Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
11 November 9, 2005 Commission
RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Robin Lowe 1" Vice Chairman: Marion Ashley 2"d Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside 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 / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of, Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. 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 Anneal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Vacant, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 74702 11.36.0 Comments are welcomed by the Commission, if you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, November 9, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside /n compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission 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_ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (items not listed on the agenda) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 12, 2005 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediateaction on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 2 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the .Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT. Overview Page 6 This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Page 8 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. 7D. 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 10 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; and, - 2} Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Caltrans Headquarters. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 3 7E. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; and, 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database. 7F. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 17 Page 42 .. Overview This item is for the Commission 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; and, 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. 7G. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted. on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info. Page 44 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 4 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY - TRANSIT CENTERS Page 46 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projects for the continued development of .transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds; and, 3) • Include the projects in the. Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 71. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT :PLAN. FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT AND INDIO Page 49 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. 7J. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the: 1) FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs; and, 2) FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 5 7K. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-550 FOR OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7L. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Overview Page 76 This item is for the Commission to approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05•SB 821 funds. 7M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 81 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 101 1) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; and, 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 6 8: PRESENTATION — INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation on the Inland Empire Transportation Coalition from Bob Wolf. 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM TEN-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND NEGOTIATION OF BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT AMENDMENT Page 109 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment to Agreement No. 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: a) An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure "A"; and, b) 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. 10. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Page 113 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP), if necessary, for Strategic. Partnership Advisor services. _ Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 7 11. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT — APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-72-555 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO REVISE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Page 115 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. for incorporation of the three new alternatives identified during the Value Analysis Study process for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an amount of. $4,845,385; 2) Authorize the use of $4,845,385 of commercial paper until such time as additional TUMF funding is approved for the MCP project, at which time the TUMF funding will replace commercial paper to the extent that it is available; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the. Commission. 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 217 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final. Report; and, 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) .and Scenario ` 7 (I-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal commuter rail routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next. RTP update. 13. PRESENTATION — TUMF UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive. a TUMF Update from Rick Bishop, WRCOG Executive Director. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 8 15. COMMISSIONERS./ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and anyother items related to Commission activities. Boards/Committees/Conferences • 91 Toll Road Advisory Committee • Major Investment Study (MIS) Committee • Mobile Source Review Committee (MSRC) • Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) • SCAG Regional Council • SCAG Transportation and Communications Committee • Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) 16. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos. RIC 386647 and C-05-01525 JSW B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8- Item - APN Property Ownerls) - 1 571-170-002 571-270-006 571-320-008 Cordova Property 2 580-080-012 580-090-001 580-090-005 580-090-006 581-100-066 581-130-001 581-130-002 581-140-001 581-140-003 581-140-005 581-140-008 Jalem Productions Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 9, 2005 Page 9 17. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., 'Wednesday, December 14, 2005, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL November 9, 2005 ent Absent iverside Drstnct I County of Riverside, District II unty of Riverside, District, Ifl County of Riverside, District IV untyof Riverside; District City of Banning aumont City of Blythe im'esa City of Canyon Lake ry _of Cathedral City of Coachella of Cororia City of Desert Hot Springs et City of Indian Wells of Indio City of La Quinta e, Elsinore City of Moreno Valley of Murrieta City of Norco ty of. Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Ferris City of Rancho Mirage 3iverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET NOVEMBER 9, 2005 NAME AGENCY CONTACT # hPeie9P-2— At lAig r-1) ii //" p / 0 .371� ,Z5V d `) P\v\vA�_ 9 Z2 - On a, �,/\ t,\� 34 M e 6;; (- / e49k-e g.- -7 Ai / 'i`C�& a�), 7,c 0 7"79 -9� 5 Gv.-.5.�-- AIXFAV � 6 e//3- 3®0 /,‹ 4 ,� Naeao 755-2 /90 �� / i t,S 2-1 l- ri v"fL 1/72/92e1 46-/� ��1‘ /' ?j r ! " �tG > e II F I N2 6CSer�� Cv 9 3�'si / f --f� IP2 r®�,�,4--- � /�- tt3 � Mlc<t�A L r�Rovsc,I,1 (5� 3g9� +0:5,5 G L7-RAN Sieu�v� U �� G� , v q0 gz6-- $2, o ) ,� / 4,�/ rc� C�rs/�7g� �.�i ---(„6,i___ V 210del1 4f1L�7 L G MPJ — /Il(/7 � �(` 0S-1) c(,��---lo, v ,/1� „ -,‘„,8' (�v , ,o0� ��� c 0 15 t-Q1�-xd� ( 4/115 &(yam �( n A (s\� Ra ' Gj 'ue � Or% 7- Ci7YY Of 1 LigiiC04/9- g��� gi:A cn --A43 ?. - t,� ��i r p � '� )3 �_. L, � tb\)�J ;-�S -74 �{ -- g 5 Zb Wes- '� C� Spa e(St-Z i-dR- ��rJ ne4 "-��� v� S 7�0-323-$2C���, / - � � �"1 -z/ V- 7 ‘�� .'�1YL. s7. ' ���z2 C9% L C�jY t�6°�77 -0392 j�i�giji n � , r r(1 e©��ella ,9�s �(�ci)5n'-/ 47 7.6o) 3zg l 4- 1"1� �C Speakers shall complete the following: DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Q A,. DATE: WM/ 1, Zed PUBLIC COMMENTS: X, AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: K/Gt/GRvtfE inEmorprit 51.20Tha NAME: fit t7, 419441insi MIArerr TEL. NO.: 9:6 r (p s3^ �9/T ADDRESS: 'V- 7 V- Ara.. Pe-7; crilcileva' Ci. a-.s-ar Street City Zip Code REPRESENTING: (G1lGIQavW- Name of Group BUSINESS ADDRESS: %Si4tit e- TEL. NO.: RCTC/nk 10/03 Nov. 9, 2005 Ktt _r \ l_ Sat i.: j i:igii Dear .: On Oct. 25, 2005 the Grand Terrace City Manager, Tom Schwab, Assistant City Manager Sieve Berry and I met. with ROTC staffto disc iss t1*_e location of the Metrolink station stops on the Perris Valley Line. In attendance from RCTC staff, were Stephanie Wiggins, Bill Hughes and Hideo Su2ita I -reminded them that residents who live near the University are opposed to having 2 stations so clip,: together and showed them the proposal forth. £a3i -l`nd II R student :housing facility that is planned near the proposed UCR Metrolink stationthatwill contribute to the limited panting in the area They explained that there would not be 2 stations close together because UCR will just be a "stop" that will not have parking instead of a "station". Highgrove wants and needs a Metrolink station. I showed them my- transportation plan for a- neu station off the existing II 3 main lime in Highgrove 'where R Metrolink trains currently pass by but do not stop. They explained that access should be from both sides of the tracks with'a pedestrian overpass, in case Metrolink trains need to use the # 1 main line instead of the # 3 main line for train dispatching efficiency. On Nov 1, 2005 l iisnd a hand wheel measuring devise to measure for platforms mix/di sides of the tracks at the Highgrove location. On the east side of the 3 BNSF main lines is 35 ams &vacant land with no structums of any kind from Villa' t. southward to Citnis Ave,; with an arroyo in between. The eastsideof the BNSF main line has more than enough room for a ivletrolink stop on straight track off the # 3 13NSSFmain line. . The area on the west side of the 3 BNSF main lines also has room for a platform of approximately 1 MOO foot on straight track off the # 1 RNSI~ main lint; between two otltv_r existing structures on the west side, but may encroach on one small house at the corner of Villa St_ and Ilighland Avenue Neither of the two planned proposals for the Perris Valley Line would result in a station stop in Highgrove., Figure ES-5: Citrus Avc. Connection Alternative Alignment ami Stations dated July 2004 (page E-18), would make a U shaped curve from the Perris Valley line into this 35 acre area on the north side of the arroyo and connect to the BNSF # 3 main line or a new It 4 main line for train movements between Perris and Riverside but would not include a stop in Highgrove (just like the existing commuter trains on the BNSF inain lines near by). The other option: taking the I TP.railmad route near Misfit) Ave. into Riverside, Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue also would not result in a station stop in Cighgr+z ve, Trains operating between Perris and Riverside would by --pass Highgrove if either f the two plans were adopted. Recommendation: 1. Pursue the agreement for commuter trains to run on the Union Pacific tracks between %Min Ave: and Riverside off the Perris Valley'Line. 2. Purchase the property shown on the map bordered by Villa St. on the North, Citrus St. on the South, the Perris Valley Line on the East and the BNSF Main -:Lines on ti`:\a'-.West. 3. Build a Metrolink station on the 1917 acres north of the arroyo with a pedestrian S bkri"ra�-` tft the 6`-Yt'Frin4tte gide and take the exist"iny— a r.ettunter trains rt. the BNSF Main Lines for service between Riverside (and beyond) and San Bernardino. 4. This significant location would be an ideal location for a station stop in Highgrove. western 'Frer466ersri'"e'y is the >r cvNSc^^i-Farn lines i1lE}t already [s[£ve ek:Mil`6(tti'F' servk€'.€_:- and the eastern boundary is the Perris Valley Line that is already owned by RCTC. Als l.,-grad:r g is well underway for 7,1 I i 31L'w i'�iiornes that are being built just 'ei3*'t of this location straight eastward along Spring Street. By closing Villa St. and opening a- new Spring St grade crossing=. wind ettahle direct weess into the 35 acres for residents east of the BNSF railroad including Highgrove residents, Grand Terrace residents, Spring Mt. Ranch and Springbrook Estates residents; where a Met.rnlink station, park and ride facility, RTA bus service; shops, and ample parking would be provided. By Spring St being extended to Citrus St., through traffic wettld alscrltave= access to the I-215 via Columbia Ave. without having to cross the BNSF main lines when trains block. Main fit., Center Street, or Iowa Avenue. What we need is co-operation between the two county agencies (RCTC and SANBAG) to work together for the contnton good of the wltrrlr area-si lase to- the R iversidetSa€n Bernardino_ county line at Main Street. On Oct. 25, 2005, T was advistxl.that the letters ,T wrote do cad] of the Riverside County CommissionersdatedAug. 15, 2004have been held by RCTC staff and not sent to the commissioners. T was informed that all pertinent information would be sent at the same tip to the Commissioners when other documents and reports are completed by RCTC staff, This letter is an updated proposal of that original litter, I believe that planning for the future is absolutely necessary and the purchase of this property is the key to proper planning`frw our fixture transportation needs, Hopefully, all ir[for€ttation' and suggestions will be carefully examined by RCTC commissioners before final decision i$ made. If careful consideration to this plan or other community involved proposals, is not taken seriously, then future development of this vacant land will fall to other uses that may not he in the; best interests of the -surrounding con m mities and we will be facing even :greater frustration from gridlock. Location, location, location are the three most important items in Real Estate. This location should not be overlooked. R.14.et3 R. A. "Barney" Barnett � . „ Ave,r.Os�"ti�cPaF.. Highgrove, Ca. 92507 (951) 683 4994 (951) 68'3.72_58Fax iiigFrgrn'i'vci'iews;rauc'[tna[a.tsvt 500Z -6 'AON warm --' -II Xg �I� Id NOL VINOrISNV2I,I AAMIOIOIH Dli ISDALn aws 11/11.1VD LN3W1S3AN1 31V1S3 1V3e tl 10 1 • 43uea umunow 6uuds >e equeo ueiesenb3 pue Joys \ sulk) toms ;spiv I sAennaaad 09-1 pue 9�Z l ay;o;ssaaae;ualuanuo0 sa1;111aed leuol;eanaa and;oy;o saaaytrE sllea; uep;sanba pue ueu;sapad asodindwnw leuoi6ai;o sailw (76 aanp Ted leuol6ab • Awe° uep;sanb_ looyoc Rae;uawalp 9-H pasodoac slaec pue aoedg uadp;o sany 05f ds 000'0l • o; dg 000'17 woa; sazlg;o • S911101-I .sa;e;s3 looag6upds pue yaue l ule;unoW 6uudg 'easy anol6g6l1 ay; o; salllunwwoo pauueld ia;seH pa;uapo uol;eana l amµ 6upq o; paseald ale oil 'saan;uaA pue dnoag godoyg a -:,oasoaaad 13321. S 21=3TN Alternatives Figure ES-5: Citrus Avenue Connection Alternative Alignment and Stations BTA Bus _',l 'Terminal A.., a Nversiry Avenue Riverside Metrolink Station LEGEND O Potential Station . � ON Alignment 0 0.5 1 Van Buren e oV/avard Cajalco Road 2 3 4Miles CIO 17 San Bernardino County Riverside County Highgrove SPRUCE STATION UCR STATION Imnwuod Avenue Cononwoosi Avenue Moreno Valley ALESSAND__.. STATION Av�nuel \cactus EN STATION E RAMONA STATION PERRIS STATION Ramona_ Expresswsy Perris Nuevo Road PERRIS SOU STATION Sources: Southern California Association of Governments, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER Data, 1995; Myra L. Frank / Jones 8 Stokes, 2004. Perris Valley Line Environmental Assessment page E- 18 July 2004 Exhibit 17: Alternative E - Overview Map San Jacinto Branchline / 1-215 Corridor Study Alternative E: Commuter Rail with New Connection to UP RIL at Rustin Avenue Overview Map •67)).„.• RTA Terminal '1 2. Station . POTENTIAL --- ROAD STATION ALIGNMENT --- RAILROAD 1 2 Miles A Riversi‘ae °way Trunsiwritiliata ComMISS10)1 2111.' l000roorated Sol ride: SCAC HIGHGR6VE CEIYI B_ST SPRUCE STATION -STATION ALESSANDRO STA-TID N — • • . . ' .MARCH \ - AIR RESERVE BASE 7 4-* _MAPES 4e1 to,six52.,, San Bernardino County Riverside County -121-1 60AV r • I UNA UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION October 21, 2005 John Standiford Riverside County Transportation Commission 4060 Lemon St. r Floor Riverside CA 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Standiford RE: Perris Valley Line. I am writing to update you on the results of a discussion about Metrolink at our October 1316 meeting. As you know, there is a great deal of interest about the locations of the Metrolink train stops planned for our area. While there is great community support for high quality public mass transit, there is also a growing resistance to having a stop at UCR on Watkins Dr. We believe a better location for a second -stop would be in Highgrove where there is more room for parking and would provide a significantly smaller impact to existing residential areas. Our meeting was standing room only and by a unanimous show of hands, we. voted to support a train stop in Highgrove. We remain committed to the Perris Valley Line setting the standard for a workable transportation solution and to enhancing our community's assets. 1 offer this feedback for your consideration. Sincerely, Gurumantra Khalsa Co Chair UNA • 4108 Watkins Dr. • Riverside, CA92507-47t11 • 951-784-7500 Riverside Land Conservancy nS.RVM- 3EDUTIM4A..SA.L-MOP-5RA fiber l g, 2005 ' WARP or untscrune PreenmaJans tom: V. rnseiomf-Frml;Heymmg aserse ry bck Lawn Treemirer-rulli Nook Almbera del Ores HWmer Kississiy uavadsoeri ierges ,e • Feave Rot Hew;a Psalm -laaa,eoe Use laseqoan) Mary Leo Mantles Robert Nelson Ratioifo Railed :am bis ▪ screw Wolf SwisssY wri' STAFF Nei r esisor -1 ties Ne ester Donne eenn;va„t 1%il FreeCoonnaanor The iNveividy Conservancy Is dedfoated so the presentation ajopen spaceiayseeriag m Eric Daley, General Maragea Ri rasiiie County Ttansportatioa Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Mr. flaky, The Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC) is aware that there is interest and discussions on potential development of a. fligbgrovelMetrnlink station or. a 35 as 'E tria`n`g lwx p..." el of op= lard jai h of Citra6 Street, within the Riverside Chy limits, adjacent to the con►munity of Highgrove, This parcel is bisected by the Springbrook Wish Arroyo; airy development fUT"1hispurpose WOUkt alr[l6St =tan j` requffC crossings of the arroyo with a rail spur, pedestrian Crossing from a Viking area andlor new street acees& We arc writing to maize you aware ofeXtenStve planning as d coordination efforts the RLC has been doing with the City of Riverside, D.«terskte County, ttte.Deparment of Fishaond C-am , sWothers in Irving the Spri gbr ok Arroyo for long term 0—res Space Habitat aaa Regional Treii uses. At this time, we see no objection to development of this parcel for such a Ailetiolink Station, but want you to be aware early on, that the development and any crossings of the Springbrook Arroyo should provide reasonable protectnon of the natural habitat and an under- astog for the Regional Trail ea well as for habitat usage. ;iirii;A;.prigr•. an Thank you for yourcomidmation. .s to F. tuts raf avne and hatria ayned species, nanny) lanth, Sincerely, - 47/0 owl odder sensitive � sites drrarrghont the ,1? 1; rniathiSoaaiierit �-k ^o;�ia a 0 / RivQnide Land Conservancy 4095 kissuon lee Ave. g v'sto4e: CA 92301- 1971)7894570 Fax (951) 781-0579 rk 0670*beglonal,*a fiwv.a> 1.:C4$ Plop-Pteni Ces aseasa Session 545l (r) 43) Rob rt A. Nelson Sp:,,ightiook Wash Trail Subcomminte Chairman /Jam Block,President tr;vareme Land Cons�•.ssy CC: Keit GUtterreZ, City of Riverside Planning Director AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Robin Lowe at 9:10 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Chris Buydos led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Robin Lowe Dick Kelly Bob Magee Ron Meepos Jeff Miller Ameal Moore Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Mike Perovich Ron Roberts Mary Roche John F. Tavaglione Frank West Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Roger Berg Robert Crain Gregory S. Pettis Kelly Seyarto Jeff Stone Michael,H. Wilson` Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to from the public to speak. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 14, 2005 M/S/C (Ashley/Henderson) to approve the September '14, 2005 minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted additions/revisions to the following agenda items: • Agenda Item 7A, `Request for Proposal to Update Measure "A" Revenue Forecast". • Agenda Item 9, "Approval of Agreement No. 06-33-548, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 03-31-014, with Chong Partners Architecture to Prepare Construction Plans for a Parking Structure for the North Main Corona Metrolink Station". • Agenda Item 10, "Approval of Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail. Crossing Grade Separation Priority List". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Eric Haley commented on Agenda Item 7A, "Request for Proposal to Update Measure "A" Revenue Forecast", noting current revenues exceed adjusted forecasts for 2008,' which reinforces the need to update revenue forecasts. Commission Mary Craton requested clarification of the trip cost for. Agenda Item 7E, "Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program: Inland AIDS Project". Tanya Love, Program Manager, responded the FY 2005-06 cost per trip was $1 15, noting that this service is highly specialized due to the needs of the riders. M/S/C (Henderson/Oden) to approve the following ConsentCalendar items: Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 3 7A. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO UPDATE MEASURE "A" REVENUE FORECAST Approve the release of a request for proposals (RFP) to update the Measure "A" revenue forecast. 78. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-31-518 FOR ADVANCE TO THE CITY OF INDIO 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-518, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $4,000,000 of new Measure "A" funds to the City of Indio )Indio) utilizing proceeds from the commercial paper program; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended August 31, 2005. 7D. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT AND ALLOCATION OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Amend Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $34,142 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for payment on a trolley purchase. 7E. WESTERN RIVERSIDE MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM: INLAND AIDS ° PROJECT 1) Allocate $11,000 in Western Riverside Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding to Inland AIDS Project; and, 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-545, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-26-511, with Inland AIDS Project for provision of specialized transit services in Western Riverside County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 4 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY Approve the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Cathedral City. 7G. SURPLUS MADISON STATION GROUNDS 1) Declare the property identified as the former Madison Station Grounds (4.15 acres) located on Railroad Avenue between Madison Street and Jefferson Avenue in Riverside, APN Nos. 230-233-013, 230-245-013, 230-245-015, 230-253-010 as surplus; and, 2) Authorize staff to initiate the sixty (60) day public agency notification period and, if no interest is expressed, authorize the Executive Director to offer the parcel for sale. 7H. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 8. REPORT ON PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ISSUES Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration, provided an overview of the development of a project delivery plan to address planning and programming issues for the 2009 Measure "A" program and a summary of key decisions that will impact plan development and implementation. 9. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-33-548, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 03-31-014, WITH CHONG PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE TO PREPARE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK STATION Stephanie: Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, provided background information that led to the planning effort of a parking structure at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station. She reviewed how the facility would be utilized and the number parking spaces that would be added. In referencing the revision to the agenda item, she noted that staff is only requesting design phase approval at this point. The report provides an estimate of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 5 construction costs. Staff is working towards ensuring that the State will be able to allocate the money for construction, prior to requesting Commission approval of the total design and construction project budget. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Henderson) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-33-548, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 03-31-014 to prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate IPS&E) for the amount of`$900,665 and a total not to exceed amount of $1,294,853; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal. Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 1-0. APPROVAL OF ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) TRADE CORRIDOR RAIL CROSSING GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITY LIST Stephanie Wiggins briefed the Commission on the purpose and process for updating the rail crossing grade separation priority list. She reviewed current and forecasted gate down times including cause and impact." She then addressed the concern expressed at the Plans and Programs Committee regarding the change in priority for the Avenue 48/DiIlion Road crossing. Commissioner John Tavaglione asked if the impact of traffic diverting off freeways onto parallel routes was factored into the evaluation criteria and, if the gate down time included train switching movements onto spurs. J.D. Douglas, Kimley-Horn and Associates, responded that the forecasts used for 2030 traffic are based on congested speeds on freeways that divert onto arterials: With respect to gate down time, it was not possible to obtain enough field data to include any switching movements. Commissioner Tavaglione spoke on the importance on having an accurate data and how it impacts other data in prioritizing the grade separation priority list, and proposed that the Commission take the necessary steps to obtain accurate data. Commissioner Barbara Hanna commented that Banning city staff is looking at other funding mechanisms for the Sunset Avenue grade crossing and the possibility of replacing it with the Hargrave grade crossing. It was the determination of the Commission that Riverside County projects remain on the priority list. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 6 Eric Haley added that based on a precedent by the City of Riverside, it is within bounds for a city, with sufficient justification, to change their project priorities. Also, if there is intent to use the congressional earmark, it would require language in the federal bill to adjust those dollars. Commissioner Bob Buster noted increasing dependence on local funding for grade separation projects and suggested seeking other sources of funding such as a bond issue or increasing the percentage of sales tax that he believes would be supported by the voters based on projects that would be accomplished. Grade separations can no longer be treated as an elective program. In response to Commissioner Shenna Moqeet's question regarding the frequency of the updating the priority list, Stephanie Wiggins responded that an update will be conducted every three to four years. Eric Haley, in response to some of the comments and questions raised during the discussion, noted that data development during the 2001-2002 timeframe produced a response that support for grade separations was locally and geographically focused with narrow interest levels.. ,However, he believes this is rapidly changing. Also;, the federal bill should ,produce between $31 and $39 million for grade separation projects that the Commission will need to determine the, allocations. Lastly, he concurred that the Commission needs to identify and seek other sources of local funds. . In response to Commissioner Tavaglione's question regarding information collected .from the railroads, Stephanie Wiggins responded that the railroads provided the average daily number of trains, which was confirmed with Metrolink_ She also noted that staff is requesting approval of the list based upon group tiers as they reflect the priority and ,the overall project rankings are not anticipated to change. Commissioner Tavaglione requested that in future data collection, , physical counts are taken for areas known for frequent offloading as accurate data is not being received from the railroads. Accurate data is required when setting priorities on grade crossings. Commissioner Roy Wilson concurred with Commission Buster's comments to address funding, sources. This issue needs to be elevated to a high priority for an ad hoc committee. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 7 Chair Lowe agreed with the formation of an ad hoc committee to include appropriate stakeholders such as WRCOG, CVAG, and SanBAG. She noted there may need to be a refocusing of priorities: She encouraged the Commission to convey this information to their respective councils as well as the development community and advocate aggressively on this issue. The Commission concurred with the recommendation to form an ad hoc committee. Eric Haley indicated that staff will look at the collection of physical counts of switching movements due to the reluctance of the railroads to provide any operationalinformation. Also, staff will bring the topic of frequency of review to the ad hoc committee as bi-annual updates would have statically valid information. M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to: 1) Review the Average Daily Traffic counts for the Avenue 48/ Dillon Road Crossing; and, 2) Approve the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Corridor Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List based on Group Tiers. 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Commissioner Jeff Miller notified the Commission of a tour set up by SCAG and WRCOG of the L.A. Harbor and Alameda Corridor on October 27r" related to goods movement. He also recommended as a topic for the ad hoc committee to look at forming an advocacy group comprised of public agencies, fire and police associations, chambers of commerce, and business community. B. Eric Haley announced: • A $7 million allocation from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the SR 60 HOV project. • A $17 million reallocation of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds for the 60/91 /215 interchange project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 12, 2005 Page 8 The appointment of Mike Perovich as Caltrans .Director of District 8 and welcomed him to the Commission. The retirement of Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, highlighting her contributions to the agency and the region. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. , 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. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are slightly under budget. This resulted from the receipt of the September 2005 revenues of $4,574,497 from Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) on October 10, 2005. Agenda Item 7A 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 (SCAG). Office Tease and utilities are slightly over as a result of the rent payment due by the. 1st 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"d 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 madeat 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. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Financial Statements — September 2005 2) Highway and Rail Construction Status Summary Agenda Item'7A 2 DESCRIPTION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 1ST QUARTER - FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED 9/30/05 ATTACHMENT REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUAL BALANCE UTILIZATION Revenues - Sales tax - $ 144,629,700 $ 11,514,700 $ (133,115,000) 8% Federal, state & local government reimbursements 43,608,200 118,302 (43,489,898) 0% Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 45,825,000 7,093,264 (38,731,736T • 15% Other revenues - 8,055,752 _ 128,504 (7,927,248) 2% Interest 5,453,600 337,857 (5,115,743) 6%. Total revenues 247,572,252 19,192,627 (228,379,625) 8% Expenditures Administration Salaries & benefits 1,608,000 383,819 1,224,181 24% General legal services 98,500 5,459 - 93,041 6% Professional services 1,068,200 139,508 928,692 13 Office lease & utilities 375,000 105,915 269,085 28% General administrative expenses 1,128,200 439,919 688,281 ' 39% Total administration 4,277,900 1,074,620 3,203,280. 25% Programs/projects Salaries & benefits 2,087,500 458,986 1,628,514 - 22% General legal services 1,397,300 103,892 1,293,408 7% .. Professional services 1,316,700 200,881 1,115,819 _ 15%_ General projects 2,505,200 128,507 2,376,693 - 5% Highway engineering 30,871,000 548,049 30,322,951' 2% Highway construction 26,720,800 (842,635) 27,563,435 3% 'Highway right of way/land 55,572,700 633,189 - 54,939,511 1% Rail engineering 7,660,000 (1,505) 7,661,505 0% Rail construction 2,089,000 158,805 1,930,195 8%' Rail right of way 5,050,000 - 5,050,000 0% TUMF engineering 21,280,000 751,958 20,528,042 4% TUMF construction 12,102,000 - 12,102,000 0% TUMF right of way. _ 26,120,000 2,298,146. - 23,821,854 9% , Local streets &.roads 49,465,500 3,372,262 46,093,238 - 7% .Regional arterial 8,569,900 2,398,632 6,171,268 28% Special studies 1,671,600 271,436 1,400,164 16% -. FSP towing 1,355,580 228,964 1,126,616 17% Commuter assistance 2,765,000 605,679 2,159,321 22% Property management 80,300 3,423 76,877 4% Motorist assistance. 2,158,144 77,425 2,080,719 4% Rail operations & maintenance 6,587,900 1,439,126 5,148,774 22% STA distributions 5,617,000 874,568 4,742,432 16% Specialized transit 5,036,500 1,111,171 3,925,329 22% Planning & programming services 43,300 - 5,907 37,393 - 14% Total programs/projects - 278,122,924 14,826,866 263,296,058 5% Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay 1,191,400 855,673 335,727 72% 855,000 34,569 820,431 ' 4% Debt service Principal - 28,669,500 - 28,669,500 0% Interest 8,345,200 171,491 8,173,709 2% Cost of issuance 400,000 - 400,000 0% - Total debt service 37,414,700-171,491 37,243209. 0% Total expenditures - 321,861,924 16,963,219 304,898,705 5% . Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Total financing sources/uses (74,289,672) 2,229,408 76,519,080 -3% 46,551,700 8,509,091 (38,042,609) 18% 46,551,700 8,509,091 38,042,609 18% 55,000,000 - (55,000,000) - 0% 54,600,000 (54,600,000) 0% Net change in fund balances - 09,689,672) 2,229,408 21,919,060 -11 % Fund balance July 1, 2005 230,537,100 279,262,635 48,725,535 121% Fund balance September 30, 2005 $ 210,847,428 - $ 281,492,043 $ 70,644,615 134% web 3 E60'ZBb'lBZ $ B6S'989'9E $ 062'87.L'£&', $ Z09'908- $ ZLO'99SL9 $-9Z9'990'£ $ 866'9994 $ 669'69 $ 118998'Z£l- $ L19'960'P 4 9E8'Z5L'L 4 580 292'BLZ ZL9`896'82 699'994'9Z 899'008 SS 8'489'89 9ZE'9Z6'£ O60'L9E'9 OCE'66 909'6ZZ'Z 9E8'909'9 (89£'96L.0 1SOE EL6'. 196'E - (L69'0L9) (660'OL'El -en EICC E05'e 9:19'W - (L999259) - 860'609'8 09 - - 409'9L6'8 - 899'9E8'9 - 9Z'S 860'608'8 858'808'8 - LOL - - - 9ZB'S 806'62Z'2 960'208 (69E'SEL'8) 9967 El6'1.46'E (L69'0L9) (560'5E6'8)BZL EPP96L'E (COL'95Z) (949'L90 6 L2'696'98 - Z9L'EL9'8 .. L96'9(.8C E89'9L8 909 ZO89. 096 09 98995LZ - 854T GO 56G (0) 869'LL8 8898L8 169 8L1 - 869'81.8 699'9C CL9'999 99(09Z9'6L - 8SZ'LOC.'8 CO6'S LLL'lll'L 999'9L8 92 C6E9' V 529LL CZPL 6L9'509 9969ZZ 9E9'1LZ ZE9'96E'Z - Z9Z'ZLE'E' 998'96n - - 896'15L 909'99L (909'() 681'EE9 - 000'00L'L (S PEPS) - 690'999 L09'8ZL l8B'00Z 268'£08 - 89Z'8 996'939 029'9E0' 8 6 L6'689 9L6'SOL 805'6EL 6599 6 L9'£8E LOL - L96'9LL'E 99V'86Z'Z 996'L9L 99 Elb L2L'61 999'99 E89'9L9 909E08'9 895'bL8 99 6ZZ'196 ZE9'96£'Z IAZ99L 9bE'9 (34Z'966'64l 00E'EDE'4 MOM (BE6'OBL'Z) (EBL'95Z) (995'L9L) 895'ZL Isn't) (S9l'9E) 8L9'S58 096'09 99'Z99'Z LLVVEE 9E9'896'1 L06'5 Z68'691 - - 9E8'6E4'8 SZ9LL EZ9'E 6L9'509 58Z 6L9'9ZZ - - LOL'06 6Z2'0e1. 096'09 101'£99'2 - 909'95l - (s65'L) l ue'ss6'L) (9E9'Z98) 690'999 6E98E1 &PPEL 99 • 099.99 21.9'08 999'9 999'91. l V9'49V 69E2 LOl'£92 91179 EOS'ZZO'L ELOLZ 9999914 91 L'9 66L'00 8EL9 OUZEL 492 S6L'S 9Z6138 p08'99E Am599v W 4O*9 GOOZ'0EJD90991GE swamp pond 900Z' L AInE osupeg pund sesuepqpunt ul eBuegolery seen/wonws 6upueu01e1s1 Bpsexid puss oo ielsusp Boomed° DI J9198851 Bupe,ad0 sesrysa0mos Bulsueso(a410 se(rApuodza(lopun) IRLO 9.4866941 91095 samlko90190 19101 eouwe9(GOP knot aouensp Lo1800 IGe(s/ul ledpupd =W081800 LelLw lalldao sop0M081$19ZUOS WBAOBIeso spa(mdr9wec6e(d Rol sevues BulwweiBwd g 8NUU61d IVUE4 peillepadS euspnplApp V1S eousualulew g suspends Bey aouelelseepooloW pae(aBeuew Ayedosd aouelsnse oEnultuo0 60490 dSd spools IspodS 189e8,eleu0188y .. spew g Shags Iwo 46,a1014Su iWnl uoponAouoo iWnl 6upo9u18uedWpl .. AeM1914a1 II9S u0119nA9u00Iley Suuaep6uo 898 puepAsm)o 706p ABmNBIN uopoMsuso E898008{ 9808a8llso AarmISH 919e(adluaue0 903IN98 leuOisseyom ., sa0wes legal paua0 91008,951 g 95pe195 9pelad/owe(60(d uo9eopulwpe Igol seauatlxe anpvplupupe 19re890 119OIIM S 99e8198843 seslnles 19u0psa10,4:1 9801Nas Ie9e11eLeueo poeueq g 9opeles - u0pepopup9 aunllpusd93 (99768'68 8b0701. E6£'LEl 6987 098'850'L. • 986'E • 886'99 VZ 690'19 8L9'E05'9 SL9'LZl E60'9Z0'£ Genoese( lslol LSB'LCE 990708. E6E'LEL 9667- (SEICOD) 986'E EZ9 6EL. 406'6l1 6484 9E9 '199ID1u1 009'9Zl - - 109'9 L96'ZZ8 - senuesm s$410 994'E60'L - - - 99Z'£60'L - - - - - - - (dWn1) Dad uepe891W uscon uonepods084 NE'SL1 - - - - - (58PP 9Z80ZZL L sluswssmgwl911uawWano61Gop g elel99eloped OOL'PLB'LL 8 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 98Z'99l'Z $ D06'09 $ Z9L79E'9 S - $ 00L'406'L $ 8919e19S ' senues•y 19101 301/Ly3s WVILOOLId N011onylsNoo mru 3omusI48V A311VA 931190 A.1Nnoo MIVS ONnd N01141110S30 CIMISW00 IMO y3dtld AINOOO 33i N011V0111W • 11SNVy1 V113140VOO 30y3A N)131S3M /dSA 1W3N30_ - 1V3MILO 100 Ny31E3M. W30do4n N011V1110dSNVyl 311/18 01V4 1.1N3WHOV11V V 3ynSV3W 50/0El6 030N3 SH1N010(1 M114112104 aanrento ONnd AEI SlVnloV Aly3lytlno NOISSIWW00 NOLLV1yOdSNVy1 A1Nnoo 301Sy3Aly October 15, 2005 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Highway and Rail Construction Status Summary ATTACHMENT 2 Project Contractor Status Advertise Open Bids Award Start Const Finish Const SR 60, Moreno Valley HOV SEMA Construction 12-May-03 12-Jun-03 18-Jun-03 8/25/2003A (Agreement No. 03-31-052) Lake Forest, CA HOV Lanes Operational 3/18/2005A 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 6/9/2005A 6/9/2006F Notes: Contractor is completing remaining Punch Item Work 12/1/2005F Staff continues to negotiate with Contractor to settle remaining CCO's & Claims SR 74, Segment II Riverside Const Co., Inc. 3-Nov-03 20-Jan-04 11-Feb-041 (Agreement No. 04-31-031/032) Riverside, CA Project "A" SR 74 Seg II Mainline 5/17/2004A 9/30/2006F Project "B" SR 74 & Greenwald intersection 6/21 /2004A 12/1/2005F Notes: Significant Project delays due to weather & Utility Relocation Staff negotiating with Contractor for material cost increases Riv-Dwntwn Temp Lot Upgrades Hilicrest Contracting, Inc. Finalizing Contract 15-Nov-04 16-Dec-04 12-Jan-05 5/31/2005A 9/8/2005A (Agreement No, 05-33-523) Corona, CA Bonds & Insurance 1 Yr Landscape Plant Estab Started 6/19/05A 6/19/06F Note: Project was completed on schedule and within budget AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. 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 $438,765. Attachment: Single SignatureAuthorityReport — September 30, 2005 Agenda Item 7B 6 L6'96L'84 60'8£4`ZL 1Nf1OWV 1OV211N00 1Nf1OWV O1tld ONINIVIN321 • 00'S9L`8£4$ 00'S£Z`o 00'S£Z'L9 00'000'OO9S 1Nf3OWV 1OV2111,1OO 1VNI0I21O L •Jayenb 3s.q; ay; ul pais0 spei;uoo mau e;uesaadei ease pepeyS :030N (q pemelnaa 6q paiedald saeus'O eieyom S3O1A213S d0 NOIld1210S3O SOOZ'0£ 21391A131d3S d0 SV AlI2ioainv aan NOIS 310NIS Isgmea-pageea emol SOOZ'OC lagwe;des yBnay; ONINIVINSLI f1OWV s;uew;snjpe;o;au'03Sn 1Nf1OWV :uoge.lIdxa o; enp amen;oe.;uoo fiuluieweJ 10 seal O3Sp 114f1OWV SOOL'L maniVAV 1Nf1OWV 1NVl1R1SNOO AGENDA ITEM 7C I RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Interfund Loan Activity Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 14, 2004 the Commission approved the Interfund Loan Policy and adopted Resolution No. 04-009 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Authorize Interfund Loans". The Commission requested that 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. Note: The report will be presented to the Committee/Commission when new activities occur. Attachment: Interfund Loan Activity Report — September 30, 2005 Agenda Item 7C 8 " R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n I n t e r f u n d L o a n A c t i v i t y R e p o r t F o r p e r i o d e n d e d S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 D a t e o f L o a n A p r i l 2 , 2 0 0 3 $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 J u l y 1 , 2 0 0 6 M e a s u r e A - W C H i g h w a y ( 2 2 2 ) M e a s u r e A - W C L S R ( 2 2 7 ) M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 4 A m o u n t M a t u r i t y o f L o a n D a t e - L e n d i n g F u n d B o r r o w i n g F u n d P u r p o s e o f L o a n A d v a n c e t o m a k e r e p a i r s a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s t o R a i l r o a d C a n y o n R o a d 2 7 5 , 0 0 0 J u l y 1 , 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e A - W C C o m m u t e r M e a s u r e A - W C H i g h w a y ( 2 2 2 ) A d d i t i o n a l l o c a l m a t c h f o r t h e S R 7 1 A s s i s t a n c e ( 2 2 6 ) W i d e n i n g / A n i m a l C r o s s i n g P r o j e c t T o t a l $ 5 7 5 , 0 0 0 9 D a t e C o m m i s s i o n A p p r o v e d M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: 2005 Transportation Enhancement Program Funding Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; and, 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Ca!trans Headquarters. 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 its June 8, 2005, 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. Agenda Item 7D 10 RCTC staff worked closely with the TAC in developing the evaluation criteria (Attachment 2) 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. A total of 32 project applications requesting $32 million in TE funds were received. The TAC convened on October 3, 2005 to evaluate the .project applications. All local agencies were given the opportunity to summarize theirrespective 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 1 '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, staff will report back to the TAC and Commission. Agenda Item 7D 11 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 final approval of the TE projects is received from Caltrans Headquarters, staff 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 2010-11 $ 2.544 Total * $18.815 *Total includes: 1)$1.2 M for TEA 21 carryover projects; and 21$17.6 Recommendations. Only a few projects will be able to proceed beginning July RCTC staff will work with the California Transportation possibility of advancing projects that are ready to proceed. M for 2005 TE Funding 1, 2006. However, Commission on the 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: 1) TE Funding Recommendations Listing 2) RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation. Criteria i Agenda Item 7D 12 s 2005 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funding Recommendations 1 Riverside County Santa Ana River Blke Tr - Hidden Valley Wildlife Reserve Segment 2 Perris Penis Gateway Project 3 Beaumont Historic San Timoleo Canyon Bike and Pedestrian Faciltities Project 4 Corona Downtown Enhancement and Beautification Project - Sixth St and Main St Enhancement 5 Moreno Valley Sunnymead Blvd Median Beautification and Enhancement Project 6 Corona East Sixth Street 7 Palm Desert Monterey Ave/I.10 On/Off Ramp Landscaping Project 8 Riverside Alessandro Blvd Median Construction and Landscaping 9 Riverside- SR60/Market St IC Landscaping 10 RTA 11 Temecula • Total -' Tier ll Division. Points (30 Poss) 1,500,000 $ 3,784,000 $ 5,284,000 25 $ 450,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500.000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000.000 $ 500,000 Penis Multi -modal Transit Center- Phase 1 $ 1,432,400 Winchester Rd/SR79 North Corridor Beautification Project $ 1,200,000 12 Palm Desert Monterey Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Landscaping Project 13 RCTC Greenway Corridor Project for the Perris Valley Line - 14 San Jacinto 15 La Ouinta 16 Cathedral City 17 Indio 18 Palm Sprin•s Francisco Estudlllo Heritage Park Transportation Enhancement Jefferson St Beautification Cathedral Canyon Dr/Terrace Rd Bikeway and Pedestrian Facilties Highway 111 Enhancement Project Gene Aut Tr Gateway Landscapinglm•rovements f a g :. a�#$04$7,' .cow t ( i• n78dn: $ 600,000 $ 1,179,000 $ 500,000 $ 471,500 $ 471,643 $ 1.500,000 $ 1,102,613 $ 5,400,000 $ 2,590,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,516,200 $ 1,185,000 $ 1,750,000 22 $ 2,602,613 20 $ 6,900,000 20 $ 4,090,000 20 $ 3,000,000 19 $ 800,000 19 $ 2,000,000 19 $ 1,000,000 19 $ 5,265,700 19 $ 2,385,000 19 $ 1,200,000 18 $ 1,179,000 $ 2,358,000 18 $ 150,000 $ 650,000 18 $ 172,110 $ 643,610 17 $ 125,374 $ 600,000 $ 1,456,000 I $ 764,000- �•;t16 d $ 597,017 16 $ 2,100,000 16 $ 2,220,000 $15 $,POke'e e 32 projects - - " - Totals: $32,030,915 - $ 28,429,664 $ 62,777,679 Notes: 1. Projects it 1-18 are recommended for TE funding. Projects #19-32 are not recommendedforTE funding. 2. Geographic Funding Balance: Westem County funded projects total $12,993,514 or 73.75%, Eastern County funded projects total $4,625,771 or 26.25%. 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. 16 Running =Total $ 1,500,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 3,450,000 $ 4,950,000 $ 6,450,000 $ 7,950,000 $ 8,350,000 5 9,350,000 $ 9,850,000 $ 11,282,400 $ 12,482,400 $ 13,082,400 $ 14,261,400 $ 14,761,400 $ 15,232,900 $ 15,704,543 $ 17,204,543 $ 18,660,543 tt Pam,+ " k� 4t . 43`s' Proposed TE Funding Adjestmenls Rego T4304.1101'91 '.,`7rfOKA TE, " Rdchf09 $ 1,500,000 $ 33,700 $ 450,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1.500,000 $ 1.500.000 $ 1,500,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,432,400 $ 1,200,000 $ 600,000 $ 1.179.000 $ 500,000 $ 25,110, $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 83,700 $ 22,320 $ 55,800 $ 27,900 • Attachment 1 . Revised .�_ Tolal..e TE Request- ,418.300-: -1',416,300' 1$40:1I4116 300" 377:t38U; '.94;4200; 47 00 $ 79,923 rit,352,472,1 $ 66, 950 ?$1'.-';1,133,04U.. $ 33,480 $ 65,788 $ 27,900 $ 471,500 $ 26,310 $ 471,643 $ 26,318 $ 1,500,000 $ 83,700 sssszo:. 1j113i212! $7$,160 1,416,300 $ 1,456,000 $ 81,245 -.$ 1,374,755 $ 18,660,543 $ 1,041,258 $ 17,619,285 Agency Project HCathedral City Ramon Rd Corridor 8; Hemet State St Bicycle/ Ped Path Santa Ana River Trail Total Total Projected TE Apportionments Less TEA21 Unobligated Carry Over Revis6{I'TE' '" RurtniggTola�. $ 1,416,300 $ 1,841,190 $ 3,257,490 $ 4,673,790 $ 6,090,090 $ 7,506,390 $ 7,884,070 $ 8,828,270 $ 9,300,370 $ 10,652,842 $ 11,785,882 $ 12,352,402 $ 13,465,614 $ 13,937,714 $ 14,382,904 $ 14,628,230 $ 16,244,530' $ 17,619.285 <•- Totals Amount $ 311,571 $ 519,571 $ 364,174 $ 1,195,316 S 18,815,000 $ 1,195,31E Revised TE Available Projection: $ 17,619,684 13 1, $18.815 million total TE projected available 2. $1,195,316 TEA21 TEA =obligated carry over 3. TE available for 2005 Call for Projects is 517,619,684 4. To fund down to #18 (Palm Springs Gene Autry project) requires a 5.58% reduction to all above original TE requests Attachment 2 RCTC Adopted TE Evaluation Criteria June 8, 2005 Proiect 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 1- 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: Bicycle, Pedestrian, Abandoned Rail Right -of -Way Division B: Historic/Archaeological Division C: Transportation Aesthetics and Scenic Values Division D: Environmental Mitigation 14 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 Points 15 — 19% = 1 20 — 29% = 2 30 — 39% = 3 40 — 49% = 4 50% and up =5 Describe the level of project readiness and provide supporting documentation. In addition, include the level of coordination required with affected agencies. (0 — 5 points) 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) 15 " " D i v i s i o n B : H i s t o r i c / A r c h e o l o g i c a l P r o j e c t s 1 ) S p e c i f y t h e c u r r e n t r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l o r a r c h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n i s f e d e r a l , s t a t e , l o c a l o r o t h e r m e a s u r e o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) R e c o g n i t i o n I D N o . ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) P o i n t s L o c a l L a n d m a r k s P r o g r a m 1 R e g i o n a l A r c h a e o l o g i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n C t r . 2 C a l i f o r n i a R e g i s t e r o f H i s t o r i c a l R e s o u r c e s 3 S t a t e P o i n t s o f H i s t o r i c a l I n t e r e s t 3 S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l L a n d m a r k 4 N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r o f H i s t o r i c P l a c e s 5 N o t e : P r o j e c t s w i l l r e c e i v e p o i n t s f r o m o n e r e c o g n i t i o n c a t e g o r y o n l y . 2 ) W i l l t h e p r o j e c t e n h a n c e , p r e s e r v e , o r p r o t e c t a h i s t o r i c a r c h a e l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e a n d w h a t a g e n c i e s a r e i m p a c t e d o r i n v o l v e d ? ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) D i v i s i o n C : T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A e s t h e t i c s a n d S c e n i c V a l u e s P r o j e c t s 1 ) H o w a r e t h e s c e n i c o r a e s t h e t i c r e s o u r c e s r a r e , u n i q u e , o r r e g i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , o r h o w d o e s t h e p o t e n t i a l e x i s t f o r l a n d s c a p i n g o r s c e n i c b e a u t i f i c a t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s ? ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) 2 ) H o w d o e s t h e p r o j e c t p r e s e r v e , r e h a b i l i t a t e , o r d e v e l o p s c e n i c o r a e s t h e t i c r e s o u r c e s ? ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) D i v i s i o n D : E n v i r o n m e n t a l M i t i g a t i o n 1 ) W h a t i s t h e r e g i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m ( s ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t ? ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) 2 ) H o w d o e s t h e p r o p o s a l s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m a n d h o w i s i t o v e r a n d a b o v e s t a n d a r d m i t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s ? ( 0 5 p o i n t s ) 1 6 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDECOUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Development of Project Management Database BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; and, 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database. 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) Staff "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- is 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. Agenda Item 7E 17 Currently, the project manager must consult withthree different staff persons review and update 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 intended for that this database to be available and accessible to each local agency' and .the County, subregional agencies, transit operators, and Caltrans to review projects and update project information. This will significantly reduce the time it takes 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. It is anticipated that 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 Commission 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 costsand 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 Adjustment: No GLA No.: 106-65-65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \,y,,"14, b Date: 10/18/05 Attachments: Draft Request for Proposals Agenda Item 7E 18 i Attachment 1 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 (RCTC) 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 films 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 19 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 of RFP 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 Eligible proposals 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 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 -contractors) 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 30% 15% 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 • - Understanding of the project issues and potential conflicts including user rights and control of data input 20 i 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.rcta.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, 3`d 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 21 ATTACHMENT "A" RFP Submission Requirements 1. Technical Proposals must not be more than the equivalent of 25 single sided 8 '/z 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. 22 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 infotmation 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 23 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: Project 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. 24 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: Trainine 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 databasewould 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. 25 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 RCTC, which includes the development, implementation and testing' period. 26 Agreement No. _-_-_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR r DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1 SERVICES WITH ( CONSULTANT j 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 j ("Consultant'), a ( LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORATION j. 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 1 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 j 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 27 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. Any additional ` 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 personnel will 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: 28 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 reirnbursement 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 lawsand regulations in connection with Services: If the Consultantperforms 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 29 therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and holdCommission, 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 or 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. [ INCLUDE ONLY IF APPLICABLE DELETE OTHERWISE l 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. 30 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 shallnotbe 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 31 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 inCalifornia, 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 requirecomplete, 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. 1n 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 - f INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT 1' ($f INSERT' NUMERICAL "DOLLAR AMOUNT 1) 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 32 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. 3.16.3 Additional 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. 33 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, 31. 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 perpetuallicense 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 beat 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, 34 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 furnishedto 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 35 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, appropriateor 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 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. 36 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, shallcontaina 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 37 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 fora 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 38 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 39 Name Title RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS Government 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 / Charles "Bud" England, 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 40 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, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Bob Buster, County of Riverside - District John Tavaglione, County of Riverside - District 11 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 41 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee 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 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission 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; and, 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. 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 ,submitted a request that the Commission authorize construction funding in the amount of $905,000 for FY 2006. The original request ' sought funding in FY 2007 for the Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Agenda Item 7F 42 Andrew to Garfield Streets. The City's right-of-way acquisition process is 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: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $995,500 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 210-72-81301 P5122 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44"4„:4,1 Date: 10/17/05 Agenda Item 7F 43 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Expansion of CommuteSmart.info Traffic Map PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional ridesh'are website, www.CommuteSmart.info. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On January 24, 2005, www.CommuteSmart.info was unveiled to the public as the regions' one stop shopping center on the internet for regional rideshare, and commute information. The Commission, acting as the Regional Ridesharing Agency, took the lead in contracting the design and development of the website and is currently hosting it on behalf of the five county transportation commissions. By leveraging the use of pre-existing services and products, the Commission was able to place many different rideshare and commute information services on the website for a relatively low start-up cost. One of these services is the incorporation of a real time traffic information map. This map was originally developed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACoDPW) for a project located in the City of El Segundo. The map was 'provided to the Commission for incorporation into the CommuteSmart website at no charge by the LACoDPW. While already serving a relatively large area of Southern California, the traffic map was limited in its service of the Inland Empire. The Commission at its meeting of February 9, 2005 noted the lack of complete Inland Empire map coverage and directed staff to investigate the matter. Based on the Commission's approval of a staff recommendation at its March 18, 2005 meeting, staff entered into a contract with Iteris Inc. Iteris was the LACoDPW's original contractor for the map and the most qualified to perform the modifications necessary to increase the coverage and better serve the Inland Empire. Agenda Item 7G 44 Staff worked closely with Iteris to enhance the geographic coverage as well as site functionality and on September 19, 2005, implemented the enhanced map live onto the www.CommuteSmart.info website. As delivered, the enhanced map includes the following upgrades: 1. Expanded functionality into the south Riverside County areas through the I-15 corridor past the county line and into the San Diego metropolitan area. 2. Expanded functionality east through the SR 60 and I-10 corridors to includethe Pass Cities and the Coachella Valley while also extending to the Arizona/Nevada state lines. 3. Expanded functionality northward from the Coachella area, 'through Twentynine Palms, Yucca Valley to the 1-15 corridor and then northward to the California/Nevada state line. 4 Expanded functionality for the mountain areas of Big Bear westerly to Wrightwood with coverage of the Cajon Pass, and SR 138 to the SR 14. 5. Upgraded navigation functionality featuring arrows embedded directly into each area map allowing a user to page seamlessly between adjacent maps. Map functionality of the expansion areas relates closely to the original map wherever possible and the navigation tile page has been improved for ease of use. In areas where no congestion and speed data sources (i.e. roadway detection) are available from Caltrans, the minimum map functionality is the CHP incident reporting system and Caltrans changeable message sign display system: Staff would also like to note that the expansion was delivered :to, the Commission on time and within budget. Staff further notes that upgrade items 3 and 4 as identified above, were funded by the sister rideshare program of the San Bernardino Associated Governments and contracted through the Commission for development and implementation. Agenda Item 7G 45 AGENDA ITEM 7H RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission - FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Short Range 'Transit Plan Amendment: Riverside Transit Agency - Transit Centers PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Amend the FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projectsfor the continued development of transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5309 funds; and, 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2004, the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA)Board adopted a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee :(TUMF) Program' of Projects ,(POP) that included an expenditure plan for the use of TUMF revenue during the FY 2003-04 through FY 2008-09 time period. Per the adopted TUMF Administrative Plan, RTA is required to prepare a POP update that reflects changes in estimated project costs, project schedules, and ;updated TUMF revenue forecasts. As a result, RTA is requesting approval to ,amend its FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the updated POP for the development of transit centers. The transit TUMF funds are administered through the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). RTA is requesting approval to program $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's, Section 5309 funds for the Temecula Transit Center and $1,963,097 in TUMF funds for transit centers in Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside. Agenda Item 7H 46 Status Report on RTA's Transit Centers The following chart provides transit center configurations and specific features for each of the transit centers identified in RTA's POP together with estimated costs for developing each transit center: SUMMARY .OF TRANSIT CENTER DATA Location Classification Amenities Development Cost Corona Transit Center Multi -modal transit center Bus transfer station, 10 - 15 bays, shelters, parking, mixed -use retail $7.2M Riverside Multi -modal Transit Center Bus transit center Bus transfer station, 8 - 10 bus bays, shelters, parking $4.5M Perris Transit Center Phase 1 of future multi - modal transit center Bus transfer station, 8 - 10 bus bays, shelters ,parking ` $4.0M Hemet Transit Center Bus transit center Bus transit center $4.5M' Temecula Transit Center Future transit center z Future transit center $6.0M Moreno Valley Transit Center Future multi -Bus modal transit center transfer station, park-n-ride, mixed -use retail, 8 -10 bus bays, shelters, parking $6.0M Multi -modal Transit Centers are transit centers that include" bus transit operations, existing or proposed future commuter rail transit operations and/or adjoining existing commuter rail transit centers. The 'transit centers will serve as regional connection hubs for commuters traveling by rail tosurrounding counties, i.e. Orange, 'San Bernardino, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. The cost for this category of transit center is estimated at $6M, including land acquisition. ' $1.4M in funding currently available for the development of the Hemet Transit Center: 2 Classification of facility will be either a Bus Transit Center or a Multi -modal Transit Center. Classification dependent on availability of commuter rail services to the Temecula area. Agenda Item 7H 47 When the multi -modal transit centers include attached commercial retail, the cost increases to $7.2M. Bus Transit Centers are transit centers developed for bus transit operations only. They serve as sub -regional hubs that will provide bus commuter services and connections to adjoining communities. The cost for this category of transit center is estimated at $4.5M, including land acquisition. In addition to the six transit center projects identified, additional centers will be developed outside the current POP time period and will include the areas of Norco/Eastvale, Lake Elsinore/Murrieta, Menifee and Banning/Beaumont. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $2,059,237 Source of Funds: Sect on 5309 $96,140 WRCOG TUMF - $1,963,09,7 Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14.24,4,43d Date: 10/17/05 i Agenda Item 7H 48 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006-2010 Measure "A" five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. 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 (TU'MF) 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 citiesthat 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. Attachments: 1) City of Beaumont - Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan 2) City of Indio -'Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan Agenda Item 71 49 " R I V E R S I D E . C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N M E A S U R E "