Loading...
11 November 28, 2005 Budget & Implementation74877 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Monday, November 28, 2005 LOCATION: Board Chambers County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor Riverside, CA 92501 RECORDS ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Bob Magee, Chair / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Jeff Stone Vice Chair / District Three / County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Gregory S. Pettis / Charles "Bud" England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto John F. Tavaglione, District Two / County of Riverside ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure "A" Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian Property Management SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. 11.36.06 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:00 a.m. Monday, November 28, 2005 BOARD CHAMBERS County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, P Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. • Budget and Implementation Committee November 28, 2005 Page 2 6A. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 3 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. FY 2005-06 BECHTEL CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP 2009 MEASURE "A" 10 YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 10 1) Will be presented at the November 28, 2005 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting. 8. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030-02, AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030 WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Pg. 17 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment #2 to Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc., for property management support services related to all Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of $301,850, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee November 28, 2005 Page 3 9. FY 2006-10 MEASURE A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF NORCO Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AMENDMENT TO FY 2006 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS Pg. 29 11. Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-19-009-00 FOR MEASURE A REVENUE FORECAST UPDATE TO THE UCLA ANDERSON FORECAST OF THE UCLA ANDERSON SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT Pg. 38 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-19-009-00 to the UCLA Anderson Forecast of the UCLA Anderson School of Management (UCLA Anderson Forecast) to update the Commission's Measure A revenue forecast related to FY 2006/07 through FY 2038/39 at a cost not to exceed $20,000, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee November 28, 2005 Page 4 12. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-71-001-00 FOR ADVANCE TO CITY OF BLYTHE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 45 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-71-001-00, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $1,500,000 of new Measure A funds to the City of Blythe (Blythe) utilizing proceeds from the commercial paper program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX SYSTEM REDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 70 • 1) Authorize staff to reduce the number of call boxes throughout the Riverside County Call Box system by approximately 422 boxes; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 06-45-003-00 with Comarco Wireless Technologies for the removal and installation of call boxes and annual maintenance services for the Riverside County Call Box Program, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • Budget and Implementation Committee November 28, 2005 Page 5 14. AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 72 1) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-006-00, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #2 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $47.75 per hour per truck; 2) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-005-00, with two one-year options to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat #25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $48.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-004-00, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #26 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $49.50 per hour per truck; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 76 1) Award a three year consultant agreement, No. 06-15-008-00, to Geographics with two one-year term extension options for communications and graphic design services on an as needed, time and materials basis pursuant to the hourly rates stated in their proposal; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee November 28, 2005 Page 6 16. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview 1) This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 18. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 8:30 A.M., Monday, January 23, 2006, Board Chambers, 1st Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. ATTENDANCE ROSTER BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005 - 10:00 A.M. NAME ec_ `N t REPRESENTING c< r-(5--/bQ L� C_. �z 3 4ra,., '4%0 TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL (.740)S-74'-/V4 a ad..efah ode. • AGENDA ITEM 4 • Minutes • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, October 24, 2005 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Magee at 10:03 a.m., in the Board Chambers at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Roger Berg Chris Buydos Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Bob Magee Paul Marchand Ameal Moore Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Robert Crain Juan DeLara Ron Meepos Kelly Seyarto Matt Weyuker 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted additional information for Agenda Item 8, "Amendment to Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs". • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 27 and August 22, 2005 M/S/C (Stone/Buydos) to approve the June 27 and August 22, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Henderson — August 22 Marchand — June 27 and August 22 6. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Henderson/Tavaglione) to approve the following Consent Calendar items and forward to the Commission for final action. 6A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. 6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. 6C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. 7. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT AND INDIO Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, presented the FY 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. He noted that not all of the cities have submitted the required documents. M/S/C (Henderson/Stone) to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 3 8. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS Jerry Rivera presented the requests from the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs to amend their Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads. M/S/C (Buydos/Stone) 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; 2) FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-550 FOR OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Jerry Rivera provided a brief overview of the fund transfer agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program. M/S/C (Buydos/Marchand) to: 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,175,933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3► Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 4 11. 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Shirley Medina, Program Manager, provided an overview of the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program and the evaluation process and criteria. She then reviewed the proposed TE funding recommendations and the estimated timeline for programming. In response to Commissioner John Tavaglione's question regarding opportunities to increase a jurisdiction's local match, Shirley Medina responded that the evaluation meeting was a jurisdiction's final opportunity to modify their respective projects. M/S/C (Buydos/Marchand) to: 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Ca!trans Headquarters; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE Shirley Medina reviewed the need and benefit for the development of a project management database and provided an overview of the envisioned capabilities. She then explained the project schedule and 'budget. M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. TUMF 'REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs, briefly reviewed the request from the City of Riverside for.TUMF Regional funding for the Van Buren Boulevard widening project. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 5 M/S/C (Moore/Henderson) to: 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; 2) Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in construction contingency costs ($90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, the Commission operated as a "Committee as a Whole", due to lack of a quorum. 14. 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN COUNTY HIGHWAY PROGRAM TEN-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND NEGOTIATION OF BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT AMENDMENT Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of the elements in the development of the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program Ten -Year Strategic Plan. He then provided the basis for the recommendation to amend the Bechtel Infrastructure agreement to provide an objective assessment of the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program of Projects and update the delivery status of the 1989 Measure. Commissioner Paul Marchand asked if there is a model by which escalation can be factored for increases in land value and construction materials costs, and asked how the issue of correctly sizing a structure to meet the need will be addressed. Hideo Sugita responded that project costs will be forecast on a constant value and as the growth of the County continues, the constant value will be factored and comparable to the revenue forecasts. Also, projects will be sized based on 20-year forecasted traffic analysis, then its impact weighed against delivery costs and funding. He noted that staff has asked Caltrans to review existing right-of-way for opportunities to deliver projects sooner. Eric Haley provided an overview of the predictability issue for project costs facing the Commission. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 6 M/S/C IHenderson/Marchand) to recommend to the Commission to: 1) 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. 15. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Committee on the status and transportation impacts of the SB 1024 and Propositions 42 and 76. He explained that staff is recommending a change in the bill position on SB 1024 from "Oppose" to "Support with Amendments" to provide an opportunity to work with the author to ensure the state makes a needed investment in transportation issues in the region. He then provided an overview of "Operation Offset" that attempts to identify potential offsets in response to Hurricane Katrina. In response to Commissioner Terry Henderson question regarding allocation percentages for SB 1024, John Standiford responded that the allocation percentages are detailed in the bill. In response to Commissioner Marchand's question regarding the types of allocations, John Standiford indicated that infrastructure, goods movement, grade separations, and port issues will be an important priority in the coming year. Eric Haley noted that Senator Don Perata has indicated that the decision making would be done at the California Transportation Commission. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes October 24, 2005 Page 7 M/S/C (Marchand/Henderson) to recommend to the Commission to: 1) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; 2) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 17. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF There were no comments from Commissioners or staff. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board • AGENDA ITEM 6A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the quarterly investment and cash flow reports as required by state law and Commission policy. The County's Investment Report for the month ended September 30, 2005 is also attached for review. Attachments: 1) Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter ended September 30, 2005 2) County of Riverside Investment Report for the Month ended September 30, 2005 1 • Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Portfolio Report Period Ending: September 2005 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYSEITCH/S8P VALUE _ DATE _ DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $ 37,584 A3/333134 Cash with County Treasurer 158,753,343 Aeon/MI/AAAN+1 Local Agency Investment Fund 3,047,837 Not Rated AgencyfTreasury Securities: FNMA 1,978.123 AANAAA 2,090,000 0329/04 03/29/06 2.05% 2,000,000 1,978,120 (21,880) Federal Farm Credit Bank 2,965,320 AANAAA 3,000,000 02/15/05 02/15/07 3.50% 3,000,000 2,965320 (34,680) Federal Home Loan Bank 1,963,760 AAA/AAA 2.000,000 02/18/05 08/18I06 3.383/3 2,000,000 1,903,760 (16.240) Federal Home Loan Bank 2,976,570 AANAAA 3,000,000 06/15/05 06/29/07 4.01% 3,000,000 2,976,570 (23,430) Federal Home Loan Bank- Mortgage Certificate 3,971,880 AAA/AAA 4,000.000 04/26/05 11/15106 3.78% 3,998.425 3,971.880 (26,545/ Federal Home Loan Bank 2.984.070 AANAAA 3,600,000 07/15/05 04/27/07 4,13% 3.000.000 2,984,370 (15,930) Money Market Mutual Funds -CNI Charter 236,444 AANAAA 236,444 Federal Home Loan-MED Term Note 1,995,620 AAA/AAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 2.29% 1.903,716 1,995,620 FNMA Note FHLB Global Notes FHLMC Global Reference Notes Sub -Total FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: 1,932,333 AANAAA 1.950,000 03/17/04 D3/17/06 2.469,525 AAA/AAA 2.600.000 01/27/05 05/15/06 2.91% 236444 236,444 2.08% 1,951,066 1,932,333 3.24% 2,468,808 2.469,525 2666,400 AANAAA 2,500.000 01/27/05 08/15/06 3.31% 2,478,950 2,466400 187798,807 $26,186,444 $26,127409 $25,960,042 Local Transportation Fund 46,730.393 Aaa-MRt/AAANa1 Sub -Total 46,730,593 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Date % City of Canyon lake 300,000 0661/09 4.75% Sub -Total 300,000 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE First American Treasury 12,968640 AANAAA U.S. Treasury Notes 15,594,171 AAA/AAA First American Government O bligation Fund 23,796,623 AAA/AAA First American Treasury - Held in Trust 949, 793 AA/AAA Sub -Total 53,309,027 TOTAL $ 208,130,426 0 1,904 (18,733) 718 (12,550) $ (167.3661 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks 3 37,584 Cash with County 205,483,936 LAIF 3,047,837 Mutual Funds, First American Treasury- Trust 13,918,233 First American Government Obligation Sub- Total Mutual Funds 23,7913,623 37,714.856 Federal Agency Notes 25,960,042 U.S. Treasury Notes 15.594.171 Inveslment Agreements 303,000 TOTAL 288.138,426 0) Investment with cities Is rappdad as aloan receivable for financial reporting purposes. 15,632.000 0524/D8 11/30/05 1.88% 15,925,101 15,594,171 pagan) • Statement of Compliance All of the above investments and any investment decisions made for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy as adopted on March 18, 2005. The Commission has adequate cash flows for six months of operations. Signed by. �L�dt� Chief Financial Officer County Administrative Genie, Investment Objectives • • • • Safety of Principal Liquidity Public Trust Maximum Rate of Return September 2005 Treasurer's Commentary "The Aftermath " Hurricane Rita came hard on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, battering the already -stricken Gulf Coast, causing further evacuations, and dis- rupting the supply of petroleum products such as oil and natural gas. According to the Fed, "Output appeared poised to continue growing at a goad pace before the tragic toll of Hurricane Katrina. The widespread devastation in the Gulf region, the associated dislocation of economic activity, and the boost to energy prices imply that spending, produc- tion, and employment will be set back in the near term". These inopportune events have amplified uneasiness about short-term economic growth. The Fed, however, believes that the rebuilding effort could spur long-term growth and that inflation remains the biggest threat to the health of the U.S. economy; all indications point to more Fed rate increases in the near future. At this point we will continue our course of selected buying up the yield curve. r/r.0 iI.(.g..Y Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector I i .erk co o tCanojcaforsn Durable Goods Orders -for September 28h 3.3%actual vs. 0.7%survey Gross Domestic Product(GDP) -for Sep- tember 29th 3.3%actual vs. 3.3%survey Consumer Confidence— Index -September 27th 86.6 actual vs. 95.0 survey Factory Orders -August 30th -1.9%actual vs. -2.3%survey Unemployment Rate- for September2nd 4.9% actual vs.5.0%survey At month's end, the Fed Funds rate was 3.75%, with a balanced bias. The 2 year T-Note was yielding 4.14% (up 27 bps.) while the 10 year T•Note was yielding 4.31% (up 26 bps.) For Sep- tember, the Pool had an increase of 12 bps. in the average monthly yield. Portfolio Statistics (Nbnfh-End Book Value 'tvbrdMFnd [v13rlet Value' :Piper Gain or (Loss) Percent of Paper Gam or Loss ;Yield -Based Upon Book Value lAbighted Average Maturity (Yrs) IIvbdihed Ourabon *Market values does not include accrued interest September August • 3,292,113,524 , $ 3,099,360,588 t $ 3,274,356,759 $ 3,086,651,772 : $ (17,756,765): _$_._.._.__... (12,708,816)1 $ -0.54%I-0.41%1 3 37 3.251 0.79'., 0.80 0 75 0.73 July 3,067,073,774 $ 3,049,921,183.$ (17,152,592) $ 056% 3.11 0.79 0.75 June 3,117,778,438 $ 3,105,755,904 i $ (12,022,534)F $ May . April 3.341,044,821 $3,635,536,228 3,328,650,991 $3618,941,842 (12,393,830) $ (16,594,386) -0.39%{ 3.0W, -0.37% i 2.90i 0.75: 0.71 0.60'. O.sa -0.46% 281 0.64 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 4 Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR MilliMMENNMEMMLIIILMI/inn Federal Agency 2,313,720,107.32 Cash Equivalent & MMF€ 233,000,000.00 Commercial Paper { 348,122,513.89 Negotiable CD's 250,000,000.00 Medium Term Notes 19,699,650.00 Municipal Bonds 82,745,137.40 Certificates of Deposit 25,000,000.00 Local Agency Obligation 1,770,000.00 Total .._ 3,274,356,759 Cash Equivale'd smINF--�I 712'/o Federal Agency �'--1_ i0 fib% 30 days or Less 30 90 Days 90 Days -1 Year' 1-2 Years - 2-3Years Market Value 416,611,944.4-1 960 849,180.56 872,868,658.96 711,136,190.85 306,175,483.80 Over 3 Years Total 6,715,300.00 3,274,356,759 30%. 20% 10% 0% 24 Month Gross Yield Trends C REDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-tor better N/R M arket Value 2,313,720,107.32 102,744,137.40 656,122,513.89 201,770, 000.00 Total 3.14% 3,274,356,759 Federal Agency 70.66% 30 days 30- 96 90 Days - 1 - 2 2 - 3 Over 3 or Less Days 1 Year Years Years Years Page 2 Market Data 9/30/05 8/31/05 Diff. 3 M 3.538 3.498 .0399 6 M 3.916 3.707 .2089 2Y 4.165 3.811 .3536 5Y 4.189 3.859 .3505 10:Y 4.324 4.014 .3103 30 Y 4.567 4.254 .3130 5 .l- 3 2 1 0 �$;9/30/200.5 .11 waver's,' 3M0 5M0 2YR 5YR 10YR 30YR * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMMI) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. It is a composite index derived from the average of three multi -billion dollar AAA rated Prime (funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments includ- ing U.S. Treasuries, government agencies, bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements, etc.) portfolios that the Treasurer tracks. Further details available upon request. • 5 Portfolio Month End Portfolio Pa zw4 • 11 • Month End Portfolio Holdings Report C Pape 3 of { 93 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report M Alwwl%VmMld0-xN-�- I -Va"dw ��dK� 1--gw- MOM.M.00 CITY�TIONAL 3.60 limms 100.00 ioow,mm 3.60 011 0$1 '4ro - 43yr,': Mo,"W; -a.0 3.75 0.14 0.14 Total 3.290,V5.000 3,292,113.624 3,274.3 .Rill (17.756,7651 14531136 0.n 0.792023 1. The Market value and yieM of show a mmM madcsl securities are haled he pumLasvd prim. 2_ Averope Life M the nunher of years until prindDal is reNmM at maWdry, weph@d 0Y maM1el value. 3. Local Agemy Oftaflos have vwiagie rein coupons, spread 0 Pool. 4. Modeled lNuidion. The pevoenaoe price chaMe 0 a secuOy %r a given change Page 4of4 E 0 0 • Summary of Authorized Investments The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy. The County's Investment Policy is more restrictive than the California Government Code. This policy is reviewed annually by the County's Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. LOCAL AGENCY BONDS 5 YEARS NO LIMIT ' 3 YEARS 15%/ $15OMM i A/A2/A 3 2 53% f TREASURY' :. I CALIFORNIA LOCAL : 2.5% ,-- INVESTMENT GRADE # 0.05% AGENCY DEBT 5 YEARS I NO LIMIT 3 YEARS ` EEDERA- LjAGENCIFS T y 5 YEARS C1U-II�7}'C '" AAA -.z, �; K '* - a§Mv - t� 1tl.66% sz-" . = t s .aaiT35a a''" vYrp.L"� BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS ; 40%w ! 180 DAYS :' 30% , A1/P1/F1 0.00% 1:: GQM�l1ERpAL -!Z7 ,DA' r4O9 s a'A''1/, P�1 - sv �.27EkDhKSx N' d036.. ZA. 4fF"1�F1 ' 1d�639fiA CERTIFICATE & TIME i 7.64% DEPOSITS 5 YEARS l 30% t 1 YEAR ?. 25% MAX j A1/P1/F1 aREPURCHASE~AGA,EEMENTSz_ IYEARSM M I^gS 77.%-"� L REVERSE REPOS 92 DAYS 20% 60 DAYS : 10%MAX N/A '. 0.00% v YhIP�d TERM NQTES .5"YEAR5 ..3,�r�% x A rtd rg_ r'T 2YFARS`j 5 �09 MAX � hAo ` 061% CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND _ N/A €N/A N/A 1 DAILY LIQUIDITY 1% ' Board Approved 0.76% "h1UTUAL FUND$'4 rm '' -� 90 QAYSlA +,' CAI Aaa lal DAILY.LIRt11DITY a' 20 '1 'bg2:OF3 „a, tY,tiO%' _.3p9y3'i`L, -, „'S.Tig,< RATIN%AGC , SECURED BANK DEPOSITS - 0.00% 5 YEARS t NO LIMIT 11YEAR 2% $$- MORTGAGE P - !? AASECURITYA- -qN/A ,iTfiROUGH SECURITIES ty 3 5YEARS 15SUEFj� R A' t LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS - N/A NO LIMIT 3 YEARS 0% MAX !. 0.00% ;EASH/DEPOSIT+ACAUM,s �_N�A NJA Ai, �?>L %i NN�a- ..arm', riM/A� .,.rNA �+ Ab more ihan 30%or Ibis category may be invested with any Me commercial Dank * Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as weighted average maturity not exceeding 90 days t Or must have an investment advisor wkh rot less then 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000. Projected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA1GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page • AGENDA ITEM 7 • C • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28,, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita,Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director 2005-06 Bechtel Contract Amendment to Provide an Assessment SUBJECT: on the Completion of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program and Development of the Initial 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program 10 Year Delivery Plan STAFF RECOMMENDA TION: This item is for the Committee!i to . , 1) Approve amendment # 1 (#05-31-561-01) to the 2005-06 Bechtel Infrastructure - - contract (#05 31 5G 1) with the Commission. in the amount of $603,244 with $96,756 contingency - for a total of $700,000 to support the development of the status and deliverability of the 1989 Measure "A" -Western County'- Highway Program of - Projects and the, development of the initial 10 year delivery .plan for the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. I BACKGROUND INFORMA TION; At the November 9, 2005 meeting the Commission directed staff to work with Bechtel Infrastructure to develop' a scope of work and schedule to assist the Commission in determining the status and deliverability of the 1989. Measure "A" Western County Highway Program and developing the initial 2009 Measure "A" Western Highway Program 10 year Delivery Plan. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday and the limited time to prepare the proposal it is being handed out for Committee consideration and action. Attached to the item are the !scope, schedule and cost proposal for the :1989 and 2009 Measure "A" efforts. ' It DISCUSS/ON. i �; k The scope; 'of services! proposed supporting an lid rec Ieiv'rng policy directic coordinatio,n� with the western county.j II and CVAG. asl nelcessa'ry to delineate:; �� o' This wrl,l; likely in Commission on progress olive Periodic repo and issues. The work, effort will include: I I I Development of `; a report on th 6� " County Measure"A" Hi hwa r g Y P; I { m what C� are . identification III the l+ challenges in d of steps necessary i, oft: challenges facing these pr II g I� j and funliJing � ,I ,� fl I► !I �� Pr,'ep,aration) oaffic II f tr forecasts f Highway projects including an i program of projects funded throul ,� Collection • it and ;development. 01 ' nitude II magm j • Prel 'in ary cost environmental estimates. screil ' existing plans document that li;ke the MSHCP likely be requ ;I that ns may II Caltrar IF III be involved. k ,cities, County, tra II Developmelnt of initial timelines implementation. Quantification. of user benefits projects. ;I I I • Development of ,a project �evalua P perforr lancle Devello melnt + (measures of acost-benefit an ' P Development of an evaluation. rn measurs to Development+ 4 rank projects,: or' pro II II I of Is financial �. availability to a mod the'( highest ranking Development+ �r of a final report. It it it I, " h � it ,seven (7) month work effort directed at. n from. a Commission Ad +Hoc Committee, ' i"ites, thel Cou�lnty, Caltrans, and WRCOG the various project issues; anal challenges. t, . from the Ad Hoc Committee to the ea status of the', remaining 1989 Western + a{gram of projects. The effort will focus on ,'fivering the remaining projects and the # ; :o assure delivery in a timely fashion. Most elects are the n ''rmal ones,, time to develop, )r the 2009 Western County Measure "A a iq'{ ti i assessment of,�l the freeway interchange �hrTUMF, ill i project 1cost information and order of i �m Includin �a consistenc check with 1I g Ii g , Y to� determine the type of environmental ed and a listing I16!li f the cooperating agencies it II I,! PA; Armyl Corp; USF&W,I' FHWA, CDFG, isit: operators, eJill tc..) f for each proje�!ct's,- or project segment's resulting from the implementation of the Ji ,i'on model based on the state's recognized alysis for each ,grouping of projects. atrix combining j�quantitative and qualitative a;+F � , ect- segments. - et which will a ''ply the estimated revenue pirvjects it ;I 1, I '. • The estimated cost of the work effort is estimated to be $603,244 with up to $210,000 identified for traffic consultant support, $8,925 for GIS support from WRCOG, $13, 093 for ROW support consultant, $15,800 to cover travel, support expenses such as communication, postage and printing, and $355,426 identified to support the Bechtel Infrastructure effort. Given a $700,000 estimated budget there will be $96,756 available as contingency. As part of this effort is directed at the current 1989 Measure "A" program, $42,000 of the funding to support this effort will be provided through the existing Measure "A" Western County Highway Program account and the balance will be provided through the Commercial Paper program. • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget 7FNo Year: 2005-06 Amount: $700,000 Source of Funds: $42,000 Measure "A", $658,000 Commercial Paper Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 303-31-81001 (Contract Amendment # 05-31-561-01 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 1 1 /28/05 Proposed Scope of Work for the DELIVERY PLAN FOR THE FIRST TEN -YEARS OF THE 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM November 23, 2005 is • • U TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paste 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION.............:........................................... 1 1.1 Objectives of the Delivery Plan...................................................3 2. GENERAL APPROACH AND WORK PLAN....................................................4 2.1 Work Flow Chart.....................................................................5 3. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................7 3.1 Requirements to Complete the 1989 Measure "A" HighwayProgram....................................................................7 3.2 Policy Directions for First 10 Year Delivery Plan Development ..............7 3.3 Prioritization Methodology and Criteria ............................... .....8 3.4 Engineering Characteristics of Projects Proposed in the 2009 Measure "A„ Extension.......................................................9 3.5 Quantification of Project Benefits .............................................. 12 3.6 Assembly and Development of Project Cost Estimates ....................... 12 3.6.1 Projects under Development by CALTRANS/Others .................. 12 3.6.2 Undefined Projects........................................................ 13 3.6.3 Preliminary -Schedules for Project Implementation .................. 13 3.7 Cost -Benefit Analysis.............................................................. 14 3.7.1 Benefit -Cost Ratio.................................:....................... 14 3.7.2 Net Present Value......................................................... 14 3.8 Project Evaluation and Prioritization ........................................... 14 3.9 Development of the Ten -Year Delivery Plan and Financial Model.......... 15 3.10 Preparation of the Final Report ................................................. 15 4. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................... 16 5. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES.. ........ o ....................... o .......... o ...................... 17 6. PROPOSED STAFFING AND COSTS ........................................................ 18 Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 1 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Since 1988, Bechtel has been engaged by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in managing the delivery of the 1989 Measure "A" program of highway and rail projects. In partnership with the Commission Staff, Bechtel has successfully assisted with the delivery of these projects. This first measure program will expire in 2009. The voters of Riverside County have recently approved the extension of the one- half percent sales tax for transportation projects for another 30 years, dubbed the 2009 Measure "A" extension. The proceeds of this measure will supplement traditional (and program -focused) federal and state transportation funds to fund the improvement and maintenance of the County's transportation system. In conjunction with the passage of the 30 year extension of Measure "A", a developer fee referred to as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was also enacted to address the impacts of development on the transportation system. The combination of the one half cent sales tax and the TUMF fees will provide a significant source of funding .to work in conjunction with and further leverage the • State and Federal dollars that will be available to Riverside County. This is a critical point in the planning horizon for the Commission to fully understand the resources and actions that will be required to complete the 1989 Measure, "A" program of projects. Because of the long lead time required to deliver a highway project in today's environment it is equally important for the Commission to put in motion the necessary planning activities that will be required to initiate the first set of projects from the 2009 Measure "A" list of projects. Over the next 6-9 months, the Commission will be directly involved in the completion of several activities that are related to the delivery of the Measure "A" Projects. These include: ➢ The update of the revenue forecast for Measure "A" and the development of funding projections for other revenue sources to be earmarked for Riverside County transportation improvement projects, over the next roughly 15-years that will complete the 1989 Measure "A" program of projects and start the first 10 years of delivery of the 2009 Measure "A" program of projects. ➢ The development of a Financial Model and a Financing Plan to disburse the earmarked funds for the delivery of identified transportation improvement • projects. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 1 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program LJ ➢ The preparation of the Western County Freeway Strategic Study which will evaluate the relationship of new population growth on freeway capacity and the feasibility of establishing a new fee on new developments to support highway capacity improvements. ➢ Preparation of Route 91 Major Investment Study (MIS) that will look at a suite of options to provide relief for the congestion on SR 91 near the Orange County line. ➢ Completion of the Project Report and Environmental Document for the SR 91 HOV widening project between Adams Street. and the SR 60/91/1-215 interchange. This is the largest remaining project from the original Measure "A" list of projects. This project, or portions of the project, will then be ready to move into final design and right-of-way acquisition. i Parallel with the above effort, the State will be completing several activities that will have direct implications on the delivery of the 2009 Measure "A" projects for Western County. They include: • ➢ Development of the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ➢ Completion of major Project Study Reports (PSRs) covering the following 2009 Measure "A" highway projects: ■ State Route 91 — Pierce Street to State Route 241 including State Route 91 westbound to northbound connector to State Route 71 ■ 1-1 5/State Route 91Connector-1-15 northbound to State Route 91 westbound ■ 1-215 from Perris to the 1-15/1-215 split ■ 1-15 from 1-15/1-215 split south to the San Diego County line ■ Entire 1-15 within Riverside county Meanwhile, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is scheduled to complete the prioritization of their 2009 Measure "A" Projects in January 2006. In order to analyze the implications of all the above activities and integrate their results and conclusions in the Western County Transportation Program, the Commission has asked Bechtel to develop a scope of work, a budget and a schedule aimed at the development of a Delivery Plan for the 1st 10 years of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Projects (The Delivery Plan). • Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 2 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program C�A 1.1 Objectives of the Delivery Plan The objectives of this Delivery Plan are: ➢ An assessment of the status and issues of completing the delivery of the Western, County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure, ➢ An objective based assessment of the Western County portion of the 2009 Measure "A" Transportation Program. ➢ Prioritization of the Western County program of projects ➢ Development of a Ten -Year Delivery Plan that will cover the first ten years of the 30 year extension of Measure "A" The following sections present Bechtel's approach to this assignment, description of the scope of services, an implementation schedule, and a cost estimates for the identified services. is • Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 3 the First Ten -Years of the2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 2. GENERAL APPROACH AND WORK PLAN There are several studies, either under the auspices of the Commission or under the direction of CALTRANS, which are underway, as described in section 1 above. All will have direct implications on the conduct of this assignment and on the development of the Delivery Plan. Bechtel is in the unique position of being aware of all of these activities and is currently playing an active role in the management of each project for which the Commission is the lead agency. As part of this scope of service, Bechtel will continue to monitor these studies and interact with most of them on a continuous basis. This effort will involve extracting information from reports and documents produced by the studies, attending periodic meetings, workshops and public meetings, providing data and information on the Measure "A" Program, reviewing draft reports on behalf of the Commission, etc. In addition, Bechtel will assist with any coordination effort that may be required with the Board of Supervisors, city officials of Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley Association of Government, plus any other stakeholders that will be engaged in this planning activity. • This assignment also includes a number of tasks that we plan to start immediately and work simultaneously; they are: 1. The assessment of the status of the uncompleted projects for the Western County 1989 Measure "A" Program. This assessment will be focused on what it will take to complete the remaining projects and what steps must be taken to assure that they will be completed in a timely fashion. 2. The preparation of traffic forecasts for the proposed 2009 Measure "A" projects. 3. Collection of all available project cost information and the development of order -of -magnitude cost estimates for those projects for which no costs have been estimated. 4. Preliminary environmental screening, which would include a check for consistency with existing plans (i.e. MSHCP) and a preliminary determination of the type of environmental document that might be required and list of potential lead and cooperating agencies that may be involved. 5. The development of a timeline. for each major project's implementation or • segments thereof. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 4 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 6. The quantification of user benefits accruing from the implementation of the proposed projects. 7. The development of a project evaluation model based on the State's recognized performance measures, and, 8. The continuing analysis of the results and recommendations of on -going studies on the 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan. Following the completion of the above detailed simultaneous tasks, estimated to consume about three months, Bechtel will embark on the remaining tasks of the assignment, mainly: 1. The development of Cost -Benefit Analysis (CBA) for each grouping of projects, in accordance with State's recognized performance measures 2. The development of an evaluation matrix, combining quantitative and qualitative measures, leading to the ranking of projects or major segments thereof. 3. Development of a Financial Model that will take the assumed funds that will be available and. apply them to the delivery of the highest priority projects. 4. The development of a ten-year Delivery Plan for the Western County Projects. 5. Delivery of the final report. Throughout this work process, our work will interact with the Commission Staff on a continuous basis, and will receive guidance, from the Commission appointed Ad Hoc Committee. In addition, Bechtel will support periodic presentations to the Commission and Ad Hoc Committee on the progress of the study and major findings thereof. 2.1 Work Flow Chart The following chart depicts the flow of the above work tasks and outlines major milestones throughout the duration of the assignment. i Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 5 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure W Western Riverside County Transportation Program R s C� 3 0 LL i c a � S E n° Q o 7 N O O O N a) m m a o E m a¢a Oc W og$ 0 O '0N ~ L C O � O C } C N O ILy O N vl a�3. 0 3. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES This section presents a brief description of the scope of services for the 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan assignment. 3.1 Requirements to Complete the 1989 Measure "A" Highway Program There are only three years left in the life of the 1989 Measure "A" Program and most projects in the Program are already completed. The remaining few projects are mostly under construction or in the process of being environmentally cleared and designed. Therefore, this is an opportune time to take stock of the status of this program, analyze any remaining issues and develop options for their resolution, and identify "lessons learned" for application to the 2009 Measure. This task, using data and information already in the Commission's and Bechtel's data files plus other activities currently under way (particularly in the funding arena), will develop the following: ➢ A summary of completed projects to -date presented in a standardized format (one page per project), listing highlights of improvements ➢ A summary of projects under design or construction, in the same format as above. ' ➢ A summary of Measure projects that have not started yet and estimated cost and schedule for their delivery ➢ An estimate of all revenues likely to be available in the remaining three years from all sources that can be applied to the 1989 Measure program ➢ Matching remaining project expenditures with likely available revenues and identifying surpluses or shortfalls. ➢ Identifying issues involved in various facets of the remaining program, options for their resolution, and recommendations to the Commission. i 3.2 Policy Directions for First 10 Year Delivery Plan Development The ten-year Delivery Plan will set the policy and direction for the implementation of the 2009 Measure "A" projects, for the first ten years of the program and will have significant influence on how the remaining projects in the later years of the soPropose are addressed. Throughout the development of this Delivery Plan, Bechtel Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page.7 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 will uncover many issues that will require policy directions. For each issue, Bechtel will summarize available options, identify pros and cons, and provide a recommendation, as warranted. Bechtel will then coordinate with.RCTC Staff and the Commission's AD HOC Committee for policy directions on each identified issue. Following is a preliminary list of issues likely to be faced: ➢ Exploration of additional funding sources such as private financing ➢ Weighting of evaluation criteria to be used to prioritize projects ➢ Development of policies on corridor preservation for future highway and rail projects ➢ Direction on project readiness issues such as having projects shelf ready to take advantage of additional or special funding schemes that might only come available from the State or Federal government if a project is ready to deliver . ➢ Policy issues arising during coordination activities with outside agencies ➢ Policy issues arising during coordination activities with Commission financial advisor ➢ Policy positions on legislative needs to support delivery schemes beneficial to the Commission's adopted delivery plan ➢ Return to Source Issues otherwise known as the distribution of benefits in proportion to the contribution of each population segment to the revenues generated by the Measure. 3.3 Prioritization Methodology and Criteria A set of evaluation criteria and measurement parameters will be developed to be used in evaluating and ranking proposed Measure "A" Projects, or segments thereof. Quantitative as well as qualitative measures will be used to capture all the elements that influence project selection. The overriding principle in this effort is the maximization of the total benefits (tangible and intangible) that would accrue to the taxpayers of the County, and to the State from the movement of goods and regional traffic. The quantitative aspects of this evaluation process will focus on the project's costs and benefits and the relationships derived from these two components in the form of a cost -benefit ratio or net present value. But, project Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 8 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 costs, in and by themselves, will constitute a significant evaluation measure. For example, a project that could exhibit the highest cost benefit ratio, but its implementation could consume the majority of the available funds generated by the Measure, leaving very little money to the myriad of other transportation needs of the County may not score as high as a project with smaller cost -benefit ratio but also less implementation cost. Implementation schedule is another important criterion since the needs of the County are critical and immediate. Opportunity issues will also be evaluated and discussed to capture concepts such as a disproportionate increase in costs that will occur if a project is delivered later in the program because of issues such as the cost of acquiring the right-of-way is expected to significantly increase as a result of development pressure. The qualitative criteria may include such elements as environmental compatibility, development pressures, visual impacts, neighborhood cohesiveness, quality of living and the like. 3.4 Engineering Characteristics of Projects Proposed in the 2009 Measure "A" Extension The 2009 Measure "A" approved by. the voters of Riverside County included specific Western -County highway projects as listed below: State Highway Improvements Route Project Limits Project Scope Rt91 Pierce St to Orange County Line Add 1 lane each direction Rt91 /1-15 Interchange New Connector from 1-15N to Rt91 W Rt91/Rt71 Interchange Improve Interchange Rt71 Rt91 to San Bernardino County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction 1-215 60/91 /1-215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line Add 2 lanes each direction 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave to 1-15 Add 1 lane each direction 1-15 Rt60 to San Diego County Line Add 1 lane each direction 1-10 San Bernardino County Line to Banning Add Eastbound truck climbing lane I-10/Rt60 Interchange Construction new Interchange Rt60 Badlands Area, East of Moreno Valley Add truck climbing lane Rt79 Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Realign Highway Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 9 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program L In addition to 'the highway improvements listed above, the 2009 Measure "A" program included funding for four new corridors that were identified as part of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Transportation, Acceptability Process (CETAP). The new corridors included two intra-county corridors and two new inter -county. corridors that would provide congestion relief for State Route 60, State Route 91, Interstate 15, and Interstate 215. The new corridors are needed to accommodate traffic flowing within Riverside County as well as traffic flowing between Riverside County and both Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Subsequent to; the passage of the Measure Program the Commission has taken action to begin implementation of the two intra-county corridors. The north -south intra-county corridor will be collocated with 1-215 and 1-15 between Newport Road on the 1-215 south to Pala Road (State Route 79) on the 1-15. A project study report is currently in progress on this project and is being prepared by Caltrans. The new east -west, intra-county corridor, now referred to as the Mid County Parkway Corridor, will follow the general alignment of Ramona Expressway between State Route 79 in the city of San Jacinto to 1-215 in the city of Perris, and will generally follow the Cajalco Road alignment between 1-215 in the city of Perris and 1-15 in, the city of Corona. RCTC is currently preparing a project report and environmental document for the Mid County Parkway Project. The four corridors are listed below: Development of New Transportation Corridors (4) New CETAP Transportation Corridors Corridor Name General Location CETAP Designator Widening of 1-15 to 14 lanes from the junction with 1-215 south to SR-79 Winchester to (Pala Road) and the widening of 1-215 North/South Intra-County Temecula to 10 lanes from Newport Road to the Corridor junction with F15 Mid County Parkway Ramona Expressway - Rt79 to 1-215 'East/West Intra-County Corridor Cajalco Rd - 1-215 to 1-15 Riverside to Parallel Route to SR 91 between East/West Inter -County Corridor Orange County Corona and Lake Elsinore Part of Major Investment Study (MIS) Moreno Valley to Rt60/1-215 to F10 @California St North/South Inter -County San Bernardino Corridor Proposed Soope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 10 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program r1 i� 0 A number of regional arterial projects, including interchanges with major highway facilities, .have' also been identified in the Measure "A" ballot initiative within the Western County as eligible to receive Measure and TUMF funding. These projects are: Regional Arterial System Street Name Project Limits Lead Agency 1 Van Buren Blvd 1-215 to Rt60 City of Riverside & Riverside County 2 Alessandro Blvd 1-215 Westerly to Central Ave City of Riverside & Riverside County 3 Central Ave Alessandro Blvd to Van Buren Blvd City of Riverside 4 Arlington Ave Central Ave to Van Buren Blvd City of Riverside 5 Green River Rd Dominguez Ranch Rd to Rt91 City of Corona 6 Foothill Parkway Lincoln Ave to Green River Rd City of Corona 7 Scott Rd Rt79 to 1-215 Riverside County 8 Clinton Keith Rd Rt79 to 1-215 Murrieta 9 Date St Rt79 to 1-15 Murrieta & Temecula 10 Rt79/1-10 Interchange Imps and bypass to 1-10 Beaumont 11 Ramsey St Banning City Limits to Field Rd Banning 12 Ramona Expressway San Jacinto to 1-215 Note this is separate from the MCP CETAP corridor Perris, Riverside County & San Jacinto 13 Cajalco Rd 1-215 to 1-15 Note this is separate from the MCP CETAP corridor Riverside County & Corona 14 Perris Blvd Rt74 to San Bernardino County Line Perris, Moreno Valley, Riverside County 15 Pyrite St San Bernardino County Line to Rt60 Riverside County 16 Schleisman Rd San Bernardino County Line to 115 & Arlington Ave Norco 17 Domenigoni Parkway State St to 1-215 Hemet & Riverside County 18 Railroad Canyon/Newport Rd 1-215 to 1-15 Riverside County, Canyon Lake & Lake Elsinore Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 11 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 Actions at both RCTC and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) have defined a regional arterial backbone system. Local jurisdictions have submitted projects under separate calls for projects. As a result, five year capital improvement programs at RCTC and WRCOG have been established for the arterial system: With this in mind, Bechtel is recommending that this scope of work focus on the Highway and New Transportation Corridor components of the 2009 Measure "A program of projects. For these projects, it is proposed to develop a template to allow the recording of standardized planning and engineering data that can easily be used throughout the delivery process of the Measure. These templates can also be updated periodically as new information is developed and as each project progresses through the implementation process. 3.5 Quantification of Project Benefits Bechtel intends` to engage a reputable transportation consultant with proven local experience and. knowledge of regional transportation models to quantify the user benefits that would accrue from the implementation of each proposed project. Bechtel will manage the activities of the selected traffic consultant and supply it with the project parameters that will feed the model. It is anticipated that a "with (the project) and "without" (the project) approach will be applied by the traffic consultant. Output of the traffic consultant's model runs will be directly useable in the cost -benefit. analysis that will be used as the quantitative basis for ranking the proposed projects. 1 3.6 Assembly and Development of Project Cost Estimates 3.6.1 Projects under Development by CALTRANS/Others Several of the proposed highway projects for the 2009 Measure Program are the subject of on -going or pending Project Study Reports (PSRs) by CALTRANS, as mentioned in section 1 above. Likewise, the Riverside/Orange County Major Investment Study for SR 91, the new Mid County Parkway corridor project, and State Route 79 realignment project have been the subject of conceptual engineering and environmental assessment studies. As such, cost estimates for these projects will be obtained from these on going efforts and Bechtel does not plan on spending additional resources on these tasks other than collecting the data and normalizing it to be consistent with the financial model assumptions. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 12 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 3.6.2 Undefined Projects There are highway projects, however, that are not sufficiently defined, and for which Bechtel will perform high level conceptual scoping to allow bracketing an order -of -magnitude cost estimate for each. Bechtel will contact the stake holders benefiting from the project to get a better definition of the project and will supplement this information by field visits and observations. It is not proposed that this level of effort will satisfy the requirements of a PSR or a PSR/PDS but it will allow sufficient information to complete this scope of services. Bechtel will estimate both soft cost (e.g. EIA/EIS/P.E./Final Design) as well as hard cost that include right-of-way acquisition cost and construction cost of the project. The right-of-way acquisition costs will not be parcel specific for this scope of work. Rather these costs will be very general in nature based on average costs for the type of property required for the project. A suitable contingency or range of values will be established based on the project impact. If needed right-of-way is likely to develop prior to the Commission being able to secure the land, additional contingency will be added to this component of the cost. The status of . development pressure will also be discussed for each of the projects so that the Commission can reach a conclusion if early acquisition would be a desirable approach to preserve the right-of-way. 3.6.3 Preliminary Schedules for Project Implementation In conjunction with the collection, development, and synthesis of cost estimates for the proposed Measure projects, Bechtel will also develop a preliminary schedule for the implementation of each project, from conceptual planning to construction completion. Bechtel will also note the unique characteristics of each project that would affect its evaluation and ranking. Examples would include difficult environmental issues, progressively expensive right of way acquisition, unusual disruption to traffic operation and lane balance continuity. If sufficient information is available, Bechtel will also divide complex projects into a number of 'operable segments" that would allow the project to be implemented in stages to better. match availability of funds. Bechtel will work with CALTRANS and RCTC staff in defining the boundaries of these operable segments. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 13 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure W Western Riverside County Transportation Program 3.7 Cost -Benefit Analysis A Cost -Benefit Analysis (CBA) model will be used as the quantitative vehicle in evaluating and'prioritizing all the proposed Measure "A" Projects. The model to be used will be based on CALTRANS recognized performance measures. The CBA will be based on two measures; a cost benefit ratio and a net present value, as defined below: 3.7.1 Benefit -Cost Ratio The total discounted benefits are divided by the total discounted costs. Projects with a benefit -cost ratio greater than 1 have greater benefits than costs as well as positive net benefits. The higher the ratio, the greater the benefits relative to the costs. It is importation to note that simple benefit -cost ratio is insensitive to the magnitude of net benefits and therefore may favor projects with small costs and benefits over those with higher net benefits. (This problem can be eliminated by the use of the incremental benefit -cost ratio or the net present value.) 3.7.2 Net Present Value The total discounted costs are subtracted from the total discounted benefits. Projects with positive net benefits should be considered; the greater the net benefits, the more justifiable the project. However, a large project could have a higher net present value than a smaller project, even if it has a lower benefit -cost ratio. 3.8 Project Evaluation and Prioritization This task will address the evaluation of each proposed project against the set of qualitative and quantitative criteria developed in Task 3.3 above. An evaluation matrix will be set up to pictorially present the scoring assigned to each evaluation criteria in accordance with specific measures that will be developed for this purpose. Bechtel will seek direction from RCTC Staff and the AD HOC Committee on the criteria that will be used. Bechtel will also assign a numerical score to each criterion to facilitate prioritizing those projects with the highest score. Bechtel recognizes that this process depends on' professional and value judgment, but it is anticipated that the resolution of the policy issues and the anticipated revenue stream including innovative public/private financing partnerships to fund Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 14 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 9 the Program, in relation to the estimated project cost, will play a key role in deciding on the higher ranking projects. 3.9 Development of the Ten -Year Delivery Plan and Financial Model The Ten -Year Delivery Plan will present a blue -print for the disbursement of available resources to specific activities for the selected projects in each class of the Measure "A" Program. A key component of the Delivery Plan will be a Financial Model that will capture the results of the revenue projections and balance them against the cost estimates of selected projects during the first ten years of the 2009 Measure "A" life. A spread sheet will then be developed listing the recommended disbursement of the anticipated annual revenues to specific activities of specific projects (selected from the prioritization task) for the first ten years of Measure "A Appropriate scheduling tools will be utilized to allow the Commission to track the progress of the Delivery Plan and apply adjustments as required. As such, the Ten - years Delivery Plan will be "a living document" representing an executive as well as a planning tool that the Commission and its various stakeholders can rely on to manage the implementation of the Measure "A" selected projects. 3.10 Preparation of the Final Report A draft final report will be prepared documenting the analysis, findings and recommendations of this study. The draft final report will be submitted to the Commission for review and comment. A final report will then be issued incorporating the Commission's comments. • Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 15 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure W Western Riverside county Transportation Program • 4. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS This study will address numerous projects in various stages of development by various stakeholders. In general, this study will use existing and available information at its start. Information will be provided by various stakeholders in the County, and information will also become available during the development phase of the study (mainly the first three months), either in draft or final form. This scope of work assumes that Bechtel be able to use the information that is currently available without having to necessarily verify, check, or confirm the validity of the information, estimates, or conclusions. Through the TUMF processes, Regional Arterial projects have been classified as part of the backbone or secondary networks. Based on the actions of both RCTC and WRCOG, five year CIPs have been approved. Bechtel will accept these actions for input into the financial model. There are few projects that do not have information developed; i.e. no engineering characterization, cost estimates, environmental assessment, or schedule of implementation. For such projects, Bechtel will perform sketch -level planning and engineering, enough to allow it to develop an "indicative" cost estimate and to point out any fatal flaws, if any. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 16 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "X Western Riverside County Transportation Program i• t BE�NjJ' 5. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan — Study Schedule ' NTP Months ' - TASK 1 2 3 -' 4 5 6- 7 Study Management and Coordination Policy Directions for Delivery Plan Status of Remaining 1989Measure'A' - Program of Projects 1969 Measure W Completion Report Priorifization Methodology and Criteria Engineering Characteristics for 2009 Measure Projects Quantification of Project Benefits Cost Estimate of 2009 Measure'A7 Projects Cost Benefit Analysis Project Evaluation and Priordization Ten -Year Delivery Phan & Financial Model Draft Delivery Plan Report Commission Reviews. Final Delivery Plan Report - - _ Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 17 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure W Western Riverside County Transportation Program f 0 0 6. PROPOSED STAFFING AND COSTS PERSONNEL SERVICES HOURS f' LABOR AND PAYROLL COST (Base x I A79) Project Office - Riv R PAYROLL COST (Base x 1.496 Home Office - S.F. TOTAL COST Project Manager 36 g $31,945 -W5-2 7D56- Data Collection/Coordination 480 ;g $19523 x,k $23 338 $71 592 Data Ana is 360 ro.-R $14�,,t tf 114:275 7 $48:18 1-11911WRY EPnqmeermg $12,925 r3a 2,032 cost Esimation 200 rt.' $18,850 -.,xi 21 Environmental Reviews 160 i-b $12695 -dh, V�:, $20,437 Graphics and Report Support —480 77 $7:814 $ 5,71M _TNIM Project Controls 120 7 --9,-229 77 77 Subtotal 2320 $95" $86,092 tP', $300,92 Transportation Consultant - S. Sultan 400 800 ROW Suppoit Consultant 100 yJ $13,093 GIS Support -WRCUr IDO L ;"t; --T8-,9-2-5 -I Traffic Consultant 1380 $210,006 Subtotal 1990 i; I qr ti�� "t'N .:W t, Other Direct Cost -Bechtel H.O. Staff Ivel ��rf%e -121p$ 'ohi! $3,%ingaPeF5;WJt200 600. 2001 Ground Transportation & Miles $ 0001 Communications, Poste gnnte-ng 0001 sumotal �,30-- I! 1;i,JT 1Y, A. T'� � r, I t44A I 1t I Subtotal Cost $603,72B A ConNWncy - Optional tasksnquests $96.7561 Total of all cost $700,0011 Current Bechtel lnfra;WYc-tu-r-eWa—ree=nt b; ;;IiN�,, 4f'�� 47 .04W; 1 13! warm Total • Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 18 the First Ten -Years of the M09 Measure W Western Riverside County Transportation Program • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2005-06 Bechtel Contract Amendment to Develop 2009 Measure "A" 10 year Strategic Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Will be presented at the November 28, 2005 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. At the November 9, 2005 meeting the Commission authorized staff to develop a scope of work and schedule, and negotiate a cost with Bechtel Infrastructure to • develop the first 10 year western county Strategic Plan for the Commission's 2009 Measure "A" program. At this time, Bechtel Infrastructure is scoping the strategic plan effort and establishing a consultant group to assist in the area of traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday and the short time frame to meet the Budget and Implementation Committee agenda mail out deadline, staff anticipates the scope, schedule and cost to support the development of a western county 2009 10 year Measure "A" Strategic Plan will be presented at the Committee meeting on November 28, 2005. The cost of the proposal will be in the range of $400,000 to $700,000. • 11 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director 2005-06 Bechtel Contract Amendment to Provide an Assessment SUBJECT: on the Completion of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program and Development of the Initial 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program 10 Year Delivery Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - This item is for the Committee to: S 1) Approve amendment #1 (#05-31-561-01) to the 2005-06 Bechtel Infrastructure contract (#05-31-561) with the Commission in the amount of $603,244 with $96,756 contingency for a total of $700,000 to support the development of the status and deliverability of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program of Projects and the development of the initial 10 year delivery plan for the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program; and 2) Forward to .the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. At the November 9, 2005 meeting the Commission directed staff to work with Bechtel Infrastructure to develop a scope of work and schedule to assist the Commission in determining the status and deliverability of the 1989 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program and developing the initial 2009 Measure "A" Western Highway Program 10 year Delivery Plan. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday and the limited time to prepare the proposal it is being handed out for Committee consideration and action. Attached to the item are the scope, schedule and cost proposal for the 1989 and 2009 Measure "A" efforts. DISCUSSION. , The scope of services proposed is'. a supporting and receiving policy directi, coordination with the western county and CVAG as necessary to delineate This will likely involve periodic repc Commission on progress and issues. The work effort will include: • Development of a report on 'ItF County 'Measure "A Highway'''pr what are the challenges in d identification of steps necessary of the challenges facing these „pr and funding. • Preparation of traffic forecasts f Highway projects including an program of projects funded throu • Collection and development of magnitude cost estimates. • Preliminary environmental screei existing plans like the MSHCP document that will likely be requi that may be involved. (a.g." I Caltrans, FTA, cities, County, tra • Development of initial timelines implementation.. • Quantification of user benefits projects. • Development of a project evalua performance measures • Development of a cost -benefit an • Development of an evaluation measures to rank°projects, or pro • Development of a financial mod availability to the highest ranking • Development of a final report. �i seven „(7) month work effort directed at n from'' a Commission Ad Hoc Committee, Cities, "the County, Caltrans, ,'and WRCOG ;he various project issues and challenges. is from the Ad Hoc Committee to the i i u status of the remaining 1989 Western , )grai of projects. The effort will focus on slivering the remaining ;projects and the o assure delivery in a timely fashion. Most yect�s are the normal ones, time to develop F �r the 2009 Western County' Measure "A" 11 assessment of the freeway, interchange h TUMF. project costinformation and order of I ; ing. Including a consistency check with to determine the type of environmental ad and a listing of the cooperating agencies 'A, Army Corp, USF&W, FHWA, CDFG, sit operators, etc..)�' for each project's, or project segment's ,esulting from the implementation of the p ion m�odel based on the, state's recognized ilysis for each grouping of projects. itrix combining, quantitative and qualitative let segments. .1 wihich will apply the estimated revenue :)rolects M : y u , 8 • U • • The estimated cost of the work effort is estimated to be $603,244 with up to $210,000 identified for traffic consultant support, $8,925 for GIS support from WRCOG, $13, 093 for ROW support consultant, $15,800 to cover travel, support expenses such as communication, postage and printing, and $355,426 identified to support the Bechtel Infrastructure effort. Given a $700,000 estimated budget there will be $96,756 available as contingency. C� 0 As part of this effort is directed at the current 1989 Measure "A" program, $42,000 of the funding to support this effort will be provided through the existing Measure "A" Western County Highway Program account and the balance will be provided through the Commercial Paper program. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Nc Year: 2005-06 Amount: $700,000 Source of Funds: $42,000 Measure "A", $658,000 Commercial Paper Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 303-31-81001 (Contract Amendment # 05-31-561-01 Fiscal Procedures Approved: 1 Date: 1 1 /28/05 Proposed Scope of Work for the DELIVERY PLAN FOR THE FIRST TEN -YEARS OF THE 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM November 23, 2005 n U • 4 n U TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION........................................................1 1.1 Objectives of the Delivery Plan...................................................3 2. GENERAL APPROACH AND WORK PLAN....................................................4 2.1 Work flow; Chart ................................... ...5 3. DESCRIPTION I OF SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................7 j 3.1 Requirements to Complete the 1989 Measure "A" HighwayProgram....................................................................7 3.2 Policy Directions for First 10 Year Delivery Plan Development ..............7 3.3 Prioritization Methodology and Criteria..........................................8 3.4 Engineering Characteristics of Projects Proposed in the 2009 Measure "A" Extension.......................................................9 3.5 Quantification of Project Benefits .............................................. 12 3.6 Assembly and Development of Project Cost Estimates ....................... 12 3.6.1 Projects under Development by CALTRANS/Others .................. 12 3.6.2 Undefined Projects........................................................ 13 3.6.3 Preliminary Schedules for Project Implementation .................. 13 3.7 Cost -Benefit Analysis.............................................................. 14 3.7.1 Benefit -Cost Ratio......................................................... 14 3.7.2 Net Present Value......................................................... 14 3.8 Project Evaluation and Prioritization ........................................... 14 3.9 Development of the Ten -Year Delivery Plan and Financial Model.......... 15 3.10 Preparation of the Final Report ................................................. 15 4. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................... 16 5. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES................................................................... 17 6. PROPOSED STAFFING AND COSTS ........................................................ 18 Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page i the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Since 1988, Bechtel has been engaged by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in managing the delivery of the 1989 Measure "A" program of highway and rail projects. In partnership with the Commission Staff, Bechtel has successfully assisted with the delivery of these projects. This first measure program will expire in 2009. The voters of Riverside County have recently approved the extension of the one- half percent sales tax for transportation projects for another 30 years, dubbed the 2009 Measure "A" extension. The proceeds of this measure will supplement traditional (and program -focused) federal and state transportation funds to fund the 'improvement and maintenance of the County's transportation system. In conjunction with the passage of the 30 year extension of Measure "A", a developer fee referred to as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was also enacted to address the impacts of development on the transportation system. The combination of the one half cent sales tax and the TUMF fees will provide a significant source of funding to work in conjunction with and further leverage the 40 State and Federal dollars that will be available to Riverside County. This is a critical point in the planning horizon for the Commission to fully understand the resources and actions that will be required to complete the 1989 Measure "A" program of projects. Because of the long lead time required to deliver a highway project in today's environment it is equally important for the Commission to put in motion the necessary planning activities that will be required to initiate the first set of projects from the 2009 Measure "A" list of projects. Over the next 6-9 months, the Commission will be directly involved in the completion of several activities that are related to the delivery of the Measure "A" Projects. These include: ➢ The update of the revenue forecast for Measure "A" and the development of funding projections for other revenue sources to be earmarked for Riverside County transportation improvement projects, over the next roughly 15-years that will complete the 1989 Measure "A" program of projects and start the first 10 years of delivery of the 2009 Measure "A" program of projects. ➢ The development of a Financial Model and a Financing Plan to disburse the earmarked funds for the delivery of identified transportation improvement • projects. Proposed Soope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 1 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program • • ➢ The preparation of the Western County Freeway Strategic Study which will evaluate the relationship of new .population growth on freeway capacity and the feasibility of establishing a new fee on new developments to support highway capacity improvements. ➢ Preparation of Route 91 Major Investment Study (MIS) that will look at a suite of options to provide relief for the congestion on SR 91 near the Orange County line. ➢ Completion of the Project Report and Environmental Document for the SR 91 HOV widening project between Adams Street and the SR 60/91 /1-215 interchange. This is the largest remaining project from the original Measure "A" list of projects. This project, or portions of the project, will then be ready to move into final design and right-of-way acquisition. Parallel with the above effort, the State will be completing several activities that will have direct implications on the delivery of the 2009 Measure "A" projects for Western County. They include: ➢ Development of the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ➢ Completion of major Project Study Reports (PSRs) covering the following 2009 Measure "A" highway projects: ■ State Route 91 — Pierce Street to State Route 241 including State Route 91 westbound to northbound connector to State Route 71 ■ 1-1 5/State Route 91 Connector— 1-15 northbound to State Route 91 westbound ■ 1-215 from Perris to the 1-15/1-215 split ■ 1-15 from 1-15/1-215 split south to the San Diego County line ■ Entire 1-15 within Riverside county Meanwhile, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is scheduled to complete the prioritization of their 2009 Measure "A" Projects in January 2006. In order to analyze the implications of all the above activities and integrate their results and conclusions in the Western County Transportation Program, the Commission has asked Bechtel to develop a scope of work, a budget and a schedule aimed at the development of a Delivery Plan for the Vt 10 years of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Projects (The Delivery Plan). Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 2 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 1.1 Objectives of the Delivery Plan The objectives of this Delivery Plan are: ➢ An assessment of the status and issues of completing the delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure, ➢ An objective based assessment of the Western County portion of the 2009 Measure "A" Transportation Program. ➢ Prioritization of the Western County program of projects ➢ Development of a Ten -Year Delivery Plan that will cover the first ten years of the 30 year extension of Measure "A" The following sections present Bechtel's approach to this assignment, description of the scope of services, an implementation schedule, and a cost estimates for the identified services. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 3 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 2. GENERAL APPROACH AND WORK PLAN There are several studies, either under the auspices of the Commission or under the direction of CALTRANS, which are underway, as described in section 1 above. All will have direct implications on the conduct of this assignment and on the development of the Delivery Plan. Bechtel is in the unique position of being aware of all of these activities and is currently playing an active role in the management of each project for which the Commission is the lead agency. As part of this scope of service, Bechtel will continue to monitor these studies and interact with most of ithem on a continuous basis. This effort will involve extracting information from reports and documents produced by the studies, attending periodic meetings, workshops and public meetings, providing data and information on the Measure "A" Program, reviewing draft reports on behalf of the Commission, etc. In addition, Bechtel will assist with any coordination effort that may be required with the Board of Supervisors, city officials of Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley Association of Government, plus any other stakeholders that will be engaged in this planning activity. This assignment also includes a number of tasks that we plan to start immediately and work simultaneously; they are: 1 . The assessment of the status of the uncompleted projects for the Western County 1989 Measure "A" Program. This assessment will be focused on what it will take to complete the remaining projects and what steps must be taken to assure that they will be completed in a timely fashion. 2. The preparation of traffic forecasts for the proposed 2009 Measure "A" projects. 3. Collection of all available project cost information and the development of order -of -magnitude cost estimates for those projects for which no costs have been estimated. 4. Preliminary environmental screening, which would include a check for consistency with existing plans (i.e. MSHCP) and a preliminary determination of the type of environmental document that might be required and list of potential lead and cooperating agencies that may be involved. 5. The development of a timeline for each major project's implementation or segments thereof. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 4 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 6. The quantification of user benefits accruing from the implementation of the proposed projects. 7. The development of a project evaluation model based on the State's recognized performance measures, and, 8. The continuing analysis of the results and recommendations of on -going studies on the 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan. Following the completion of the above detailed simultaneous tasks, estimated to consume about three months, Bechtel will embark on the remaining tasks of the assignment, mainly: 1. The development of Cost -Benefit Analysis (CBA) for each grouping of projects, in accordance with State's recognized performance measures 2. The development of an evaluation matrix, combining quantitative and qualitative measures, leading to the ranking of projects or major segments thereof. 3. Development of a Financial Model that will take the assumed funds that will be available and apply them to the delivery of the highest priority projects. 4. The development of a ten-year Delivery Plan for the Western County Projects. 5. Delivery of the final report. Throughout this work process, our work will interact with the Commission Staff on a continuous basis, and will receive guidance, from the Commission appointed Ad Hoc Committee. In addition, Bechtel will support periodic presentations to the Commission and Ad Hoc Committee on the progress of the study and major findings thereof. 2.1 Work Flow Chart The following chart depicts the flow of the above work tasks and outlines major milestones throughout the duration of the assignment. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 5 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program ZI a t. • C 171 N N O N %o 01 7 IL N � R C E o O :3 LL LL A U O c � o � i E O1E Z 0 . N N a" N � 00 TW d o UU c0 d= 1n 0 da C � O as g o m 0 U� (6 N Z = c a0-' UO r� u o ° _ o R � va 0 0 U 110 a) an co d E 0 N O O(6 ; FL O O 7 Co 0 a (n c Y o O N T Y f C O =3 �0 y CL O y U N (A N O O O O >N ILY 9 3. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES This section presents a brief description of the scope of services for the 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan assignment. 3.1 Requirements to Complete the 1989 Measure "A" Highway Program iThere are only three years left in the life of the 1989 Measure "A" Program and most projects in the Program are already completed. The remaining few projects are mostly under construction or in the process of being environmentally cleared and designed. Therefore, this is an opportune time to take stock of the status of this program, analyze any remaining issues and develop options for their resolution, and identify "lessons learned" for application to the 2009 Measure. This task, using data and information already in the Commission's and Bechtel's data files plus other activities currently under way (particularly in the funding arena), will develop the following: ➢ A summary of completed projects to -date presented in a standardized format (one page per project), listing highlights of improvements ➢ A summary of projects under design or construction, in the same format as above. ➢ A summary of Measure projects that have not started yet and estimated cost and schedule for their delivery ➢ An estimate of all revenues likely to be available in the remaining three years from all sources that can be applied to the 1989 Measure program ➢ Matching remaining project expenditures with likely available revenues and identifying surpluses or shortfalls. ➢ Identifying issues involved in various facets of the remaining program, options for their resolution, and recommendations to the Commission. 3.2 Policy Directions for First 10 Year Delivery Plan Development The ten-year Delivery Plan will set the policy and direction for the implementation of the 2009 Measure "A" projects, for the first ten years of the program and will have significant influence on how the remaining projects in the later years of the program are addressed. Throughout the development of this Delivery Plan, Bechtel Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 7 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program will uncover many issues that will require policy directions. For each issue, Bechtel will summarize available options, identify pros and cons, and provide a recommendation, as warranted. Bechtel will then coordinate with RCTC Staff and the Commission's AD HOC Committee for policy directions on each identified issue. iFollowing is a preliminary list of issues likely to be faced: ➢ Exploration of additional funding sources such as private financing ➢ Weighting of evaluation criteria to be used to prioritize projects ➢ Development of policies on corridor preservation for future highway and rail projects ➢ Direction on project readiness issues such as having projects shelf ready to take advantage of additional or special funding schemes that might only come available from the State or Federal government if a project is ready to deliver ➢ Policy issues arising during coordination activities with outside agencies ➢ Policy issues arising during coordination activities with Commission financial advisor ➢ Policy positions on legislative needs to support delivery schemes beneficial to the Commission's adopted delivery plan ➢ Return to Source Issues otherwise known as the distribution of benefits in proportion to the contribution of each population segment to the revenues generated by the Measure. 3.3 Prioritization Methodology and Criteria A set of evaluation criteria and measurement parameters will be developed to be used in evaluating and ranking proposed Measure "A" Projects, or segments thereof. Quantitative as well as qualitative measures will be used to capture all the elements that influence project selection. The overriding principle in this effort is the maximization of the total benefits (tangible and intangible) that would accrue to the taxpayers of the County, and to the State from the movement of goods and regional traffic. The quantitative aspects of this evaluation process will focus on the project's costs and benefits and the relationships derived from these two components in the form of a cost -benefit ratio or net present value. But, project 1 Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 8 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program costs, in and by themselves, will constitute a significant evaluation measure. For example, a project that could exhibit the highest cost benefit ratio, but its implementation could consume the majority of the available funds generated by the Measure, leaving very little money to the myriad of other transportation needs of the County may not score as high as a project with smaller cost -benefit ratio but also less implementation cost. Implementation schedule is another important criterion since the needs of the County are critical and immediate. Opportunity issues will also be evaluated and discussed to capture concepts such as a disproportionate increase in costs that will occur if a project is delivered later in the program because of issues such as the cost of acquiring the right-of-way is expected to significantly increase as a result of development pressure. The qualitative criteria may include such elements as environmental compatibility, development pressures, visual impacts, neighborhood cohesiveness, quality of living and the like. 3.4 Engineering Characteristics of Projects Proposed in the 2009 Measure "A" Extension The 2009 Measure "A" approved by the voters of Riverside County included specific Western County highway projects as listed below: State Highway Improvements Route Project Limits Project Scope Rt91 Pierce St to Orange County Line Add 1 lane each direction Rt91 /I-15 Interchange New Connector from 1-15N to Rt91 W Rt91/Rt71 Interchange Improve Interchange Rt71 Rt91 to San Bernardino County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction 1-215 60191 /1-215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line Add 2 lanes each direction 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave to 1-15 Add 1 lane each direction 1-15 Rt60 to San Diego County Line Add 1 lane each direction 1-10 San Bernardino County Line to Banning Add Eastbound truck climbing lane I-10/Rt60 Interchange I Construction new Interchange Rt60 Badlands Area, East of Moreno Valley Add truck climbing lane 7t79 Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Realign Highway Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 9 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure'V Western Riverside County Transportation Program 9 In addition to the highway improvements listed above, the 2009 Measure "A" program included funding for four new corridors that were identified as part of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The new corridors included two intra-county corridors and two new inter -county corridors that would provide congestion relief for State Route 60, State Route 91, Interstate 15, and Interstate 215. The new corridors are needed to accommodate traffic flowing within Riverside County as well as traffic flowing between Riverside County and both Orange and San Bernardino Counties. Subsequent to the passage of the Measure Program the Commission has taken action to begin implementation of the two intra-county corridors. The north -south intra-county corridor will be collocated with 1-215 and 1-15 between Newport Road on the 1-215 south to Pala Road (State Route 79) on the 1-15. A project study report is currently in progress on this project and is being prepared by Caltrans. The new east -west intra-county corridor, now referred to as the Mid County Parkway Corridor, will follow the general alignment of Ramona Expressway between State Route 79 in the city of San Jacinto to 1-215 in the city of Perris, and will generally follow the Cajalco Road alignment between 1-215 in the city of Perris and 1-15 in the city of Corona. RCTC is currently preparing a project report and environmental document for the Mid County Parkway Project. The four corridors are listed below: Development of New Transportation Corridors (4) New CETAP Transportation Corridors Corridor Name General Location CETAP Designator Widening of 1-15 to 14 lanes from the junction with 1-215 south to SR-79 Winchester to (Pala Road) and the widening of 1-215 North/South Intra-County Temecula to 10 lanes from Newport Road to the Corridor junction with 1-15 Mid County Parkway Ramona Expressway - Rt79 to 1-215 East/West Intra-County Corridor Cajalco Rd - 1-215 to 1-15 Riverside to Parallel Route to SR 91 between East/West Inter -County Corridor Orange County Corona and Lake Elsinore Part of Major Investment Study (MIS) Moreno Valley to Rt60/1-215 to 1-10 @ California St North/South Inter -County San Bernardino Corridor Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 10 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 11 A number of regional arterial projects, including interchanges with major highway facilities, have also been identified in the Measure "A" ballot initiative within the Western County as eligible to receive Measure and TUMF funding. These projects are: Regional Arterial System Street Name Project Limits Lead Agency 1 Van Buren Blvd 1-215 to Rt6O City of Riverside & Riverside County 2 Alessandro Blvd 1-215 Westerly to Central Ave City of Riverside & Riverside County 3 Central Ave Alessandro Blvd to Van Buren Blvd City of Riverside 4 Arlington Ave Central Ave to Van Buren Blvd City of Riverside 5 Green River Rd Dominguez Ranch Rd to Rt91 City of Corona 6 Foothill Parkway Lincoln Ave to Green River Rd City of Corona 7 Scott Rd Rt79 to 1-215 Riverside County 8 Clinton Keith Rd Rt79 to 1-215 Murrieta 9 Date St Rt79 to 1-15 Murrieta & Temecula 10 Rt79/1-10 Interchange Imps and bypass to 1-10 Beaumont 11 Ramsey St Banning City Limits to Field Rd Banning 12 Ramona Expressway San Jacinto to 1-215 Note this is separate from the MCP CETAP corridor Perris, Riverside County & San Jacinto 13 1 Cajalco Rd 1-215 to 1-15 Note this is separate from the MCP CETAP corridor Riverside County & Corona 14 Perris Blvd Rt74 to San Bernardino County Line Perris, Moreno Valley, Riverside County 15 Pyrite St San Bernardino County Line to Rt6O Riverside County 16 Schleisman Rd San Bernardino County Line to 115 & Arlington Ave Norco 17 Domenigoni Parkway State St to 1-215 Hemet & Riverside County 18 Railroad Canyon/Newport Rd 1-215 to 1-15 Riverside County, Canyon Lake & Lake Elsinore • Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 11 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program Actions at both RCTC and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) have defined a regional arterial backbone system. Local jurisdictions have submitted projects under separate calls for projects. As a result, five year capital improvement programs at RCTC and WRCOG have been established for the arterial system. With this in mind, Bechtel is recommending that this scope of work focus on the Highway and New Transportation Corridor components of the 2009 Measure "A" program of projects. For these projects, it is proposed to develop a template to allow the recording of standardized planning and engineering data that can easily be used throughout the delivery process of the Measure. These templates can also be updated periodically as new information is developed and as each project progresses through the implementation process. 3.5 Quantification of Project Benefits Bechtel intends to engage a reputable transportation consultant with proven local experience and knowledge of regional transportation models to quantify the user benefits that would accrue from the implementation of each proposed project. Bechtel will manage the activities of the selected traffic consultant and supply it with the project parameters that will feed the model. It is anticipated that a "with" (the project) and "without" (the project) approach will be applied by the traffic consultant. Output of the traffic consultant's model runs will be directly useable in the cost -benefit analysis that will be used as the quantitative basis for ranking the proposed projects. 3.6 Assembly and Development of Project Cost Estimates 3.6.1 Projects under Development by CALTRANS/Others Several of the proposed highway projects for the 2009 Measure Program are the subject of on -going or pending Project Study Reports (PSRs) by CALTRANS, as mentioned in section 1 above. Likewise, the Riverside/Orange County Major Investment Study for SR 91, the new Mid County Parkway corridor project, and State Route 79 realignment project have been the subject of conceptual engineering and environmental assessment studies. As such, cost estimates for these projects will be obtained from these on going efforts and Bechtel does not plan on spending additional resources on these tasks other than collecting the data and normalizing it to be consistent with the financial model assumptions. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 12 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 0 3.6.2 Undefined Projects There are highway projects, however, that are not sufficiently defined, and for which Bechtel will perform high level conceptual scoping to allow bracketing an order -of -magnitude cost estimate for each. Bechtel will contact the stake holders benefiting from the project to get a better definition of the project and will supplement this information by field visits and observations. It is not proposed that this level -of effort will satisfy the requirements of a PSR or a PSR/PDS but it will allow sufficient information to complete this scope of services. Bechtel will estimate both soft cost (e.g. EIA/EIS/P.E./Final Design) as well as hard cost that include right-of-way acquisition cost and construction cost of the project. The right-of-way acquisition costs will not be parcel specific for this scope of work. Rather these costs will be very general in nature based on average costs for the type of property required for the project. A suitable contingency or range of values will be established based on the project impact. If needed right-of-way is likely to develop prior to the Commission being able to secure the land, additional contingency will be added to this component of the cost. The status of development pressure will also be discussed for each of the projects so that the Commission can reach a conclusion if early acquisition would be a desirable approach to preserve the right-of-way. 3.6.3 Preliminary Schedules for Project Implementation In conjunction with the collection, development, and synthesis of cost estimates for the proposed Measure projects, Bechtel will also develop a preliminary schedule for the implementation of each project, from conceptual planning to construction completion. Bechtel will also note the unique characteristics of each project that would affect its evaluation ;and ranking. Examples would include difficult environmental issues, progressively expensive right of way acquisition, unusual disruption to traffic operation and lane balance continuity. If sufficient information is available, Bechtel will also divide complex projects into a number of "operable segments" that would allow the project to be implemented in stages to better match availability of funds. Bechtel will work with CALTRANS and RCTC staff in defining the boundaries of these operable segments. I� Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 13 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 3.7 Cost -Benefit Analysis A Cost -Benefit Analysis (CBA) model will be used as the quantitative vehicle in evaluating and prioritizing all the proposed Measure "A" Projects. The model to be used will be based on CALTRANS recognized performance measures. The CBA will be based on two measures; a cost benefit ratio and a net present value, as defined below: 3.7.1 Benefit -Cost Ratio The total discounted benefits are divided by the total discounted costs. Projects with a benefit -cost ratio greater than 1 have greater benefits than costs as well as positive net benefits. The higher the ratio, the greater the benefits relative to the costs. It is importation to note that simple benefit -cost ratio is insensitive to the magnitude of net benefits and therefore may favor projects with small costs and benefits over those with higher net benefits. (This problem can be eliminated by the use of the incremental benefit -cost ratio or the net present value.) 3.7.2 Net Present Value The total discounted costs are subtracted from the total discounted benefits. Projects with positive net benefits should be considered; the greater the net benefits, the more justifiable the project. However, a large project could have a higher net present value than a smaller project, even if it has a lower benefit -cost ratio. 3.8 Project Evaluation and Prioritization This task will address the evaluation of each proposed project against the set of qualitative and quantitative criteria developed in Task 3.3 above. An evaluation matrix will be set up to pictorially present the scoring assigned to each evaluation criteria in accordance with specific measures that will be developed for this purpose. Bechtel will seek direction from RCTC Staff and the AD HOC Committee on the criteria that will be used. Bechtel will also assign a numerical.score to each criterion to facilitate prioritizing those projects with the highest score. Bechtel recognizes that this process depends on professional and value judgment, but it is anticipated that the resolution of the policy issues and the anticipated revenue stream including innovative public/private financing partnerships to fund Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 14 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program the Program, in relation to the estimated project cost, will play a key role in deciding on the higher ranking projects. 3.9 Development of the Ten -Year Delivery Plan and Financial Model The Ten -Year Delivery Plan will present a blue -print for the disbursement of I available resources to specific activities for the selected projects in each class of the Measure "A" Program. A key component of the Delivery Plan will be a Financial Model that will capture the results of the revenue projections and balance them against the cost estimates of selected projects during the first ten years of I the 2009 Measure "A" life. A spread sheet will then be developed listing the recommended disbursement of the anticipated annual revenues to specific activities of specific projects (selected from the prioritization task) for the first ten years of Measure "A". Appropriate scheduling tools will be utilized to allow the Commission to track the progress of the Delivery Plan and apply adjustments as required. As such, the Ten - years Delivery Plan will be "a living document" representing an executive as well as a planning tool that the Commission and its various stakeholders can rely on to manage the implementation of the Measure "A" selected projects. 3.10. Preparation of the Final Report A draft final report will be prepared documenting the analysis, findings and recommendations of this study. The draft final report will be submitted to the Commission for review and comment. A final report will then be issued incorporating the Commission's comments. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 15 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program • 4. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS This study will address numerous projects in various stages of development by various stakeholders. In general, this study will use existing and available information at its start. Information will be provided by various stakeholders in the County, and information will also become available during the development phase of the study (mainly the first three months), either in draft or final form. This scope of work assumes that Bechtel be able to use the information that is currently available without having to necessarily verify, check, or confirm the validity of the information, estimates, or conclusions. Through the TUMF processes, Regional Arterial projects have been classified as part of the backbone or secondary networks. Based on the actions of both RCTC and WRCOG, five year CIPs have been approved. Bechtel will accept these actions for input into the financial model. There are few projects that do not have information developed; i.e. no engineering characterization, cost estimates, environmental assessment, or schedule of implementation. For such projects, Bechtel will perform sketch -level planning and engineering, enough to allow it to develop an "indicative" cost estimate and to point out any fatal flaws, if any. Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 16 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program O 0 i 5. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan — Study Schedule U Months TASK 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 B 1 7 Study Management and Coordination Policy Directions for Delivery Plan Status of Remaining 1969 Measure W Program of Projects 1989 Measure "A" Completion Report Prioritization Methodology and Criteria Engineering Characteristics for 2009 Measure Projects Quantification of Project Benefits Cost Estimate of 2009 Measure "A" Projects Cost Benefit Analysis Project Evaluation and Prioritization Ten -Year Delivery Plan & Financial Model Draft Delivery Plan Report Commission Reviews Final Delivery Plan Report Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 17 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program !e 6. PROPOSED STAFFING AND COSTS A OR AND 'BORAND PAYROLL COST PAYROLL COST (Base x I A79) (base x 1.496 y'.. PERSONNEL SERVICES HOURS "'.- Project Office-Riv Home Office -S.F. 'tl TOTALCOST Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for Page 18 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment #2 to Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc., for Property Management Support Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment #2 to Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc., for property management support services related to all Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of $301,850, ® 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. • At its November 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-51- 030 with Epic Land Solutions for Phase 1 of property management support services for a not to exceed amount of $237,238. The first phase reviewed and identified opportunities for revenue maximization, reduced liability exposure, and assessed the needs for a property inventory database. In July 2004, the Commission approved Amendment #1 for $374,589 with Epic for implementation of Phase 2 property management support services increasing the total contract amount to $611,827. Major accomplishments for Amendment #1 include completion of two property offers that have resulted in signed agreements for over $13 million and completion of the core design of the property inventory database. As outlined in the Attachment, Amendment #2 seeks to continue Phase 2 with increased focus on revenue maximization through surplus and marketing of properties, reduction of liability exposure through conveyance of parcels to Caltrans, and incorporating GIS functionality and County Assessor data into the property inventory database. 12 Approval of Amendment #2 in the amount of $301,850 will increase the total • contract authorization to $913,677. It is anticipated that $176,085 of Amendment #2 will be spent this fiscal year, requiring a budget amendment. . Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: I FY 04/05 Amount: $176,085 Source of Funds: Property Lease Revenues Budget Adjustment: Y GLA No.: 105-51-65520 $158,585 105-52-65520 $17,500 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 11/28/05 Attachment: 11 /21 /05 Proposed Scope of Work for Amendment #2 • • 13 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. • 24050 Madison Street, Suite 205 Torrance, CA 90505 Voice: 310-378-1178 Fax: 310-378-0558 Memorandum To: Stephanie Wiggins, Claudia Chase From: Holly Rockwell Date: 11/21/2005 Re: Fees and budget ON -CALL ADVISORY Accomplishments in last 12 months: • Reviewed various transactions/documents, including Press Enterprise parcels, San Jac Wye at Harvill Road, CalTrans 60/91/I-215 documents, Pedley station exchange, proposed So Cal Gas Co deed restrictions on Hemet property • Researched various ad hoc items, including comp sale verification with Warren i • Neville and Moreno Valley stop work notice, • Property inspections made on an as needed basis • Researched purchase prices and other acquisition information for CFO's office • Researched, prepared documentation and presented City of Riverside zoning change impact; • Provided information for 2005 RCTC property insurance list • Reviewed and responded to Keller Street appraisal and appraiser scope of work • Worked with Assessor office on correcting RCTC ownerships, address, coding information and tax exemption notices • Renewed billboard leases and confirmed accurate revenue payments • Wrote policies and procedures for acquisitions, sales and property management • Site video for San Jacinto Branch Line Fees incurred in last 12 months - $50,180.16 Scope for next 12 months: • Anticipated to be similar to last 12 months, approximately 30 hours of Manager time per month • www.Micland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 14 1 Pic Land Solutions, Inc. November 21, 2005 Page 2 Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 360 $45,000 HIGHWAY PROJECT SUPPORT Accomplishments in last 12 months — Lamb Canyon conveyance to Caltrans: • Held numerous meetings with CalTrans to provide background information and agree on conveyance process • Reviewed all acquisition files and corrected deficiencies • Prepared documents for Caltrans review to convey right of way; followed up as requested to provide supplemental information • Drafted guidelines for RCTC consultants working on Caltrans projects • Drafted memo on lessons learned Fees incurred in last 12 months - $16,435.72 Scope for next 12 months: • Lamb Canyon project closeout (40 hours, $5,000) • Conveyance of SR-74 to Caltrans (100 hours, $12,500) (Note: SR-74 conveyance anticipated to incur less time and fees due to transaction occurring more recently and lessons learned from Lambs Canyon) Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 140 $17,500 OUTLEASES AND ACOISITION DOCUMENT REVIEW Accomplishments in,last 12 months: • Finalized resolution of deficiencies in ATSF Acquisition Documents (including correcting legal descriptions and obtaining title policies) • Attained approximately $220,000 in payments from BNSF for outleases (in addition to $180,000 from previous year) Fees incurred in last 12 months - $14,853.54 Scope for next 12 months: • Review MTA audit of BNSF outlease records • Follow up on potential additional revenues (may be up to $40,000) www..enicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 15 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 000 • November 21, 2005 Page 3 Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 40 $5,000 SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Accomplishments in last 12 months: • I-215 property (approximately $34,000 in fees to date) o Performed analysis of potential uses, appraisal, public agency noticing, street easement agreement with County, marketed property and conducted offer process o Resulted in signed agreement to sell for over $3 million • Pierce Street (approximately $18,000 in fees to date) o Researched gas pipeline easement o Marketed property and conducted offer process o Resulted in agreement to sell for over $10 million • Corona Depot (approximately $12,000 in fees to date) o Appraisal and public agency noticing o Property ready to be offered to public • Perris Wye (approximately $7,000 to date) ® ; o Initial research on property and drafting of legal description Fees incurred in last 12 months - $711016.25 Scope for next 12 months: • I-215 property (40 hours, $5,000) o BNSF easement to fee conversion o Street conveyance recorded o Coordinate and complete escrow • Pierce Street (25 hours, $3,000) o Coordinate and complete escrow • Corona Depot (125 hours, $16,000) o Market property and conduct offer process o Coordinate and close escrow • Madison Station (225 hours, $28,000) o Appraisal, public agency offering, marketing property and conducting offer process Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees —� 415 $52,000 • www.epicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD III Epic Land Solutions, Inc. November 21, 2005 Page 4 PROPERTY INVENTORY Accomplishments in last 12 months: • Assisted in defining property inventory approach, scope of information to be captured, and property inventory scenarios ($15,000) • User liaison for database planning and implementation, including interaction between corridor, site, APN and tenant contract components ($18,000) • Reviewed and captured RCTC-owned property information in database for approximately 32 sites, 276 APN's and 127 tenant contracts ($39,000) • Resolved known encroachments related to Pedley Station, Arlington Station, and railroad right of way ($28,000) Fees incurred in last 12 months - $991347.35 Scope for next 12 months: • User liaison and beta testing for additional database functions, including Executive Dashboard, GIS, Synchronization Module, data import function (120 hours, $15,000) • Consultation related to County/Consultant import function and scanning function (40 hours, $5,000) • Population of additional fields based on database requests, such as addition of acreage field for events, attaching APN's to events (50 hours, $6,250) • Complete and finalize information on RCTC fee owned interests (40 hours, $5,000) • Synchronization with County Assessor's office (100 hours, $12,500) Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 350 1 $43,750 GLOBAL DATABASE Accomplishments in last 12 months: • Completed gathering of requirements for core functions (APN, Site, and Tenant Contract functions) and determined best technology choice (SQL and VB.Net) to fulfill requirements. • Completed design of database based on requirements. • Coded core database functions. • Completed full testing of beta version, ww w.epicland.coni I now• q 6 WSeSe�.Y n Mx�lic h � RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD is 17 Epic Land Solutions, .Inc. November 21, 2005 Page 5 • Implemented global database at RCTC on the RCTC Rail Server and 7 workstations. • Provided post -implementation support, training, and functional modifications. Fees incurred in last 12 months: $87,243.31 Scope of work for next 12 months: • Design, develop and implement reports including activation of the Executive Dashboard (displayed above). • Develop and implement a synchronization module that will compare RCTC data with County Assessor data and provide for a viable link to County GIS data. • Design, develop and implement a GIS module including coordination with WRCOG in delivering a seamless GIS solution with the Global Application. • On -Call Database Modifications including the development and implementation of 7 currently scoped functional improvements requested. Budget includes funds for potential future modifications. Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 1,125 $117,000 • PROJECT MANAGEMENT Accomplishments in last 12 months: • Bi-monthly status reporting and status meeting • Oversight of all property management projects Fees incurred in last 12 months - $219321.56 Scope for next 12 months: Anticipated to be similar to previous 12 months (approximately 12 hours of Manager time per month) Anticipated hours and fees in next 12 months: Hours Fees 145 $21,600 • www.evicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD IR] Epic land Solutions, Inc. November 21, 2005 Page 6 FEES SUMMARY 0 Area Fees for past 12 months Fees anticipated for next 12 months On -Call Advisory $50,180.16 $45,000 Highway Project Support $16,435.72 $17,500 Outleases $14,853.54 $5,000 Sale of Surplus Property $71,016.25 $52,000 Property Inventory $99,347.35 $43,750 Global Database $87,243,31 $117,000 Project Management $21,321.56 $21,600 TOTAL $360,397.89 $3011850 • www.Mieland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 19 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2006-10 Measure A Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: eThe Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On March 31, 2005, RCTC staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The agencies were asked to submit their Plans by June 15, 2005 for submission to the Commission on July 13, 2005. The required Five -Year Plan, MOE certification and supporting documentation have been received from the City of Norco, one of the two cities that have not yet submitted their plans. The City of Coachella is the only city that has not submitted its plan, and they have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds for local streets and roads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. . Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for City of Norco 20 � R S � m }k \ \Lb . � « k 2 2 0 LO \ \ _ \ ® \ \ _ _ LO a §) § / \ \ \ \ LO It \ \ \ \ \ k \ - - 0 i \ - § a) = / > [ 6 cc/ \ ) ) & 6 ƒ ƒ a) § / ) \_\ / ® co � 7 ) eel e { $ — o ««m § <5 6 \ 2 a)§ CD \ } ® y 0` § �00 � k ) \k\ z w 2{§ {I a)® 2 2 ez2 T ` / \ f \ Of { / § �U) }� 2 ) n I: 2) 6// 6 ° \ \ ƒ \ } ) \\® \) ) B 5/2 2 2 0 0) �f % / } \ )) k a 3 § § \ ƒ 3 J ® & } ) - { 4 � m* _ b\$ a a ` _= t 4 E ` - a \\Ir y 7)] 3 J} ) a 3 2 m)/§ S B LU 2 — m n t r e�_= e 22 z 0 N V) 0� O O UO zW Oa Qo z o O LL N aJ z Q o U N F- O LL �a Z 1!J =1 W O� C1 W Q G W It W 0 O O 0 0 O CD 0 O 0 O C) O O O (D C) 0 O O 0 0 0 C)0 0 Otto o� 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 o 0 0 • Ln Ld O O T O N L6 O L6 O O N Q6�9 6�9 E? (`]o 6~4 V) V) 6 eN V) Z Q LL W J o 0 CCD�o a 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 d o Q U) 0 00 0 0 o a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O OD In o 0 r M r O N co L O (n N] O O N U F V) V3 (O eq, r 64 Cl) n V3 I 64 M 69 69 r� 603 N V) r V} W a. } C O C O CO CO U U 7 3 Co :O .0 a3 a3 a3 (A U) Co L L U N Q N N N o o > > > p0 .c t O O O O O O w Ir � IL U ai U) C) m y Q @ co as 7 C)ro :i Cl)N L c aa)) QaQ a� c ¢ r W of >_ O _ m ,� a) N a) 0 Q> L O_ Q) = a) O a) O J N c "a aa)) p 2 U) E6 =O U) 0 0 U) I- , a) O Q O — _ U) o L w = w O - O O O U) W d' Q U) p X UC-VC) O= N m L> N a) O cc 0L $ Q -C -i30 °n d a) a) Z C rz U- o U)Q ET Q ai O . T CQ co O O> c j c > > 0 3 C .c co Q55 c -2 W L m 'O N N L ¢ m ¢ m U) = a) m c c O ? cavO .. T O U) a) Co _0 J > > U U) V) F H U) W Z N M r N CO 7 (() 0 I-- CO d) f• • • 23 11 I A Q no a N O Z O 7 LL C)N J L Q O U � O N LL Q W Q' 7 N Q W 2 • O O O O O O CJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a LO O 0 O 0 0 0 C) 0 O C) O O 0 0 O N 0 LLD O O O O O O O O O Ln N CT 0 W N 0) C\l� (D (Dtl� M N N LO LO LO LO N N (D Cl) En H3 fH V3 ER EA ! EH V! Efl Z Q LL W J�- o O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 a N N 0 O O O O O O ~0 O O O o o O 0 0 0 m O In O O C) C) N O N O O LD O Ln O LO CV O O U CD m N (D (D � T LO N N co co Ef! 69 Mi d4 EA EA fA fH H3 EA, C C O O G U U W U C C U IL 0 0 0 0 E c c c c HT ° p 4 a) a) a) :D F co m m m 2 a as � �° o o cn c .cco O O E E C..r O L N L CD L C -O _0 O U L N O U (n 3 W 2' Of a) a) L a w C C d C C m iT) F Q m a�i J J r N 06 Cl) F � C c N rn C CLU m m t N [n m >. U N X m O Z W o L o o o r o m a) U cn O O_) O C O p m d W a- p na LL E O 3 U O ) -O a) > aia)O m ` a)) o o o E Of d> O w � @) � t Z °_ c m aEi ~ E � cc o a) CO W a) ai I U (D F D ai > ai > ai > Q a) > Q m C 4) U) c aE) > ca O '. > Q Q > Q � a) a) Q o K Q a3 a) > (A i to d T K MD o C a) a) a) c ¢ _ O O := m U U U CD ? m > `o m m (Ea is a) °) m min CL of af af v = x x U in U H LL U) N M V LO CD f- c0 m O N Cl) 7 LO (D h F Z r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N 24 z O T) N 00 UO z Oa ac z o O L N z Q o U BN OLL �a z_ NW�/ L l.. O� U y W Q O w W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O LO O O O O O O O O O o O ) U5 L(J O O O O L6 0 1LJ 0 - LO (D N I- O O O (D f+ M N LO LU 0 [f) EA (1) 64 1 64 y; V3 FF) 69 NEf} z aLL W J F O O O O O O O CD O O O O a in LO O o O O O O O o 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 o O O O Q O( Lfl N m f- O O O r- () LO LD fA O b4 C`0 63 E+A V3 N Vi U3 (H V3 b4 tf} ffi >. c6 W O O > O F > - O %) (p m f0 C 7 U O n LU > O r r° U af ry ILcc L m a� rn c m t L > U) y T C U) o 3 D a) Y ca Q o z -o E �, a z ° a F F Y c H O O O T a)c6 m y E > o O a)CL > i o U O O Q_ Q o > ' E 2 > L-: C: E � U E 50 Y O o _ C > i N N > QI O a w a o a in a U) a) U)O m0 Z U Y N U U U U d Y o N N (0 b N N N_ f6 EO a z = W a cn cn 2 F U w O T N ) 7 m I,- co rn N j- z T T T • .i 25 � � � 0 R a E }k oC4 /LL « w k < 2 0 0 CD CD } & - R } \ / / - / / w 2§ «� LU \ �0 \ \ CD - j 2 ° / top) a. � . § J 0 . U) 2 w � i e w \ ° f ! §) \ I \ £ £ ] - E [ 2 _ \ o ( } >0cm ) \ / ° D & k § $ ] 3 2 2 F"- § d - ~ r © o 26 t7 O Ix IL' Zo LL N J Q 0 U 0 Q N J LL a W U) a W 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 QO o o O O o Wog Z U D Q LL W Q fA O O O O O O Q O O O O Lo O O O O U IT oa Qs Ir 6s � � W a I U LU n W CA J W Q Z F U N Q E W o O � ° — > �m m N o a = p w C- a N E N U7 O U o U a)a > ` @ aa> > c _m d N U) d U N U U U (n j� f W O in CO F Z N m V C� e E 27 A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009-2010 ITEM NO. I PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1 Street Reconstruction $400,000 $400,000 2 Misc. Pavement Overlays $300,000 $300,000 3 Street Striping $40,000 $40,000 4 Misc. Seal Coats $75,000 $75,000 5 Misc. Pavement Repairs $30,000 $30,000 6 Traffic Signal Improvements $50,000 $50,000 n U AGENDA ITEM 10 • u U E LJ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs as submitted, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Eastern County) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit an annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The Measure A plan for the City of Desert Hot Springs was approved by the Commission at its Ju►y 13, 2005 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting to amend its FY 2006 Measure A plan to add one new project, La Mesa Drive Resurfacing. As noted in its letter, this street has been predominantly prone to flooding and is in great disrepair. The water from heavy rains and flooding a►so has caused a lot of damage to residents who live along this street due to the incorrect alignment and cross section of the existing street. Attachment: Letter from the City of Desert Hot Springs with revised FY 2006 schedule 29 • • is November 3, 2005 74663 J R NOY 07 205 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY Riverside County Transportation Commission TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION P_O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Subject: City of Desert Hot Springs Measure "A" Five Year Capital 2005-2006 — 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Plan :(CIP) Dear Mr. Rivera: The City of Desert Hot Springs is requesting to add a new project to the City of Desert Hot Springs F"Y 05-06 Measure A Project list. The project would be the resurfacing of La Mesa Drive between Hacienda Avenue and Two Bunch Palms Drive. This street has been predominantly prone to flooding and is in great disrepair. The water from heavy rains and flooding also has caused a lot of damage to the residences adjacent to this street due to the incorrect alignment and cross section of the existing street. "Me new project would alleviate this as well as restore the new paved AC section. Please have the board consider this in their next appropriate meeting. Please find the attached program revisions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 760-329-6411, Ext. 243, if you have any questions or if you require additional documentation. Sincerely, kDan Patneaude Assistant City Engineer Enclosures Cc: Corky Larson John Soulliere Linda Kelly 65950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 • Telephone (760) 329-6411 • www.desert-hoc-springs.us ME A ■ � § &2® \\\ 0 Sabo o t k�%\ % �C4 � 40 GG�0 80000C) 64 kk§k88k q § RRRooRR § m02//8° § ® &Q&®&t _\ k � 00000 o .RR0008(D 000000k $ 3 O0006ao n &7SSamR ____ � \ @ ID #$) .±a (cl {�... \ 2 } , 77 2 ƒ \) #°22.. ) E 3:, 7 7�{Aw§m a cl]\$ �27 cl �(o£o§> 'a /$a a �£K�@o W77�0 ] zmcogez & k . .. . . �f o0 CD(Cl �0e D °2 / me E)\\> \ §\)'�cl I§ CL E a te aEM CL ceeca ,2 ff.3{ � 0-,± \\o kkf\0 IX�P§$§�� § MTV) Ga:n f k �C� , § k LO LOS to ©k282 � 0 0 31 • AGENDA ITEM 11 C 1• f� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 06-19-009-00 for Measure A Revenue Forecast Update to the UCLA Anderson Forecast of the UCLA Anderson School of Management STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-19-009-00 to the UCLA Anderson Forecast of the UCLA Anderson School of Management (UCLA Anderson Forecast) to update the Commission's Measure A revenue forecast related to FY 2006/07 through FY 2038/39 at a cost not to exceed • $20,000; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The Commission's last update to the Measure A revenue forecast was completed in May 2001. This forecast, which was prepared with the assistance of Ernst & Young LLP, included the proposed 30-year extension of Measure A through 2039. As a result of the significant economic growth in Riverside County and as noted by Eric Haley at the Commission's June 2005 workshop, the Commission's fiscal year (FY) 2004/05 Measure A revenues exceeded the Measure A revenues forecasted for FY 2007/08. Accordingly, the May 2001 forecast is no longer useful for budgeting and strategic planning purposes. Following approval at the October 12, 2005 Commission meeting, a request for proposal for Measure A revenue forecast update services was released on October 14, 2005. The notice inviting proposals was sent to the UCLA Anderson Forecast, the College of Business and Economics at the California State University -Fullerton (CSUF), and Chapman University (Chapman). Additionally, the request for proposal was posted on the Commission's website. Proposals were due on November 10, is2005, and one proposal from the UCLA Anderson Forecast was received as of the 32 deadline. Staff contacted representatives from CSUF and Chapman to ensure that they had received the request for proposal and to inquire of the reason why a proposal was not submitted. Chapman University confirmed that it had received the request for proposal and indicated that it was too busy with other projects and could not take on any additional work at this time. CSUF confirmed that it had received the request for proposal and indicated that it may have forgotten to respond timely. An evaluation team consisting of three Commission staff reviewed the UCLA Anderson Forecast proposal and determined that it met the evaluation criteria relating to responsiveness, revenue forecast experience, qualifications of personnel assigned, and proposed approach. Additionally, the cost proposed of $20,000 did not exceed staff's estimated cost. The Commission will also receive a free one- year membership, valued at $10,000, to the UCLA Anderson Forecast's California seminar at no additional cost. Staff recommends that the Commission award the contract to perform an update of the Measure A sales tax revenue forecast for the period beginning July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2039 to the UCLA Anderson Forecast. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $20,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 101-19-65503 P1001 01 Fiscal Procedures Approved: vAZW�J4� Date: 11/28/05 • 33 U AGENDA ITEM 12 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 06-71-001-00 for Advance to City of Blythe STAFF RECOMMENDATION. This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-71 -001 -00, "Agreement for Advancement of 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funds," to advance up to $1,500,000 of new Measure A funds to the City of Blythe (Blythe) utilizing proceeds from the commercial paper program; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute • the Agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the February 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved a $200,000,000 commercial paper program to provide advance funding for projects included in the expenditure plan of the approved 2009 Measure A. On March 30, 2005, a closing meeting was held in San Francisco to ensure that all documents related to the commercial paper program had been completed and signed by the required parties. Blythe has requested funding not to exceed $1,500,000 from commercial paper proceeds with a 10 year repayment period for grind and overlay improvements on Chanslorway and South Lovekin Boulevard as an advance of its share of Local Streets and Roads Funds under the 2009 Measure A. The amount requested does not exceed the maximum amount that may be advanced per a financial model developed by Lehman Brothers and provides at least 2 times debt coverage. Under the agreement, Blythe would be reimbursed for actual project costs after submitting an invoice with appropriate documentation. Interest will be charged based on a variable rate of '/2 percent over the interest paid by the Commission on funds outstanding under the commercia► paper program or long-term debt that may be issued in 2008 or 2009 to refinance the commercial paper. The '/2 percent 34 interest noted above is a reimbursement to the Commission for the cost of issuing and administering the advance. Blythe has the option for early repayment by December 31, 2007. Otherwise, advance repayments will begin in September 2009 for a ten-year period by applying a portion of Blythe's Local Streets and Roads Funds from the 2009 Measure A to the advance payment due. Receipts from State Board of Equalization relating to sales taxes collected under the 2009 Measure A are expected to commence in September 2009. Staff is requesting Commission approval of this agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: $1,500,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 303-71-12301 -P81 00-80 Fiscal Procedures Approved:��`� Date: 1 1 /28/05 Attachment: Agreement #06-7 1 -001 -00 i • 35 • RCTC Agreement No. 06-71-001 00 AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT OF 2009 MEASURE "A" LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDS 1. Parties and Date. This Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of , 2005, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC" or "Commission") and the City of Blythe ("City") located in the County of Riverside, State of California: 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC is a county transportation commission created and existing pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sections 130053 and 130053.5. 2.2 The City is a municipality with local streets and roads requiring maintenance, development and rehabilitation. 2.3 In 1988, RCTC enacted and the voters of Riverside County ("County") approved Measure "A" (1989 Measure `A"') which authorized RCTC to impose a retail transaction and use tax of one-half percent (.5%) throughout the County of Riverside for up to twenty years. This tax is popularly known as a one-half cent sales tax. • 2.4 The 1989 Measure "A" tax was due to expire in 2009, but on November 5, 2002, a thirty year extension of the half -cent sales tax was approved by voters of the County ("2009 Measure `A"'). 2.5 The Transportation Improvement Plan ("Plan") implementing the 2009 Measure "A" provides that its tax funds are to be used for transportation purposes in the County and further provides that $970 million of the these funds are to be distributed to the cities in the Western County area for local street and road improvements ("Local Streets and Roads Funding") in amounts based on both proportionate population and contribution to 2009 Measure "A" tax revenue. 2.6 The proceeds of the retail transaction and use tax ("2009 Measure `A' Funds") are collected by the California Board of Equalization pursuant to a contract between RCTC and the Board of Equalization, and paid to RCTC monthly. 2.7 The Commission has authorized the issuance of commercial paper in the amount of $200,000,000. (The "2005 Commercial Paper Program"). A portion of the proceeds of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program, which was initially established at $190,000,000 based on a direct pay letter of credit, wilt provide funding for the advance provided herein. 2.8 The City has requested and RCTC has agreed that RCTC will advance to the City certain amounts which the City and RCTC anticipate RCTC would otherwise collect and allocate to the City as its share of Local Streets and Roads Funding, as allocated pursuant to the formula set forth in the Plan. 1 of 8 36 2.9 The funds shall be used to finance a portion of the cost of improvements to the Chanslorway and South Lovekin Boulevard more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("-Project"). 2.10 The City agrees that it will repay to RCTC the advance and costs associated therewith described herein from Local Streets and Roads Funding. 3. Terms. 3.1 Advance of 2009 Measure "A" Funds. A. Amount of Advance. RCTC agrees to distribute to the City, on terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) (the "Advance"). B. Interest. The Advance shall only accrue interest on that portion of the Advance actually distributed to the City. Once any portion of the Advance is distributed to the City, interest shall accrue from this date and said interest shall be payable by the City at a rate of '/2 percent over the interest rate paid by RCTC on funds outstanding under the 2005 Commerical Paper Program. In the event the bonds of the 2005 Commercial Paper Program are converted into long term bonds, the City shall pay interest on the outstanding balance of the Advance at a rate of/2 percent over the interest rate of the long term bonds. The above -described '/2 percent interest rate shall reimburse RCTC for the cost of issuing and administering. the Advance. C. Repayment of Advance. The City shall repay the Advance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest, to RCTC in one hundred twenty (120) monthly installments commencing on September 1, 2009 amortized over the period from the date of this Agreement until September 1, 2019 ("Maturity Date") to be calculated by RCTC based on the amount of the Advance, with each installment due no later than the thirtieth (30`h) of each month, until the Maturity Date or repayment in full of all outstanding principal and accrued and unpaid interest, whichever is earlier. D. Early Repayment. The City shall have the right to repay the entire unpaid principal balance of the Advance, plus accrued interest, without penalty, no later than December 31, 2007. The City intends, but is not obligated to, seek funding from alternative sources to repay Advance. Such alternative sources include eligible TUMF funds, as well as grants and appropriations from the Indian Gaming Distribution Fund as well as applicable state and federal programs. At the City's reasonable request and to the extent possible, RCTC will cooperate in assisting the City to obtain and utilize these alternative funding sources for early repayment of Advance. 3.2 Repayment. A. Authorization to Apply Local Streets and Roads Funding to Payments, Pledge of Additional Security. For so long as any obligation of the City under this Agreement remains outstanding, the City hereby instructs RCTC to apply the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City as Local 2 of 8 37 • Streets and Road Funding under the 2009 Measure "A" Plan to pay any due but unpaid obligations of the City to RCTC under this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Advance is not a general obligation of the City, but is rather a special obligation of the City payable solely from the City's portion of any Local Streets and Roads Funding which would otherwise be distributed to the City under the 2009 Measure "A". Consequently, neither the faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged for repayment of the Advance. B. Remaining Balance Payable. RCTC shall notify the City of the calculation and application of funds made under Section 3.2(B) above, and any amounts then due to RCTC from the City, within thirty (30) days of RCTC's calculation and application of such amounts. RCTC's calculations shall be final, absent clerical or mathematical error. The City shall pay to RCTC any balance due within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice from RCTC of such amount. 3.3 Conditions of the Advance. The obligation of RCTC to make the Advance shall be subject to the condition precedent that RCTC shall have received, in form and substance satisfactory to RCTC, all of the following: A. Duly executed copies of this Agreement and such other documents as RCTC may request in order to fully effectuate the purposes and intent of this Agreement. B. Such documents and certificates regarding the existence, authority and power of the City to execute this Agreement and any related documents as RCTC deems - reasonably necessary. • 3.4 City's Representations and Warranties. The City hereby makes the following representations and warranties which shall be deemed to be continuing representations and warranties so long as the Advances remains outstanding: A. Agreement Authorized. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and any and all related documents (collectively "Advance Documents") are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority. B. No Default. The City is not in default, nor is it aware of any events that, with the passage of time or the giving of notice, would constitute an event of default on any obligation of the City to RCTC or on any existing public debt issuance of the City. C. No Conflict. The execution, delivery and performance of the Advances Documents does not contravene or conflict with any constitutional provision, law, statute, regulation, or any agreement, indenture or undertaking to which the City is a party or by which it or the 2009 Measure "A" Funds may be bound or affected, and does not and will not cause any lien, charge or other encumbrance to be created or imposed upon the 2009 Measure "A" Funds by reason thereof. D. Solvency. The City is solvent. 3 of 8 E. No Violation of RCTC Measure"A" Advance Policies. The City is not in violation of the policies of RCTC for recipients of Advance Funds, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." F. Liti ag tion. There is no litigation or other proceeding pending or threatened against or affecting the City and relating to the Advance, or the Advance Documents, or the transactions contemplated herein or thereby. G. Financial Condition. All financial statements and data submitted in writing by the City to RCTC in connection with the request for Advance are true and correct, and said statements truly represent the financial condition of the City as of the date thereof and the results of the operations of the City for the period covered thereby and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained, and that since such date there have been no materially adverse changes in the ordinary course of business. The City has no knowledge of any liabilities, contingent or otherwise, at such date not reflected in said statements, and the City has not entered into any special commitments or substantial contracts which are not reflected in said statements other than in the ordinary and normal course of business, which may have a materially adverse effect upon its financial condition or operations as now conducted. 3.5 City's Affirmative Covenants. The City agrees that so long as the Advance is outstanding, it will, unless RCTC- shall otherwise consent in writing: A. Use of Advance. Use the Advance only for purpose and project identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. In addition, the City recognizes that under 2009 Measure "A" Plan the purpose of Local Streets and Roads Funding is to assist with the maintenance, development, and rehabilitation of the existing the City and County road system in Palo Verde Valley, and the City agrees that the Advance shall only be used in a manner consistent with the portions of the 2009 Measure "A" Plan related to Palo. Verde Valley Local Streets and Road Funding. B. Records and Reports. Maintain a standard and modem system of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently maintained and furnish RCTC annual audited financial statements and such other information relating to the affairs of the City or the uses of the Advance as RCTC reasonably may request from time to time. C. Inspection. Permit, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, qualified personnel designated by RCTC in writing, to inspect any projects funded by the Advance and any records maintained in connection therewith. RCTC shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection. D. Notice of Default. Promptly notify RCTC in writing of the occurrence of any Event of Default hereunder or of any event which would become an Event of Default hereunder upon giving of notice, lapse of time, or both. • 4of8 39 • 3.6 City's Negative Covenants. The City will not, so long as the Advance remains outstanding, without RCTC's prior written consent create, incur, assume or permit to exist any mortgage, deed of trust, security interest (whether possessory or nonpossessory) or other lien upon or on the City's Local Share of the 2009 Measure "A" Funds other than liens in favor of RCTC. 3.7 Rights and Remedies. A. RCTC shall at all times have the rights and remedies of a secured party under the California Commercial Code ("Code") in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein or in any other agreement or document executed by the City. B. The rights and remedies of RCTC under this Agreement shall not be exhausted by the exercise of any of the rights or remedies of RCTC pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement between the City and RCTC or any action, proceeding or any number of successive actions or proceedings, unless and until all of the sums owing RCTC by the City shall be fully paid, performed and discharged. All rights and remedies afforded to RCTC pursuant hereto or under any other agreement at any time in effect between the City and RCTC (whether or not there are other parties in addition to the City and RCTC) shall be separate and cumulative and in addition to any and all rights or remedies available at law, in equity or otherwise, and no one of such rights or remedies, whether exercised or not, shall be deemed to be in exclusion of any other right or remedy available and shall in no way limit or prejudice any other right or remedy. The exercise of any one of such rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of, or an election not to exercise, any other right or remedy. 3.8 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at RCTC's option, constitute an event of default (each an "Event of Default") and the City shall provide RCTC with immediate notice thereof A. Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to RCTC by the City or any of the City's officers, employees or agents now or hereafter which is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect; or B. The City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement, or any agreement delivered pursuant hereto; or C. There shall occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of the City; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against the City; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents the City from paying any sums owed by the City to RCTC. 3.9 Indemnification. The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend RCTC from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or suffered, which arise, result from, or relate to City's breach of or failure to perform any of its agreements, • covenants, obligations, representations, or warranties contained herein. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement. 5 of 8 40 3.10 Procedures for Distribution of the Advance. A. Initial Payment by the City. The City shall be responsible for initial payment of all the Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such Project costs, the City shall submit invoices to RCTC requesting reimbursement of those eligible costs described in section 3.5.A. of this Agreement. Each: invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to the City, and documents evidencing the City's payment of the invoices or demands for payment. The City shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly. B. Review and Reimbursement by RCTC. Upon receipt of an invoice from the City, RCTC may request additional documentation or explanation of the Project costs for which reimbursement is sought. Undisputed amounts shall be paid by ROTC to the City within thirty (30) days. In the event that RCTC disputes the eligibility of the City for reimbursement of all or a portion of an invoiced amount, the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the meet and confer process is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the City may appeal RCTC's decision as to the eligibility of one or more invoices to RCTC's Executive Director. The City may appeal the decision of the Executive Director to the frill RCTC Board, the decision of which shall be final. Additional details concerning the procedure for the City's submittal of invoices to RCTC and RCTC's consideration and payment of submitted invoices are set forth in Exhibit "D", attached hereto. C. Funding Amount/Adjustment. If a post Project audit or review indicates that RCTC has provided reimbursement to the City in an amount in excess of the Advance, or has provided reimbursement of ineligible Project costs, the City shall reimburse RCTC for the excess or ineligible payments within 30 days of notification by RCTC. 3.11 Miscellaneous. A. No Waiver. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by the City hereunder shall be implied from any omission by RCTC to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by RCTC to or of any act by the City requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. B. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of RCTC and the City and no third person, other than a permitted assignee or successor hereunder, shall have any right of action under this Agreement. C. Notices. All notices or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be considered as properly given if mailed by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by express courier delivery or personal delivery to the addressee. Notice mailed by 6of8 41 • U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: ROTC: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director CITY: CITY OF BLYTHE 235 North Broadway Blythe, CA 92225 Attn: City Manager Each party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder to any other location by the giving of notice to the other party in the manner set forth above. D. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. E. Time. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element. F. Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement and each provision • hereof may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto. G. Attorney's Fees. The prevailing party in any action arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and other related expenses actually incurred. H. Severability. The invalidity and unenforceability of any one or more provisions of this Agreement will in no way affect any other provision. I. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in three or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. J. Headin2s. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, the City will execute and deliver such further documents and do other acts and things as RCTC may reasonably request in order to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement, and any other Advances Documents and to provide for the payment of the Advances and interest thereon in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date 7of8 42 first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Robin Lowe, Chair REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Eric Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission 8 of 8 43 CITY OF BLYTHE By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM By: City Attorney • is s n LJ Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D • is Exhibit List Description of Project Not Used Commission Policies Procedures for Submittal, Consideration and Payment of Invoices 44 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CITY OF BLYTHE 2009 MEASURE "A" LOAN PROJECT: [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE) A-1 • • 0 45 • EXHIBIT "C" COMMISSION POLICIES l . Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) to the ROTC in order to qualify for Measure A Streets and Roads funds. In order to be eligible to receive monthly disbursements of funding beginning at the start of a fiscal year, agencies are required to submit their CIPs to the RCTC no later than May 31" The first year of an agency's annual CIP update will include a list of the specific projects planned to be constructed in that year including projects in Year 1 of the current CIP which will not be under contract by June 30`h of the current year. Year 1 of the CIP will also show expenses for multi -year projects which are expected to be spent for project development work. Projects to be constructed in Years 2-5 of the CIP are to be listed along with their estimated costs. The specific year for construction may be included, if available, but is not required in the CIP. Costs for multi -year projects, excluding project development costs shown in Year 1, are to be included in the list of Year 2-5 projects. 2. Cities not participating in the Western Riverside County or Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program do not qualify to receive • Measure A Streets and Roads allocations (new Measure A). 3. Local agencies which are entitled to Measure A funding allocations must demonstrate that they continue to be committed to using their local discretionary funds for local streets and road improvement and maintenance. The local agencies must provide the RCTC with an annual certification that the Measure A funds they are allocated will not replace existing local discretionary funds being used for local transportation purposes. The RCTC cannot issue funds for a new fiscal year until it has received certification of maintenance of effort from the respective agencies. Calculations supporting the MOE certification may be noted by staff as preliminary pending adoption of the annual budget and completion of the annual audit. If the audit or the budget process result in a significant modification to the MOE calculations of CIP, revisions are to be submitted to the RCTC for processing. 0 EXHIBIT "D" PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES RCTC recommends that the City incorporate this Exhibit "D-1" into its contracts with any subcontractors to establish a standard method for preparation of invoices by contractors to the City and ultimately to RCTC for reimbursement of City contractor costs. 2. Each month the City shall submit an invoice for eligible Project costs incurred during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to RCTC's Executive Director with a copy to RCTC's Project Coordinator. Each invoice shall. be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-2". 3. Each invoice shall include documentation from each contractor used by the City for the Project, listing labor costs, subcontractor costs, and other expenses. Each invoice shall also include a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing the hours or amounts expended by each contractor or Contractor for the month and for the entire Project to date. Samples of acceptable task level documentation and progress reports are attached as Exhibits "D-4" and "D-5". All documentation from the City's contractors should be accompanied by a cover letter in a format substantially similar to that of Exhibit "D-3". 4. If the City is seeking reimbursement for direct expenses incurred by City staff for eligible Project costs, the City shall detail the same level of information for its labor and any expenses in the same level of detail as required of contractors pursuant to Exhibit "D" and its attachments. 5. Charges for each task and milestone listed in Exhibit "A" shall be listed separately in the invoice. 6. Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the City Representative or his or her designee which reads as follows: "I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates submitted for reimbursement in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors or contractors listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 0 7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If O RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, 47 • without interest, pending resolution of the dispute, but the uncontested balance will be paid. � • 8. The final payment under this Agreement will be made only after: (i) the City has obtained a Release and Certificate of Final Payment from each contractor or contractor used on the Project; (ii) the City has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment; and (iii) the City has provided copies of each such Release to RCTC. 2 EXHIBIT D-I • Elements of Compensation For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Contractor compensation as set forth herein. The total compensation for this service shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT_) ($_INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ) without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the • Contractor's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Contractor's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives The Decimal Ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. C� 1 49 • 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs The Decimal Ratio of Allowable Overhead Costs to the Contractor Firm's Total Direct Salary Costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier (sum of 1.1.2.1,1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The fixed fee is $ 1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. • Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: • ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE [ insert charges Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $ /hour Photocopies $ /copy Blueline $ /sheet LD Telephone $ /call Fax $ /sheet Photographs $ /sheet Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Contractor's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2 R111 2. 3. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1. Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES [ sample_J. Principal $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Manager $ .00 - $ .00/hour Sr. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Project Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Assoc. Engineer/Planner $ .00 - $ .00/hour Technician $ .00 - $ .00/hour Drafter/CADD Operator $ .00 - $ .00/hour Word Processor $ .00 - $ .00/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Contractor only. All rates for subcontractors to the Contractor will be in accordance with the Contractor's cost proposal. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Contractor shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.3 Base Work and Extra Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The 3 51 • charges for each individual assigned by the Contractor under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subcontractors or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Contractor's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed Title Date • Invoice No. 4. PAYMENT 0 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Contractor within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Contractor has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. 4 52 EXHIBIT D-3 Sample Letter from Contractor to City/County Month/Date/Year Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation. Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Accounts Payable Invoice #. For [type of services] rendered by [contractor name] in connection with [name of project] This is per agreement No. XX-XX-XXX effective Month/Date/Year . Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Base Contract Amount: $000,000.00 Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) $000,000.00 TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $000,000.00 Total Invoice to Date: $000,000.00 Total Previously Billed: $000,000.00 Balance Remaining: $000,000.00 Amount Due this Invoice: $000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed, By: Name Title Is U r LJ 54 • • EXHIBIT D-4 SAMPLE TASK SUMMARY SCHEDULE 55 EXHIBIT D-5 Sample Progress Report REPORTING PERIOD: Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year PROGRESS REPORT: #1 A. Activities and Work Completed during Current Work Periods TASK 0 1 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation 2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action Problems Corrective Action None None C. Work Planned Next Period TASK 01 —100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans 2. Responding to review comments RVPUB\DAB\688180.1 • 56 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Riverside County Call Box System Reduction and , Maintenance Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize staff to reduce the number of call boxes throughout the Riverside County Call Box system by approximately 422 boxes; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 06-45-003-00 with Comarco Wireless Technologies for the removal and installation of call boxes and annual maintenance services for the Riverside County Call Box Program, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), operates approximately 1,100 call boxes on freeways and highways in Riverside County. The call box system allows motorists to call for assistance in the event of an accident or mechanical problem on the freeway. Each call box is a battery powered, solar charged roadside terminal with a microprocessor and built-in cellular telephone. Construction of the call box system began in May 1990 with the installation of 600 call boxes on major county freeways with spacing between boxes ranging from 'h mile to 2 miles in remote desert areas. The system was expanded in February 1992 with the addition of approximately 500 call boxes by reducing the spacing from 'h mile to 'A mile in urban areas and from 2 miles to 1 mile in remote desert areas. Since that time, a limited number of call boxes have been added or redeployed to other areas to provide service in previously underserved areas or newly constructed freeways (e.g. SR-177 between 1-10 and SR-62 and SR-86S in the Coachella Valley). • Over the last several years, the Riverside County call box program, along with call box programs throughout the state, has experienced a reduction in the number of calls received through its system. Since FY 1999-2000, the call volume in 57 Riverside County has declined an average of 18.5% per year, or from 55,780 calls in FY 2000 to 20,000 calls in FY 2005. In San Bernardino County, the call volume decreased an average of 15.1 % per year for the same time period, and statewide, the average annual decline in call volume was between 15% and 18%. The primary reason for the decline in number of calls is the increased use of cellular phones. The decreasing call volume has led several SAFEs to remove call boxes. Orange County is reducing its system from 1,200 to approximately 550 boxes. San Diego is eliminating 372 of its 1,772 call boxes. MTC in the Bay Area removed 950 boxes in March 2005 and will begin removing an additional 569 call boxes in December, leaving it with 2,096 call boxes. However, the call box system continues to provide a safety net for those motorists without a cell phone and is generally more reliable than hand held cellular phones. Call boxes are continuously recharging their batteries so they are never "low" on power, and they perform a self -diagnostic check every seventy-two hours to report its operational status. Also, the call box automatically identifies its location to help aid both the motorist and the California Highway Patrol in sending the appropriate assistance to the correct location. Given the decline in call volume and the need to continue to provide a safety net • system for motorists in Riverside County, staff is proposing to: 1. remove 439 call boxes by increasing spacing standards from '/2 mile to 1 mile and 1 mile to 2 miles, 2. install 8 boxes on SR-111 east of Mecca to the San Diego County line to maintain consistent spacing in a remote desert region, and 3. install 9 boxes on SR-195 to provide service on an unserved highway of the county. The three actions will result in a total decrease of 422 call boxes leaving a balance of 728 boxes in the countywide system. The current maintenance provider for the call box program, Comarco Wireless Technologies (CWT), installs, repairs, and maintains the call boxes. Comarco is estimating that it will cost a maximum of $192,000 to remove the 439 boxes and reinstall 17 boxes in the new locations. The program will, however, realize an annual savings of $186,300 by not incurring the cellular and maintenance costs for the removed boxes. The maintenance agreement with Comarco expires December 31, 2005. Comarco Wireless Technologies has provided call box equipment and maintenance to the S Riverside County call box program since 1996 and currently provides this service to the majority of California call box programs, including Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego. The only SAFE they do not provide service to is Los Angeles. • • • In addition, the Commission has awarded contracts to Comarco to upgrade the call boxes from analog to digital technology and to retrofit the system for enhanced accessibility and "B" and "C" site mitigation improvements. The work for both of these agreements is on hold until staff receives direction from the Commission regarding the removal of call boxes. Staff is recommending that the Commission award a one year agreement, with two one-year options, to Comarco Wireless Technologies to provide the annual maintenance to the Riverside County Call Box program. The cost is based on a flat annual fee of $348 per call box per year to maintain the system. The service includes preventive maintenance; knockdown and vandalism repair; system operation and performance monitoring; site improvements and construction; and removals and reinstallations due to freeway construction. The flat annual per box fee is the same fee charged to all California SAFES and is subject to an annual CPI adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: 2005-2006 Amount: $192,000 Source of Funds: SAFE DMV Fees Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 202-45-73301 Equipment Maintenance - General Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 1 1 /28/05 M • AGENDA ITEM 14 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: Award Agreements for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION. This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-006-00, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #2 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $47.75 per hour per truck; 2) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-005-00, with two one-year options • to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat #25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $48.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award a 3 year agreement, #06-45-004-00, with two one-year options to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat #26 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $49.50 per hour per truck; 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission, and 5) Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION_ The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 29, 2005 for tow truck service provisions on Beat #2, Beat #25, and Beat #26 (reference Attachment A) of the Freeway Service Patrol program. The new Beat #26 will provide FSP coverage on the highly congested section of the 1-15 freeway, between the SR 91 freeway and Temescal Canyon Road. Bids were due October 19, 2005, and proposals were received from various tow operators including Hamner Towing, Pepe's Towing, and Tri-City Towing. Multiple proposals were received for Beat #2 and Beat #25. Only one proposal was received for Beat #26. An Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from the • California Highway Patrol Inland Division, Caltrans District 8, San Bernardino .11 Associated Governments, and Commission staff reviewed each proposal. The Evaluation Committee then discussed each of the proposals and finalized their scoring based on the criteria set forth in the RFP. The average of these scores provided the final score for each proposal. Based upon the final scores of the Evaluation Committee (CHP, Caltrans, SANBAG, and Commission staff), the following recommendations were made: = ; Award Beat #2 agreement to Hamner Towing, starting July 3, 2006 Hamner Towing Tri-City Towing Final Score: 94* 67 Award Beat #25 agreement to Pepe's Towing, starting July 3, 2006 Hamner Towing Pepe's Towing Tri-City Towinq Final Score: 90 91* 65 Award Beat #26 agreement to Hamner Towing, starting February 2, 2006 Hamner Towing Final Score: 95* Each agreement award represents a three-year agreement with two one-year options, • to provide FSP tow truck service on a given beat. All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 80% from State funds and 20% from local SAFE fees, and are subject to continued funding from the State for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. A budget adjustment of $75,400 will be required to cover the cost of the new Beat #26 through the end of the current fiscal year. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year. FY 2005-06 Amount: $75,400 Source of Funds: State of California - 80% SAFE DMV Fees - 20 /o Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 11/28/05 • 61 U Description: SR-91, Lincoln Avenue to Magnolia Avenue (5.6 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:OOa.m. to 8:30a.m.; 3:OOp.m.to 7:OOp.m. Current FSP Provider: Tri-City Towing, expires June 30, 2006 FMVIZI Description: 1-15, Riverside County Line to Hidden Valley Parkway (9.4 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:30a.m. to 8:30a_m.; 3:00p.m.to 7:OOp.m. Current FSP Provider: Pepe's Towing, expires June 30, 2006 Description: 1-15, Hidden Valley Parkway to Temescal Canyon Road (9.6 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:30a.m. to 8:30a.m.; 3:00p.m.to 7:OOp.m. Current FSP Provider: NEW [SEAT • Attachment A I i 62 AGENDA ITEM 15 • • ATTACHMENT TO AGENDA ITEM 15 DATE: September 28, 2005 TO: Consultant Firms FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for the Provision of Communications and Graphic Design Consultant Services ® The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCfC) is soliciting proposals from qualified communications and graphic design firms to provide consultant services in support of the Agency's Public Information Program and other departmental outreach efforts. This Request for Proposals (RFP) uses the words "Consultant" and "Bidder" interchangeably. INDEX Section 1 - Background Pg. 1 Section 2 - Purpose of RFP Pg. 2 Section 3 - Examination of RFP Documents Pg. 3 Section 4 - Schedule of Events Pg. 3 Section 5 - Question and Answer Process Pg. 3 Section 6 - Scope of Work Pg. 4 Section 7 - Proposal Submittal Requirements Pg. 5 Section 8 - Consultant Selection Process Pg. 9 Section 9 - Proposal Evaluation Criteria Pg. 10 ATTACHMENTS: A. Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Commissioners • B. Sample Professional Services Agreement 1.0 BACKGROUND As a policy -making body, the Commission oversees a wide range of transportation activities within Riverside County. The thirty member board provides a forum for local city and county representatives to participate in and influence the decision -making process regarding transportation planning, programming and funding issues. In addition to fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under AB1246 (Ingalls), the: Commission implements Measure A, Riverside County's half cent sales tax for transportation improvements, and serves in several other capacities including Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), Freeway Service Patrol, and Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The Commission employs 26 full time staff members and has an operating budget of $321 million for fiscal year 2005-2006. The Commission is committed to communicating with and educating a broad arena of interested parties about the roles and responsibilities of RCTC. Emphasis is placed on informing Riverside County residents and businesses about transportation programs and projects impacting them, and maintaining • open communication with other allied entities. 2.0 PURPOSE OF RFP The purpose of this RFP is to solicit a communications and design Consultant to assist RCTC in the design, development, and implementation of the Commission's broad information and outreach efforts that span a number of work areas including, but not limited to,: administration, finance, specialized transportation, commuter assistance, capital projects (highway and rail), callboxes, freeway service patrol, and intelligent transportation systems. Various forms of media and communication tools are currently used in its outreach efforts with the overall objectives being to: 1) provide accurate, informative and easily accessible. information, 2) facilitate public participation in and understanding of RCTC's programs, projects, and processes, and 3) increase inter -agency coordination and cooperation. To meet these objectives, RCTC is seeking a creative and technically knowledgeable full -service consulting firm who can be responsive to the Commission's decision -making processes in a positive and productive manner including high profile topics with short turn around time frames. The successful Consultant will be expected to produce materials that are clear and concise, high quality, appealing to the audience, and cost effective. 10 2 LJ The Consultant will work closely with RCTC staff on all assigned tasks. Work will be performed on an as -needed basis as authorized by designated RCTC representatives and will be reimbursed on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis. The Consultant will be required to work cooperatively and productively with other consultants or agencies as a team player and represent the interests and position of the Commission. For FY 2005-2006, the Commission has budgeted $650,000 for time and material costs for its communications and outreach efforts. It is anticipated that RCTC will enter into a three-year contract with the selected Consultant and include an option to extend the contract for two one-year periods. 3.0 EXAMINATION OF RFP DOCUMENTS Bidder shall be solely responsible for examining, with appropriate care, the Request For Proposal (RFP) documents, including any Addenda issued during the proposal period, and for informing itself with respect to any and all conditions which may in any way affect the amount or nature of proposal, or the performance of the work in the event Bidder is selected. Failure of the Bidder to so examine and inform itself shall be at its sole risk and no relief for error or omission will be given. 4.0 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS A. Release RFP September 29, 2005 B. Consultant written comments may be October 13, 2005 submitted on or before C. Mandatory pre -bid meeting at 10:00 a.m. October 17, 2005 D. Proposals due at RCTC offices no later October 24, 2005 than 4:00 p.m. E. Evaluation period October 31 — November 4, 2005 F. Short list interviews (if required) November 14, 2005 G. Evaluation Committee recommendation November 28, 2005 presented to RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee H. Committee Consultant recommendation December 14, 2005 presented to RCTC Board for approval to award contract I. Selected Consultant work begins on or about January 1, 2006 • The above dates are subject to change at the discretion of the Commission. 3 5.0 QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS Questions regarding the content, intent or procedural matters of this RFP should be addressed to: Ms. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Program and Public Affairs Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor PO Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone: (951) 787-7141 . FAX: (951) 787-7920 E-mail: mwilliams@rctc.org (Subject: COMMUNICATIONS RFP) Bidders are encouraged to submit their questions in writing no later than Thursday, October 13, 2005. Submitted questions will be reviewed and answered at the mandatory pre -bid meeting as well as any questions raised during the meeting. Any Bidder questions received by RCTC after the pre -bid meeting will NOT be acknowledged or answered. Please note that potential Bidder's should NOT contact RCTC Board Members or their staff regarding any aspect of this RFP. It is intended that the selection of a Consultant shall be made on merit alone, based is on the processes and criteria set forth in the RFP. Violation of this condition shall be cause for immediate disqualification of a Bidder's proposal. 6.0 SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will be required to work closely with RCTC staff in developing and implementing the Commission's Public Information Program and other departmental outreach efforts including, but not limited to, the following: A. Recommending appropriate public information strategies and marketing themes including methods of outreach for specific target audiences; B. Planning, facilitating and documenting public information meetings and workshops; C. Developing concepts, designing, writing and producing final art work, copy and/or complete work product for annual and financial reports, brochures, hot sheets, newsletters, flyers, bill stuffers, press releases, marketing campaigns, promotional items (e.g., T-shirts, label pins, plaques, pencils), audio visual and multi -media materials, web sites, • 4 broadcast and print advertisements, display boards, office graphics, billboards, display booths, etc.; D. Providing photographic services including aerial photography, and developing and maintaining a proprietary library of film images for various types of applications; E. Coordinating and securing the placement of advertisements; F. Identifying appropriate distribution channels for print materials and implementing material distribution; G. Coordinating and overseeing final production of a wide range of products directly or through other vendors as secured by the Consultant or Commission; H. Researching and preparing cost estimates for a wide variety of services and products; I. Performing various staff support tasks as may be required to set-up, man and take -down Commission sponsored booths, exhibits, awards ceremonies, community events, groundbreaking events, etc.; J. Providing Consultant's own office space, production equipment, supplies and transportation necessary to complete all assigned tasks; K. Hosting all final art work online and making it accessible to select RCTC staff via a secured File Transfer Protocol. i The Commission will be responsible for the following: A. Assigning specific Consultant work tasks including deadlines, and setting priorities; B. Providing direction to Consultant throughout all work task phases; C. Preparing background and technical information for Consultant use; D. Reviewing and approving the Consultant's work products; E. Approving and processing Consultant invoices; and F. Responding to Consultant questions. • 7.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To qualify to submit a proposal, interested consulting firms MUST attend a mandatory pre -bid meeting to be held on Monday, October 17, 2005 at 10.00 a.m. in the office of RCTC (see address in paragraph below). Firms interested in attending the pre -bid meeting are requested to register their attendance in advance of the meeting by calling Ms. Joni Shay, Executive Assistant, at (951) 787-7141 on or before Wednesday, October 12, 2005. The pre -registration will allow RCTC to prepare the appropriate number of RCTC sample work product packages for distribution to pre -registered consultant firms. For firms not pre -registered, RCTC sample packages may either be provided at the pre -bid meeting or mailed thereafter to the Consultant firm at the discretion of the Commission. 5 U Bidder's are required to submit six (6) original proposals (no copies) for use in the Commission's evaluation process including one (1) work Product sample set. Proposals must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m, on Mondayy. October 24, 2005. All proposals will be date and time stamped upon receipt, Any proposal received after 4;00 p.m, exactly will NOT be evaluated and returned to bidder unopened. Bidder's should seal their six original proposals and work product sample set in a package and clearly mark the face of the package with the words, "Communications and Graphic Design RFP; and mail or hand deliver the package to the attention of: Ms. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and Communications Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Id Floor PO Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Submitted proposals must follow the format outlined below and all requested information must be supplied. Failure to submit proposals in the required number and format may result in elimination from the proposal evaluation process. Proposals shall be formatted in two parts: Part I', Proposal, shall contain all written materials deemed necessary by the Consultant to respond to the submittal requirements (except work product samples). It shall not exceed twenty (20) - 8 1/2" X 11" sheets of paper. All proposals should have consecutively number pages, be bound for easy readability and printed double -sided on recycled paper. • Part II, Sample Portfolio, shall contain all work product samples. Bidders shall submit one (1) sample set. All samples shall be contained in a package of the Consultant's choice. Loose and/or unmarked samples will NOT be considered during the evaluation process. All proposals must contain the following items in the exact order and categories as detailed herein: A. COVER LETTER: Within the cover letter, identify the RFP name under which the proposal is being submitted and the Bidder's name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and e-mail address. The letter must specify contact person(s) for • 6 • technical and contractual matters, and be signed by the person(s) authorized to contractually bind the proposing entity. For a joint proposal, the lead Bidder must include a statement confirming authorization to act on behalf of the other Bidder(s). The lead Bidder must include the name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and e-mail address, of all joint proposing firms and a letter of acknowledgement from each of the firms stating their intention to be bound by the RFP requirements and any resulting Consultant contract. The Bidder upon reviewing Attachment A, shall identify any exceptions it has to RCTCs model contract requirements within its cover letter comments. B. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Clearly identify all material contained in the proposal by section and page number. C. CONSUL TANTPROFmE.' Provide a general overview of the Bidder's firm and its approach to service and product development and delivery. A summary history of the Consultant firm should be provided as well as specifics such as number of employees, and number and type of current clients to provide RCTC with an understanding of the firm's overall capacity to perform the Scope of • Work. Identify the addresses of all company offices, if more than one, and state which site will be the primary office where the Bidder will perform work pursuant to this RFP. If a joint proposal is being submitted, please discuss any prior working relationships between the joint proposers. D. CONSULTANT EXPERIENCE; Describe in detail why and how the Bidder's firm is qualified to perform the work outlined in the RFP. At a minimum, two areas of experience must be addressed. First, identify and discuss any experience within the last six (6) years that the Consultant has had in working with private and/or public entities, and, more specifically, transportation entities to demonstrate the firm's expertise in understanding and communicating RCTC's positions, accomplishments, and issues to different audiences using a variety of communications tools. It is strongly suggested that the discussion be supplemented with a list of clients detailing the types of services and work products produced for each client. The list should include the Bidder's client contact name and telephone number. Additionally, the Bidder should identify any work product awards or recognitions received by the Bidder within the last six (6) years to highlight its capabilities to produce high quality products. 0 A list of relevant work products produced within the last six (6) years should also be included in the Proposal which demonstrates the Bidder's design and technical capabilities to perform the Scope of Work. Each item on the work product list should detail: 1) type of work product; 2) client name, responsible staff contact, address, telephone/fax numbers and e- mail address; and 3) unique challenges addressed in the design, development and/or production of the work product. Second, the above list should be supplemented by including samples of the work products described in a separate Sample Portfolio to provide specific examples of the Consultant's range of product development and production experience. All work product samples submitted must be consecutively numbered, and cross-referenced to the list of relevant work product experience in the Proposal. Bidders are encourage to submit samples which are most similar to the types of work products described in this RFP under Section 6 — Scope of Work (e.g., annual reports, press releases, print ads, brochures, marketing campaigns, promotional items, etc.). To further assist Bidders in their selection of samples to submit, samples of existing RCTC work products will be distributed at the mandatory pre - bid meeting as referenced in the beginning of Section 7. E. CONSULTANT ORGANIZATIONIPERSONNEL: Provide an organization chart of the Bidder's firm and any other firm's submitting as part of a joint proposal under this RFP. Describe how the firm(s) propose(s) to work closely and cooperatively with RCTC staff and other consulting firms as assigned to deliver requested work products within defined timelines that can sometimes be extremely short. Resumes for all key professional and management personnel that will be assigned to the RCTC account should be included in this section. Please identify by name and title the Bidder's Account Manager who will be the designated RCTC contact as well as other key staff. Include a description of their roles and areas of expertise and identify which office site they are located in if not in the primary .office as noted under sub -section C above. Please note that each key staff will be subject to RCTC approval and must be maintained for the contract period. Any replacement for identified key staff must similarly be approved by RCTC. F. Fee Schedule and In-house/Vendor Services List: The work to be performed under this RFP and any resulting contract will be on a Time and Materials basis as assigned by RCTC. The Bidder is • 0 requested to provide a detailed list of hourly rates by type of service/product expected to be performed in-house pursuant to the Scope of Work. Bidder's shall also identify any additional charges for overhead rates, fringe benefits, administrative costs, and profit. A list of the Bidder's proposed vendors should also be included detailing the type of service/product to be purchased from each vendor and the unit cost for said service/product. The Bidder must identify any "material handling fee" that will be charged in addition to vendor costs. A discussion of how the Bidder plans to or has procured the identified vendors is required. If the Bidder anticipates any other charges for costs associated with the work to be performed under this RFP such as travel, telephone, etc., those costs must be clearly identified along with unit costs. In addition, if the Bidder applies any charges for expedited work as a result of timelines being advanced by RCTC or required priority rush work, all such charges must be identified and documented. G. CONFLICTOFINTEREST. Address any possible conflicts of interest the Bidder may have as a result of work with other clients and work to be performed under this RFP on • behalf of RCTC. Although the Bidder will not be automatically disqualified by reason of work performed for such firms, RCTC reserves the right to consider the nature and extent of such work in evaluating any proposal. U H. DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMISSIONERS: Bidders are required to complete and sign Attachment B and include it with their bid package. 8.0 CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS An Evaluation Committee as well as other experts in the field of communication will review and evaluate all proposals submitted to determine their responsiveness to the RFP requirements. Proposals determined to be responsive will be evaluated and points awarded based upon the criteria outlined in Section 9 — Proposal Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation criteria and points are included to provide the Bidder with additional guidance as to the importance of each criteria the proposal will be evaluated against. The Evaluation Committee will develop a priority list of responsive proposals based on each proposals total average score. RCTC reserves the right to interview any or all of the Bidders. If oral interviews are required, they will be held on Monday, November 14, 2005 in the RCTC offices. The Evaluation 9 9.0 Committee will forward their Consultant firm recommendation to RCTC's Budget and Implementation Committee. Upon review and approval by the RCTC Committee, it is projected that a recommendation will be sent to the full RCTC Board for final approval. A professional services contract will be awarded to a responsible and responsive Bidder whose proposal best conforms to the RFP and is, in the opinion of RCTC, the most qualified firm to perform the Scope of Work. The successful Bidder must enter into a contract (See Section 7.A.) with RCTC as a condition of receiving any funding. Once submitted, proposals cannot be altered without the prior written consent of RCTC. All proposals shall be firm offers valid for a'period of ninety (90) days following the deadline for proposal submission. RCTC reserves the right to: 1) reject any and all proposals submitted, 2) request clarifying information of any Bidder, 3) negotiate terms, with any Bidder, and 4) waive any irregularities in a proposal. All proposals become the property of RCTC upon submission. RCTC intends to keep all proposals confidential prior to contract award. Upon contract award, all proposals are subject to applicable public information laws. All time, materials, and costs associated with the preparation of a proposal shall be borne solely by the Consultant firm responding to this RFP. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA The following factors will be considered in the evaluation of all responsive proposals. Proposals should provide information in sufficient detail to allow evaluation based on the established criteria: A. Responsiveness of the proposal to the RFP 10 Points B. Frm's relevant experience 20 Points C. Creativity, diversity and quality of sample work products 20.Points .D. Experience and strength of firm's assigned personnel 20 Points E. Range of firm's in-house services 10 Points F. Consultant labor rates and other charges 20 Points TOTAL: 100 Points 10 • ATTACHMENT A 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. 11 Cl The following is a list of the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission: Bob Buster, County of Riverside John 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 / Paul Marchand, 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 Tent' 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 Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Conner, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Governor's Appointee • 12 ® I/We hereby disclose the following political contributions of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months to any Commissioner listed above: Date of Contribution Amount of Contribution Recipient (Attach Additional Sheet, If Necessary) Date of Disclosure (Same As Bid Date) BIDDER: Signature of Bidder Title • • 13 ATTACHMENT B SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Agreement No. - - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR (_DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES_] SERVICES WITH CONSULTANT_] PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 200, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and LNAME OF . FIRM_] ("Consultant"), a LLEGAL '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_] 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 L_INSERT PROJECT NAME 1 Project ("Project") as set forth herein. 2.3 This Agreement shall not be deemed to be approved by the Commission until the certifications shown in Exhibits "D" and "E", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are executed and incorporated in this Agreement. 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 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 14 • 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 Consultant: 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: 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates LINSERT 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_1, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care: Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's 15 failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure 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 Agreementllocation or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability. $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident; 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. LINCLUDE ONLY IF APPLICABLE - DELETE OTHERWISE___] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 LINCREASE IF NECESSARY - OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS,AND DELETE THIS NOTE I per claim. 3.12.4 Insurance 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: 16 • (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 insured with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insured with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any scheduled 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 retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self - insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 17 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or • damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed LINSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT_] ($L_INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT_J) 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 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. 18 • 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. 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: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3'd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Attn: Executive Director • Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual 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, 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 19 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 orJollowing termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and ,all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production. or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission_ 3.19 Cooperation: Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of. or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys 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, 20 • expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 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. is 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 21 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seg. and 1770 et seg., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seg. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is indentured. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the is 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 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 consfitute 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. 40 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: [INSERT NAME] Chairman [NOT NEEDED IF APPROVED BY COMMISSION] By: Eric Haley Executive Director Approved as to Form: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel r� U 23 By: Signature Name Title CONSULTANT EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [_INSERT_] • 24 • EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES LINSERT_j • • 25 EXHIBIT " C" COMPENSATION [_INSERT_] 26 • • • EXHIBIT 'D" CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the and duly authorized representative of the firm of whose address is and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above firm that 1 represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this agreement; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the agreement; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this agreement. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this agreement involving participation of Federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. • By: Signature Name Title Date • 27 EXHIBIT FIE IF CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and that the consulting firm of or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or (b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. 1 acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving participation of federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date 29 s 0 CJ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Director of Public Information FROM: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Communications and Graphic Design Consultant Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION. This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award a three year consultant agreement, No. 06-15-008-00, to Geographics with two one-year term extension options for communications and graphic design services on an as needed, time and materials basis pursuant to the hourly rates stated in its proposal; 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1999 the Commission approved a multi -year consultant contract with the Riverside based firm of Geographics to perform on -call services in support of the agency's public information program. The contract was awarded based on a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Following the Commission's practice of periodically issuing RFP's for annual consultant services, staff released an RFP for communications and graphic design services (Exhibit A) on September 28, 2005. The RFP was mailed to 124 consultants throughout the region and was posted on the RCTC website. Fifteen firms attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting during which time the RFP and its requirements were reviewed. Staff distributed a sheet of 37 questions which were submitted by various firms in advance of the pre -bid meeting. Each question was verbally answered as well as follow-on questions which were raised during the meeting. As one of the RFP rating criteria focused on a bidder's creative work and ability to • communicate information in an eye catching and informative manner, a packet of RCTC print and website materials was reviewed to illustrate the breadth of the 63 Commission's product needs and existing creative standards. The packet review was intended to help bidders in their selection of sample work products to demonstrate their firm's skills and abilities. Nine bids were received in response to the RFP. A Technical Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from San Bernardino Associated Governments, Orange County Transportation Authority, Southern California Association of Governments and the Commission reviewed and rated each proposal based on the RFP evaluation criteria including: 1. Responsiveness of the proposal to the RFP 10 points 2. Firm's relevant experience 20 points 3. Creativity, diversity and quality of sample work products 20 points 4. Experience and strength of firm's assigned personnel 20 points 5. Range of firm's in-house services 10 points 6. Consultant labor rates and other charges 20 points 100 points Each Committee member rated the proposals individually and provided written and verbal comments regarding their assessment and overall ranking of the proposals. The scores were tallied and averaged resulting in the following ranking: 1. Geographics 85.8 points 2. Blue C Communications 72.0 points 3. Jones & Stokes 71.8 points 4. Johnson Gray Advertising 69.0 points 5. The Dubois Agency 68.6 points 6. Ervin/Bell Marketing Communications 64.6 points 7. The Garnet Silver Group 64.4 points 8. Marketing Savants 64.4 points 9. William Berry Campaigns 61.4 points All five evaluators ranked Geographics as the top firm based on the fact it had a wide range of in-house services, the lowest hourly rates per service type, and a high quality of print materials not only related to their work with the Commission but also with other agencies including cities, service providers, and special districts that further demonstrated creativity and diversity in product development. While the RFP allowed for oral interviews to be conducted, it was concluded, based on the technical ratings, that oral interviews were not warranted. Given the overall ranking of the proposals, and the high quality and responsive performance of Geographics, a certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) company, Staff recommends that a time and materials, three year consultant • ZI i • • contract be awarded with two one-year contract extension options. Funding for communications and graphic design services totaling $650,000 has been included in the adopted FY 2005/06 budget distributed throughout various department budgets based on a variety of planned public outreach and marketing activities. The budget figure includes labor and cost of products such as brochures, newsletters, displays, etc. All work under this contract will be initiated, directed and approved by Staff. The standard Commission consultant services agreement will be used pursuant to Legal Counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY2005/06 Amount: $650,000 Source of Funds: Various Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: S -15 - 65525, 65526, 73120 and 73704 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 1 1 /28/05 65 • AGENDA ITEM 16 • • C� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 28, 2005 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION.• This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item, and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: . State Update: Initiative Readied to fix Prop. 42 Loophole This could probably be filed under the "Only in California" category where our dependence on the initiative process will require a new initiative to correct a previously approved initiative. Voter approval of Proposition 42 in March 2002, included a clause that allowed the Governor and the Legislature to suspend the measure in cases of fiscal emergency. Since then Proposition 42, which allocates the receipts of the sales tax from fuel sales to transportation, has only been implemented fully once. In short, more than $3.5 billion in Proposition 42 funding has failed to materialize during a time when the state's transportation needs have been especially acute. Governor Schwarzenegger recognized this problem and included an elimination of the Proposition 42 loophole in his November budget initiative, Proposition 76. Saddled with other provisions on the state budget, Proposition 76, along with the rest of the Governor's reform slate, was rejected by voters. Faced with the ongoing uncertainty regarding state transportation funding and Proposition 42, more than 75 stakeholders gathered in Sacramento on November 15 to discuss future strategy. The gathering included professionals in transportation (both public and private sector), business and labor. The outcome of the discussion is to embark upon a year -long effort that will culminate in an • initiative to be placed on the November 2006 ballot. The campaign and effort would be funded by the same private sector interests that launched the original Proposition 42. By targeting the November ballot, the campaign could also provide synergy for a number of county sales tax measure elections and would take place once a potential bond measure might be considered in June. Staff will return with updates as the initiative process for the Proposition 42 fix unfolds. As for the potential statewide bond measure, Governor Schwarzenegger used his recent trip to China as an opportunity to reiterate his support for additional infrastructure investment. In a surprising development, the Governor's staff leaked the idea that they might consider a bond that would surpass the $10.25 billion outlined in SB 1024. A figure of $50 billion was mentioned the Los Angeles Times and in a subsequent interview, the Governor did not shrink from the higher number. What it all means is that the first part of 2006 is bound to include considerable negotiations between the Governor and the Legislature all while having to consider the state's level of bonded indebtedness and what we can actually afford. - Federal Update - Congress Approves Appropriations Bill for Transportation Shortly before leaving for a Thanksgiving break, Congress and the Senate approved the FY 2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill. The bill allocates approximately $36 billion for transportation projects throughout the country. Contained within the bill are a number of earmarks for individual projects. In that this is an Appropriations bill and not a multi -year authorization bill, there are fewer earmarks than in the recently -approved SAFTEA LU. The following projects in Riverside County are called out for additional funding: Streeter Avenue Grade Crossing - Riverside $ 300,000 Sunset Avenue Grade Separation - Banning $1,000,000 State .Route 60 Potrero Road Interchange - Beaumont $1,000,000 Road Improvements - Desert Hot Springs $1,000,000 State Route 91 Chokepoint Improvement - Corona $1,000,000 State Route 79 Realignment - San Jacinto Valley $ 700,000 Corona Transit Center $ 500,000 Riverside Transit Center $ 750,000 In addition to the above, two earmarks will require additional investigation and will raise questions regarding their allocation. One earmark allocates $2 million for "Southern California High Speed Rail Grade Crossing Improvements, CA." Staff members from a number of transportation agencies are attempting to determine the genesis of this provision and its intent. While high-speed rail service in California might be decades away, an investment in improving rail crossings through grade • 67 • separations is immediately welcome. Yet another earmark allocates $4.2 million to the Alameda Corridor East. This particular earmark calls out the San Gabriel Valley, but Congressional action in SAFTEA LU redefined the Alameda Corridor East to include the four Southern California counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino. Earmarks such as this do flow through the state of California and significant work needs to be done to clarify the allocation of federal dollars for projects involving the Alameda Corridor East.