for the Commission's capital delivery program. Furthermore Bechtel has not, and will not, due to the Program Management relationship with the Commission, compete for Commission authorized project development contract work. • 75 • AGENDA ITEM 15 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: October 24, 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) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) - Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update "Operation, Offset" Looks at Transportation Earmarks Senator Everett Dirkson was once quoted as saying, . A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." In the face of a major natural disaster and an ongoing war, the previous quote, uttered more than five decades ago still has relevance. As a result, the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative Congressman recently issued a report titled, "Operation Offset" which attempts to identify potential cuts or offsets in federal funding to pay for some of the expenditures that are being made in response to Hurricane Katrina. The report recently garnered considerable media attention because one of the possible budget offsets identified in the report would be to eliminate the highway earmarks in the recently -approved federal transportation bill. It is important to note that the report by the Study Committee did not make specific recommendations on what offsets to pursue. Its purpose was to look at 76 the entire federal budget and identify potential areas for savings. Not surprisingly, with soundbites, such as "The Bridge to Nowhere" and the fact that H.R. 3 was recently approved, made transportation projects irresistible to the national media. However, the report takes on many more subjects besides transportation including funding changes in programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, reducing funding for some programs such as Foreign Aid and the District of Colombia, and the elimination of funding for some items such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and compensation to citrus farmers for citrus canker. All told, there are more than 100 potential budget offsets identified in the report that could reduce federal expenditures by more than a trillion dollars, if they were all carried out. Also, in addition to the elimination of the highway earmarks which garnered all of the media attention, the report identifies other transportation savings possibilities including the elimination of the New Starts Transit Program, high-speed rail studies and the hydrogen fuel initiative. The bottom line is that no decisions to make any cuts have been made and significant cuts to needed transportation projects that create jobs will be met with a great of deal of political opposition. Most Congressional observers believe that transportation cuts are unlikely under the current House Leadership of Speaker Hastert who obtained significant funding for his home state. So far, Congress has yet to approve a number of Appropriations bills for the current fiscal year that began on October 1. As these bills are considered Congress will be faced with a number of fiscal challenges and it will be important for the Commission to continue voicing the need for continued transportation investments in Riverside County, especially on items such as grade separations and other goods movement projects. Staff will keep the Commission apprised of new developments in Washington and will schedule .Washington visits in the coming months with Commissioners to keep transportation as an important federal priority. State Update By the time the full Commission meets on November 9, the special election will be in the history books and depending on the outcome of Proposition 76, the electorate may have approved state spending restrictions that would provide a long-term "fix" to eliminate suspensions of Proposition 42 funding. Unfortunately, no matter what the outcome of the special election, the Proposition 42 "fix" contained in Proposition 76 doesn't take effect until Fiscal Year 2007/08. This means that the Governor and the Legislature could still take action to suspend 77 • • Proposition 42 in the upcoming budget cycle. Last year, RCTC staff took an active role with a committee of transportation, labor and business interests in a coalition to protect Proposition 42 which resulted in its implementation. That same fight is a possibility for the coming year. Currently, the Legislature is in recess until January but transportation will likely be a prime target of discussion when legislators go back to work. In addition to the Proposition 42 issue, the Legislature will have to consider the Governor's Go California package which would provide transportation agencies greater flexibility in seeking partnerships with the private sector and in using innovative construction and delivery techniques such as design -build. The Commission has taken a SUPPORT position on these bills and will take an active role in the coming months. Some Sacramento observers believe that the Governor will work closely with the Legislature to craft a deal on transportation that would provide legislative support for Go California which would also depend on gubernatorial support for a statewide transportation bond measure. The legislative vehicle for the bond measure is Senate Bill 1024 by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. The current bill is titled, the "Safe Facilities, Improved Mobility and Clean Air Bond Act of 2005." The price tag is $10.275 billion and will be allocated to a wide range of infrastructure projects that include grade separations and other goods movement improvements, flood control facilities and other items including housing rehabilitation and regional planning dollars. Last year, the Commission took an OPPOSE position on this bill because at that time the Legislature and the Governor were at odds with each other regarding transportation funding. It was an either-or battle that was never resolved and eventually put on hold because of the special election. Another problem with the bond measure as originally envisioned was that it dedicated a significant amount of money to the Bay Bridge project. Since the Bay Bridge issue has been resolved and opportunity exists for a situation for the Legislature to approve a bond measure for voter consideration while the Governor receives approval for needed changes in state law such as the authorization to use design -build and seek private sector funding. That does not mean that SB 1024 is without problems but it does provide the Commission with the opportunity to work with the author and relevant committees to ensure the state makes a needed investment in transportation issues in the region, and most specifically regarding goods movement. 78 Staff recommends a SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS position to' provide an opportunity to work with the author and the Legislature to craft final language that will benefit the area. Attachment: Legislative Matrix 79 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION= POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — UPDATED October 17, 2005 �� � n t a 4 le I1! AB 426 (Gogh) This bill would require Ca!trans 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. 5/25/05 - In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. 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. • 9/22/05 — Signed by Governor. 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. 5/25/05 — In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS 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. 5/25/05 — In Committee on Appropriations. Set second hearing. Held under submission. 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. 7/5/05 Hearing postponed by Senate Trans & Housing Committee. 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. 5/25/05 Re -referred to Committee on Appropriations. Held. SUPPORT 5/1 1 /05 ACA 4 (Plescia) This measure would delete the provision authorizing the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund for a fiscal year during a fiscal emergency, specific to Proposition 42. Re -referred to Committee on Transportation and Appropriations with author's amendments 5/10/05. SUPPORT 1/12/05 F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc rmsxa .,rm a 4 { q '' J T'�+-••. _. y a'e R+,IID ,.J RM 9 -0 9 f 11' P 1 t•l, 'iY4' /'4 (^ate_ ,_� '�.: e« 1£ 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) This measure would delete the provisions authorizing the transfer of revenues from the General Fund to the Transportation Investment Fund to be 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 ACA 22 (LaMalfa) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. May be heard in Committee August 13. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 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 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. 5/26/05 Set first hearing in Appropriations Committee. Held under submission.. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT 5/11 /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 561 Runner. & Torlakson) This bill would provide additional transportation options in allowing for toll facilities, but does so in a manner that eliminates the inherent unfairness to the public from the imposition of non -compete clauses. Read second time. Amended. Re -referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations 5/24/05. SUPPORT 7/13/05 F:\users\preprint\js\legmat.doc • „ � °j ''.a.��' (r< ' � t a�.� i TI �- .— r_-., .a s "I�TOIi 8� 4/1 3/05 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 SB 1024 Torlakson & Peratal 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. 9/8/05 In Senate Appropriations Committee for third reading. Read third time and amended. Staff recommends: CHANGE POSITION FROM OPPOSE TO SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SCA 15 (McClintock) Proposed Constitutional Amendment would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. 8/30/05 Set first hearing. Failed passage in Committee 3-2. Reconsideration granted. SEEK AMENDMENTS 9/14/05 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:lusers\preprint\j s\legmat.doc