Loading...
12 December 14, 2005 Commission75016 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Robin Lowe 1' Vice Chairman: Marion Ashley 2"d Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / George Thomas, City of Blythe Shenna Moqeet / John Chlebnik / Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Charles England, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Matt Weyuker / Henry "Hank" Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot. Springs Robin Lowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Mary Roche / Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Vacant, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 11.36.00 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, December 14, 2005 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time willassist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 9, 2005 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 2 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. PROPOSED 2006 COMMISSION/COMMITTEES MEETING AND UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt its 2006 Commission/Committees Meeting and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule. 7B. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-12-012-00 FOR COMPUTER ' EQUIPMENT AND NETWORK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE Page 5 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-12-012-00 for Computer Equipment and Network Maintenance and Repair Services to Cybercom Resources; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7C. 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 Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 11 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) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 3 7D. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-71-001-00 FOR ADVANCE TO THE CITY OF BLYTHE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 11 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7E. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Page 34 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. 7F. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the draft 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program. Page 44 7G. AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 06-15-008-00 FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND GRAPHIC DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 52 1) Award Agreement No. 06-15-008-00 to Geographics for a three-year consultant agreement 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 4 7H. TRANSTRACK: TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE Page 83 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $153,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to TransTrack Systems LLC (TransTrack) for the implementation of a Transit Performance Manager software application and training package; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-62-007-00 with TransTrack for $ 153,000 in LTF funds; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 71. DESIGNATED RECIPIENT FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION' S SECTION 5307 PROGRAM - SMALL URBANIZED AREA FUNDING Overview This item is for the Commission to: • Page 87 ill 1) Name the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) as the Designated Recipient (DR) for planning and programming of Section 5307 funds for the Hemet urbanized area (UZA); and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 05-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Recommending that it be Identified as the Designated Recipient of Federal Urbanized Area Formula Funds for the Hemet UZA." • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 5 7J. REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS MATCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SECTION 5310 PROGRAM FROM FRIENDS OF MORENO VALLEY Page 92 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Friends of Moreno Valley (Friends) to provide the required local match for the purchase of an accessible modified van; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-002-00 with Friends for $9,800 in Measure " A" Specialized Transit Funds available in western Riverside County; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. REQUEST FOR MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT LIVING FOR SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Page 94 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate an additional $50,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities for its Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project; 2) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-517-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 05-26-517 with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities in an amount not to exceed $50,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 6 7L. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF NORCO Page 96 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco. 7M. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2006 MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS Page 105 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure " A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs. 7N. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALL BOX SYSTEM REDUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Page 108 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to reduce the number of call boxes throughout the Riverside County Call Box system by approximately 422 boxes; 2) Award Agreement No. 06-45-003-00 to Comarco Wireless Technologies for the removal and installation of call boxes and annual maintenance services for the Riverside County Call Box Program; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 7 70. AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 111 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-006-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $47.75 per hour per truck; 2) Award Agreement No. 06-45-005-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $48.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award Agreement No. 06-45-004-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 26 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $49.50 per hour per truck; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7P. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030-02, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT NO. 04-51-030 WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Page 114 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment No. 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant toLegal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 8 • 7Q. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 122 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7R. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. 8. PRESENTATION — INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION Overview Page 143 This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation on the Inland Empire Transportation Coalition from Bob Wolf. 9. RIVERSIDE COUNTY -ORANGE COUNTY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 146 1) Establish State Route 91 from State Route 55 to Interstate 15 as a priority for improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. Emphasize SR 91 improvements between the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) and 1-15 first, followed by improvements between SR 55 and SR 241. 2) Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the connection between the SR 241 and SR 91 corridors and accelerate capacity improvements on State Route 133, SR 241, and State Route 261 to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. 3) Continue to evaluate costs and impacts with Corridor A within the SR 91 right-of-way through a future preliminary engineering process in cooperation with other agencies. (This is a revised recommendation based on the MIS Policy Committee direction.) • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 9 4) Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor B concept including costs, risks, joint -use opportunities, benefits, and potential funding options in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, Transportation Corridor Agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. 5) Continue work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. 6) Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1 B (Corridor A with the SR 55 widening) from further analysis due to high number of residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to the SR 55. 7) Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (State Route 74) widening and realignment concept due to high cost and environmental impacts, and direct staff to focus on Ortega Highway operational improvements. 10. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT 05-31-561-01, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT NO. 05-31-561, TO PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT 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 Page 158 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-561-01, Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2005-06 Bechtel Infrastructure Agreement No. 05-31-561, 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) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 10 11. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST (ACE) _SAFETEA-LU CALL FOR PROJECTS Page 181 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Release of a Call for Projects for the SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark; 2) Approve the Evaluation Criteria for the ACE Earmark Call for Projects; and, Authorize the use of the Commercial Paper Program for up to $7.5 million 10-year loan per successfully approved application. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. ELECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICERS Page 184 Overview This item is for the Commission to conduct an election of officers for 2006 — Chair, Vice Chair, and 2nd Vice Chair. 14. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPOR T Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences andany other items related to Commission activities. Boards/Committees/Conferences • 91 Toll Road Advisory Committee • Mobile Source Review Committee (MSRC) • Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) • SCAG Regional Council • SCAG Transportation and Communications Committee • Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda December 14, 2005 Page 11 15. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 16. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 11, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. unty of Riverside City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of y of City of ty of City of City of City of Calimesa Canyon Lake athedral City Coachella Corona Desert Hot Springs Hemet Indian Wells RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL December 14, 2005 County of Riverside;, District`I County of Riverside, District II ounty of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV istrict V ty of Indio City of La Quinta ake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley urrieta City of Norco City of Palm :Dese"rt City of Palm Springs City of, Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET DECEMBER 14, 2005 N�`A,��IME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS //��4 / / „,„ 4_ 101 L��-tris .r, o z',3 ionic%pc.L G-iGSpf-yre./ 101-' 1-�rlY fa:4Now,vl A C. 1r2-lide' 'Airr.\'4-6"kV1VN0 Bek.,✓\V11 •A_Nl �UU 164 'Ge_. C- r/.�% I._ �c,tiae,ccw+, At it vic / Giie,,E S .74) 4ZD%Zb-71,o l/a. a C `,/ D ' reA00-6 ,P,e-A-L‹ 1 ✓4Ldd Alakro f sh 4t0ad , gas► f) cK 6/fiS,T N1 UR/IIer40 RG//vLs@Hoo,'-A.4 ♦/- )% , / 74')//S�. bade,: /.C-) .C.e, of /I • &je.i.c R0 6.l •>P1A/ i9e. /4'9G �C /rie�E6I #906.4 j/D me4 � � dn, e � /4, `c i��er��/ �� G1tia�, 14-e. I cit-Yhall 4PcI.�.'ks 'es ev-f — �� c©de 0 e1/ q-- �ii/e4, •,�s,�,�L a�‘-a /I�ff e,� 1 C 'I-1I�- (- -1-> -�,oVI Cil1 �lti L—Z �R��-) co-co oalt _z..—e c �c^tM Suvt,, V Gg to, .yI' /f ���Itaitc,Ez@ S+,2 .N. Delhi.,„ e I. eke y... �I � <y�, G- �/ c/ oaf a%trt,- a eft!/- __ -' �".i. C��/�� /l�l�G6,---" �Y�/.�Z2C-/" 1JL672R�a74rx ACLL1.ch �N.) V-S L-D G 0 n L 6--\Zc',4)PX 0/ , 64. I�.\: /A/ � ,CAS E 4,` v -.. ,_so4 ,& IF c_ ..,/ v .A rf / d ry/� C,_2_ efts' 4-'< f2--- s -S �, ‘'" S"r- -1103 -D )A,, / #)ti CR-E-8/JJ/. C /-/MEsf} e Oaf �� SrrifyS. rmaijoi,sold-5-r,,,55.0,04_US- "� , 7) CenjArYi 0 � Yid' 411/ ab is s&aly Pcihve . , Ala d]� G �f • AGENDA ITEM 5 • MINUTES • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, November 9, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Robin Lowe at 9:08 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. , 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Roger Berg led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Buydos Mary Craton Juan M. DeLara Rick Gibbs Frank Hall Barbara Hanna Terry Henderson Hank Hohenstein Robin Lowe Dick Kelly Bob Magee Paul Marchand Jeff Miller Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Mike Perovich Ron Roberts Mary Roche Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson Robert Crain Ron Meepos Ameal Moore Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Haley, Executive Director, introduced to the Commissioners the newly appointed Director of Ca!trans District 8, Mike Perovich. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 12, 2005 M/S/C (Henderson/Buydos) to approve the October 12, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Berg, Marchand, M. Wilson 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chair Lowe pulled Agenda Item 8, 'Present ation — Inland Empire Transportation Coalition", as Bob Wolf was unable to attend. Commissioner Terry Henderson requested a brief presentation on Agenda Item 7N, "State and Federal Legislative Update', prior to the approval of the Consent Calendar. John Standiford, Director of Public Information, updated the Commission on the status and transportation impacts of SB 1024, a proposed bond measure to fund transportation and infrastructure throughout the state. 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 investmentin transportation issues in the region. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Marchand/M. Wilson) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended September 30, 2005. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 3 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2005. 7C. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the month ended September 30, 2005. 7D. 2005 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Allocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds as presented in the Technical Advisory Committee funding recommendations listing; and, 2) Submit proposed TE funding recommendations to Caltrans Headquarters. 7E. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATABASE 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Project Management Database to be funded by Local Transportation Funds; and, 2) Issue a Request for Proposal for the development and implementation of a Project Management Database. 7F. TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PRIORITY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE 1) Approve the City of Riverside's Van Buren Boulevard widening project from Andrew to Garfield Streets as eligible for TUMF Regional funding pursuant to the Commission's call for projects; and, 2) Program $905,000 in TUMF Regional funds for construction of the project in FY 2006 plus up to 10% in . construction contingency costs ($90,500) pursuant to the TUMF Nexus Study. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 4 7G. EXPANSION OF COMMUTESMART.INFO TRAFFIC MAP Receive and file this report on the real time traffic information map expansion project as hosted on the regional rideshare website, www.CommuteSmart.info. 7H. FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY - TRANSIT CENTERS 1) Amend the FY 2005-06 Short Range Transit Plan for the Riverside Transit Agency to include the Program of Projects for the continued development of transit centers located in Riverside County; 2) Direct staff to program funding in the amount of $1,963,097 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees administered through Western Riverside Council of Governments and $96,140 in Federal Transit Administration's Section 5 309 funds; and, 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 71. FISCAL YEAR 2006-2010 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL • IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF BEAUMONT AND INDIO Approve the FY 2006-10Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Indio. 7J. AMENDMENT TO MEASURE "A" CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AND PALM SPRINGS Approve the amendment to the: 1) FY 2005 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs; and, 2) FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 5 7K. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT NO. 06-45-550 FOR OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve the Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-45-550 with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program in the amount of $1,175, 933 in State funding for FY 2005-06; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7L. REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF BANNING TO REPROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDS Approve the request from the City of Banning to reprogram FY 2004-05 SB 821 funds. 7M. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Approve the following change in state bill position: SB 1024 (Perata D-Oakland) — Change from OPPOSE to SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS; and, 2). Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update asan information item. 8. PRESENTATION — INLAND EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION COALITION This item was pulled from the Agenda. 19. 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 and noted the transportation programs and projects currently underway at the .local, state, and federal levels that the Commission will have either direct involvement or receive Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 6 information about. 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. In response to Commissioner Ron Roberts inquiry regarding assistance to the cities in obtaining Ca!trans approvals as part of the contract, Hideo Sugita responded that this type of work would likely result in another level of contract commitment that would need to be explored and funding identified. Commissioner Bob Buster asked how additional work would be handled due to the level of complexity for the 2009 Measure "A" projects. Hideo Sugita explained that the contract will focus on the projects identified in the 2009 Measure. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Marchand) to: Authorize staff to negotiate a contract amendment to Agreement No. 05-31-561 with Bechtel Infrastructure to provide a scope, schedule and cost to support the Commission's effort to develop a 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Ten -Year Strategic Plan including: a) An assessment on the status and issues of completing delivery of the Western County Highway Program for the 1989 Measure "A": and, b) An objective based assessment of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Highway Program (including the Mid County Parkway) as generally described in the agenda item. Abstain: Lowe 10. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Anne Mayer, Division Head of Programming and Administration, reviewed the innovative financing mechanisms available to fund transportation projects and the need to assess these methods, which will require expert assistance. She then outlined the purpose and schedule for the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), highlighting language included in the RFQ prohibiting • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 7 candidate firms and/or firms' representatives from contacting Commissioners or their staff regarding any aspect of the RFQ. Also, there is a single point of contact within the RCTC staff for the RFQ. Eric Haley emphasized the degree of interest this RFQ will draw and the advantage that the institutional knowledge base and strength will provide the Commission. In response to Commissioner Paul Marchand's concern regarding the no contact provision, Steven DeBaun, RCTC Legal Counsel, responded that the provision has been used numerous times and is supportable. Commissioner John Tavaglione emphasized the importance for Commissioners to abide by the provision and notify respective agency staffs of the provision. He also requested staff provide Commissioners with a potential bidders list. M/S/C (Marchand/Henderson) to approve the release of a request for qualifications (RFQ) and request for proposals (RFP), if necessary, for Strategic Partnership Advisor services. 11. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT — APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 06-72-555 WITH JACOBS CIVIL INC. TO REVISE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Cathy Bechtel, Division Head of Planning, updated the Commission on the status of the Mid County Parkway project, including the new alignment options, concerns with the alignments in front of the dams, and impacts on schedule and budget. Commissioner Buster requested the RCTC and Riverside County Transportation Department staff members meet to begin an effort to separate the projects where possible so the County can move forward with its improvements on Cajalco Road to four lanes. He also noted another alternative that has been put forward by the Gavilian Hills residents and the need for a trail crossing at Placentia Street if that alignment is selected. Chair Lowe requested that the reference by Commissioner Buster regarding the Cajalco Road improvements be discussed with Plans and Programs in early January and continued as a separate item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 8 Cathy Bechtel reported that a meeting has been scheduled with Riverside County Transportation Department staff to discuss Cajalco Road improvements and clarified that the alignments along Cajalco Road are still being considered in the work effort. Commissioner Daryl Busch stated that the preferred alignment of the City of Perris is the northern alignment adjacent to the Lake Perris Dam due to the lesser impact on residents and expressed concern that approximately 100 homes will be impacted by the southern alignment along Placentia Street. Also, the City of Perris believes that due to the new alignments, the City has been unfairly impacted. Commissioner Marion Ashley concurred with Commissioner Busch's concern. In response to Commissioner Henderson concern regarding securing right-of- way, Cathy Bechtel indicated that the Commission does not have land use authority and cannot protect the land until an approved environmental document is obtained and therefore dependent on the cities and county to assist in keeping options available. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Buydos) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018 to Jacobs Civil Inc. for incorporation of the three new alternatives identified during the Value Analysis Study process for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an amount of $4,845,385; 2) Authorize, the use of $4,845,385 of commercial paper until such time as additional TUMF funding is approved for the MCP project, at which time the TUMF funding will replace commercial paper to the extent that it is available; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal. Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Abstain: Ashley, Lowe 12. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY At this time, Chair Lowe acknowledged a request to speak : on this item submitted by Barney Barnett. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 9 Barney Barnett, Highgrove area resident, noted his submission of public comment for the Perris Valley Line project in August 2004. He then submitted additional written comment to the Clerk of the Board for Commission review. Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, summarized the finding of the Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report. She highlighted that the Right -of - Way Issues evaluation criteria is a significant factor of a route and is the only criteria that is not quantitative. She then reviewed the four components of the Right -of -Way evaluation criteria and how it applies to the scenarios. In response to Commissioner Shenna Moqeet concern regarding the accuracy of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population data, Stephanie Wiggins stated that the consultants met with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for concurrence on the data that would be used. Justin Fox, R.L. Banks and Associates, explained that SCAG was the only source for work trip data for the planning year 2030 and indicated that the data is the latest iteration of information provided by each jurisdiction to SCAG. Commissioner Moqeet expressed strong concern .that the data is outdated and therefore does not accurately reflect the growth and potential ridership in the Pass and Coachella Valley areas. Justin Fox then explained how the capture area is determined and applied. In response to Commissioner Buster's suggestion to reserve right-of-way along 1-215, Hideo Sugita responded that this would require considerable effort from the appropriate jurisdictions and coordination with any improvements under review on 1-215. Staff could convene a discussion if directed by the Commission and noted that as 1-215 improvements move forward, transit will be looked at in regards to the environmental document and as part of the evaluation. Commissioner Michael Wilson suggested that the planning documents be separated to address the Pass and Coachella Valley area apart from Western County due to the right-of-way issues in order to accomplish ridership needs. He then requested clarification of the Scenario 2 trip table and concurred with the concern expressed by Commission Moqeet regarding the accuracy of the data. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 10 Justin Fox provided clarification of the trip table as requested. Eric Haley noted that Amtrak has the legal right to operate on any rail line in the United States as a result of the Federal Act in 1971 and reviewed the historical challenges of commuter rail service. Commuter rail service to the Coachella Valley would require full local or state subsidy with consideration for issues of scale of cost and quality of service. Commissioner Ronald Oden also expressed concern for the accuracy of the data and the need for a broader interpretation of the Coachella Valley. Commissioner Marchand concurred with Commission Oden's comments and expressed the need to continue to include the Coachella Valley in these discussions, irrespective of the data. Commissioner Dick Kelly reminded the Commission of an unsuccessful program approximately 3 to 5 years ago in the Coachella Valley that provided a bus connection to Metrolink. Commissioner Henderson emphasized that ridership is dependent on the frequency and quality of service. Commissioner Tavaglione reiterated the degree of difficulty in obtaining right-of-way on the Union Pacific lines to implement commuter rail service. . Commissioner Mary Roche stated that it is the Commission's charge to review alternatives such as new routes or rail tracks regardless of the cost or inflexibility of an organization in order to address the needs of the Pass and Coachella Valley areas. Eric Haley noted for the Commission that as part of development of the 2009 Measure "A" Expenditure Plan, all of the areas of interest in investment were explored and included CVAG's transportation plan. He expressed concerns that depending on the direction taken, that it might require a change in the expenditure plan. Specifically, the concern regards geographic funding commitments. Currently the funding plan includes specific allocations to Western County and the Coachella Valley. Regarding public transit in the Coachella Valley, the Expenditure Plan contains a formula split that supports SunLine Transit Agency. In Western Riverside County, Metrolink is supported by TDA funds. The funds to subsidize capital improvements will come from the respective areas' transit funds. Funds in the current expenditure plan for rail expansion are specified for project • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 11 expansion in Western Riverside County. An eastern extension into the Coachella Valley would require a change in the current transit funding allocation that is currently used for bus service. Commissioner Jeff Miller suggested a study be conducted on the mobility issues between Western County and the Coachella Valley. M/S/C (Buster/Miller) to: 1) Receive and file the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Final Report; and, 2) Advance Scenario 3 (Perris Valley Line/Commuter/San Jacinto) and Scenario 7 (1-215/Commuter/Temecula) as optimal commuter rail routes warranting future study for inclusion in the next RTP update. No: Berg, Marchand, Moqeet, Oden, Roche, M. Wilson Abstain: DeLara 13. PRESENTATION — TUMF UPDATE Rick Bishop, WRCOG Executive Director, presented an update on the Western Riverside County. TUMF program, highlighting the following areas: • Purpose and Need of TUMF • Future Growth Update • Cost Assumptions • Network Changes • Project Refinement • Expanded Projects • Draft Fee Calculations • Participation Opportunities • Updated Schedule Chair Lowe requested WRCOG provide an updated presentation on the Western Riverside County TUMF program at the February 8th Commission meeting. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 12 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 15. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Chair Lowe announced: • The Goodhart Reserve Dedication Event on November 10"' at 10 a.m. • The retirement of Trent Pulliam, City of Moreno Valley Public Works Director. • The formation of an Ad Hoc Committee for a feasibility study to address mobility issues between Western County and the Coachella Valley, comprised of the following Commissioners: - Marion Ashley Roger Berg Dick Kelly Shenna Moqeet Ronald Oden Mary Roche Michael Wilson, Chair - Roy Wilson B. Eric Haley announced: • RCTC will be awarded the Transportation Employer of the Year by the Womens Transportation Seminar (WTS) Los Angeles Chapter on November 10t. • Diane Eidam, Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission,; will join the San Diego Association of Governments as Chief Executive Officer. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:19 p.m.The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 13 Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14,`2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: RCTC Officers SUBJECT: Proposed 2006 Commission/Committees Meeting and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt its 2006 Commission/Committees Meeting and Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing Schedule. BACKGROUND: The Commission, in past years, has scheduled their meeting on the 2' Wednesday of each month. This meeting day appears to fit in with the Commissioners' respective schedules. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Commission continue to schedule its meeting on the 2nd Wednesday of each month. With regards to the meeting schedule of the Commission's Committees (Budget/Implementation, Plans/Programs, Transit Policy), with numerous meetings that Commissioners attend for their respective agency and for the Commission, including additional Ad Hoc Committee commitments, staff has attempted to locate a date and time that fits in with Commissioners' schedules. It is, therefore, recommended that the meetings of the Commission's three statutory Committees be scheduled on the same date - 4`" Monday of each month. It is important to note that the Transit Policy Committee only meets on a quarterly basis but since the Commissioners have that date already marked to attend a meeting in Riverside, having this meeting scheduled on the same day makes it more convenient for the Commissioners. The Commissioners should also be aware that there are times when Committee meetings may be cancelled due to lack of substantive agenda items. When that occurs, the Commissioners will be notified. In addition to the Commission/Committee meetings, included is the 2006 schedule for the Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing in Blythe. The Palo Verde Valley Area intends to continue to use a portion of its Local Agenda Item 7A Transportation Funds for street and road needs and, therefore, an Unmet' Transit Needs Public Hearing must be held. The public hearing .is scheduled on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 1:30- p.m. in the Blythe City Council, Chambers. In past years, Commissioners Roy Wilson (Riverside County District 4), Dick Kelly (Palm Desert), Robert Crain (Blythe), and George' Thomas (Blythe Alternate) have participated as the hearing board. Commissioners interested in attending the public hearing should contact Tanya Love, RCTC staff, prior to the public hearing date. Attachment: Proposed.2006 Commission/Committee Meeting Schedule Agenda Item 7A 'pallaoueu eq /yew lsn6nV ul s6up.eeN •Lp.uow yoee }o Aepseupem P�Z ow. uo play eae selu eew eeu!wwo0 aApnoex3 ayp pue uolsslwwoo a41 V w8 lUO3 010E1 ,w B 00:8 u.rooa pieo8 ua a 00`•6 $4 aegweoea V 1118 IU03 0108 w'e 00:8 woos paeog ,w a o0:6 8 aegwenoN V wa luo0 0108 ,w,e 00:8 WOOd paeo8 ,w a 00:6 4 4 aago}o0 V wEl ,w00 010U 'Lwe 00:8 woos wog 'are 00:6 £4 Jequaazdes V w8 ,u00 0108 •w'e 00:8 woog paeog •w•e 00:6 _ 61sn6ny V wg ,u00 0108 lire 00:8 wood paeog .w,e 00:6 ZI. AInf V wa inn0 0108 'w•e 00:8 woo} paeog 'w`e 00:6 ti4 aunt V wg }U00 Dial .tire 00:8 wookj paeog 11" 00:6 04 eW V wg }uo3 3108 'w`e 00:8 woog paeo8 'are 00:6 Z4 Ilady V wll Pu03 0108 'w•e 00:8 woog paeog 'Le'e 00:6 8 yoaeW V wd dUoO 0108 lire 00:8 woos paeog 'w"q 00:6 8 AJenuged V w8 Juno 0108 •w•e 00:8 woos paeog 'w'e 00:6 4enuep uope®oi * eemuaumo eAgnoox3 uolleool uopssim o� (Aepseupem) Kea 6ugeeW 31f1a31-13S JNI1331/% 900Z • NOISSINWOO NO/1 V1E/OdSNVY_L AI Nn03 301SL/3N J • • d0,'ey3Ai8 geea}g Aempeom tpoN 9EZ saequaey0 Houno0 A iO eglA18 900Z ' l yoaew •AepseupeM • w' d OE: l &peed speeN �euiuN eead Aefle/1 epmeeA o/ed •pa/aoueo rBuiieew y,SZ aagwaoab ayl :a�oN •siseq Apavenb a uo smut eeutwwoo Aonod ltsue�l ayl vuow wee AepuoW to, aya. uo play aae eepwwo0 uopeweweldwi 7g , lapn8 pue eaupwo0 Aoiiod a.isue.l 'aantutwo0 swea6oad sueid ayl ;o s6upseal eyl, wood pieo8 'w'd 0£:Z1. dtN ,w'c ueeee . MS wooa paeo8 'w'd 0£:Z1 V/N lire O£:g LZ JegwenoN wooa pieo8 'w'd 0£:Zl 'w'e 0£:01. 'w'e 0£:8 £Z Jeg0100 woog paeo8 'w'd 0£:Z 1. V/N 'w'e 0£:8 gZ aagwaldeg wooa pieo8 'w'd 06:Z l V/N 'w'e 0£:8 8Z len6nv wooa wog 'w'd OE:ZI 'OE" OE:OL lire 0£:8 trZ Alnf wooa paeo8 'w'd 0£:Z l V/N 'w'e 0£:8 gZ aunt wooa paeo8 _ .w•d OE:Z l V/N •w e O£•8 ZZ AeLN woo} paeo8 ,w,d 0£:Z l 'w'e 0£:01. ,w•e 0E:8 trZ iPdd wooa paeo8 "d 0£:Z l V/N 'w'e 0£:8 LZ yoJelAl wool paeo8 'w'd 0£:Z l V/N 'w'e OE:g LZ AJenaged wool paeo8 •w d 0£:Z1. 'w'e 0£:0l 'w a 0£:g CZ Menuer uoneooi ee rwwo3 sweisaid sued ea wtuo� Aved mamma� eemunuop uvge;ueweidurr �e�pri� i�cepuoW) Kea 6uizem AGENDA ITEM 7IB • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 06-12-012-00 for Computer Equipment and Network Maintenance and Repair Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-12-012-00 for Computer Equipment and Network Maintenance and Repair Services to Cybercom Resources;. and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel Review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the years, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has expanded its computer network to accommodate increase in staff and the addition of various accounting and records software. The Department of Administrative Services oversees the IT function and has assigned its Administrative Analyst to perform minor fixes but has relied on consultant for major service needs for office and network systems. As the Commission is well aware, in addition to overseeing the IT function, the Department has a number of services that it provides with limited staff and will need to continue to use consultant for computer and network services. In past years, Jaguar has been providing the services. This year, Jaguar was bought out by GST and the Jaguar staff that has been providing the services to the Commission have or planning to leave the company. Also, it is now time for the Commission to rebid the contract. A Request for Proposal was released on September 28, 2005. Two proposals were received — Cybercom Resources and En Pointe Technologies. A panel consisting of Bill Hughes — Bechtel, Tim Doyle — WRCOG, Jennifer Harmon and Naty Kopenhaver — RCTC staff, received the presentations. The two proposers have had contracts with public agencies and staff has conducted a reference Agenda Item 7B check. Based on the services that are needed by the Commission, the proposers resources and: service cost, staff proposes awarding the contract to Cybercom Resources. The contract will be for time and. materiel. Attached is the table comparing the two proposers. The contract will be for three years with an option to extend it for an additional three years. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $10,000 Source of Funds: Administrative Split Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: S-12-73302 P1001 01 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,,,t „j2,, Date: 12/05/2005 Attachment: Proposer Comparison Agenda Item 7B 6 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC. SERVICES Support of network and desktop equipment and software Access to Senior Management for escalation at any point of time. Monthly Review will be conductedat customer site to review progress and general level of satisfaction of service and will be involved Cybercom Account Manager and Technical Staff responsible for the support. Quarterly Review will include Cybercom CTO and Account Manager to discuss progress and service satisfaction review if needed A web based support system will be available to track support on RCTC equipment RATES/COSTS $45:00/hour for working hours Mon. - Fri. 8:00 AM to 5 00 PM $65.00/hour for holidays, weekends, and after working hours For parts, Cybercom has existing relationship with several national level OEM distributors of parts for equipment and will provide such parts at actual costs as per price sheet and endeavor to provide next possible (government) discount directly to RCTC. 7 EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES. SERVICES En Pointe will provide an 800 call in number 800-NEED <EPT for all service requests. Also Web, Fax and Email can be used to place,a service call. If a part is required and is not on hand, the engineer/technician will place the parts order through Clarify. En Pointe will ship service parts on a 95% next day basis. The engineer receives the part and goes to resolve the client issue. Clarify dispatch system tracks service calls to the serial number level This information can be used to identify problem equipment that may need special attention. It can also be used to determine end users that may require special training. This system can provide reports based on incident type, hardware, location, etc!, so that the management team can evaluate; hardware standards and; efficiencies and make sound decisions regarding lifecycle management. RATES/COSTS $75.00/hour for Network/Server Administration (4 hour response). $112.50/hour for Extended/Emergency (1 hour response) $50.00/hour for Workstation/Printer Repair (4 hour response). $75.00/hour for Extended/Emergency (1 hour response) $50.00 Per Incident*Trip',Charge - (2 hour Minimum, per case not per trip) Replacement Parts - Cost + 20% Web Hosting - No Charge* (Custom services may require additional charges) Proposed Maintenance Agreement for RCTC $2000.00 per month - Bronze Level, Professional Services Support Package 8 e AGENDA ITEM 7C e • i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" 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 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission 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) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 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, Executive Director, 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 Agenda Item 7C 9 proposal was posted on the 'Commission's website. Proposals were due on November 10, 2005, and one proposal from the UCLA Anderson Forecast was received as of the 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. At the November 28, 2005 Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, it was brought to staff's attention that one of the UCLA Anderson forecast team members had resigned for another opportunity. Staff followed up with Dr. Christopher Thornberg, a senior economist and proposed team member, and it was confirmed that Dr. Michael Bazdarich had left the UCLA Anderson Forecast team. Nonetheless, the proposed UCLA Anderson Forecast team includes Dr. Edward Leamer, Director of the UCLA Anderson Forecastand professor of Economics and Statistics at UCLA, and Dr. Thornberg, who has worked closely with Dr. Bazdarich relating to forecasts that included consideration of the Inland Empire. 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: \liti Date: 11/28/05 Agenda Item 7C 10 • AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" 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 the City of Blythe BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute . the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its 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 %Z percent over the interest paid by the Commission on Agenda Item 7D 11 funds outstanding under the commercial paper program or long-term debt that may be issued: in 2008 or 2009 to refinance the commercial paper. The %2 percent 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. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $1, 500,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 303-71-12301 P8100-80 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \�L�� Date: 11 /28/05 Attachment: Agreement' No.06-71-001-00 Agenda Item 7D 12 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 localstreets 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, will 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. 13 1 of 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 '/a 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 'A percent over the interest rate of the long term bonds. The above -described I/z 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 (30t) 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 14 2of8 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. 15 3of8 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. Litigation. 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 holy 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 rehabilitationof 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 modern 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. 16 4 of 8 3.6 Citv'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, inclined 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. 17 5 of 8 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 RCTC 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 full 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 fromany 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; tern 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 18 6 of 8 U.S. mail shall be effective only if and when received at the addressee's address. For purposes of notice, the addresses of the parties shall be as follows: RCTC: CITY: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Executive Director 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 attomey'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. I. Headings. The various headings used in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. K. Further Assurances. At any time or from time to time upon the request of RCTC, 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. 19 7 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF BLYTHE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Robin Lowe, Chair Mayor REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED ATTEST: FOR APPROVAL: By: By: Eric Haley, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM By: Best Best & Krieger LLP, Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission 20 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM By: , City Attorney 8of8 Exhibit List Exhibit A Description of Project Exhibit B Not Used Exhibit C Commission Policies Exhibit D Procedures for Submittal, Consideration and Payment of Invoices 21 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CITY OF BLYTHE 2009 MEASURE "A" LOAN PROJECT: [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE] 22 EXHIBIT "C" COMMISSION POLICIES 1. Local agencies are required to submit Five Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) to the RCTC 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 st. 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. 23 i • EXHIBIT "D" PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL, CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT OF INVOICES 1. RCTC recommends that the City incorporate this Exhibit "D-1" intoitscontracts 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. 7. RCTC will pay the City within 30 days after receipt by the Commission of an invoice. If RCTC disputes any portion of an invoice, payment for that portion will be withheld, 24 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. 25 EXHIBIT D-1 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. 26 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs The Decimal Ratio of Allowabk 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. TotalMultiplier (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The fixed fee is $ 1.2.2 A pro-rata share of the Fixed Fee shall be applied to the total Direct Labor Costs expended for services each month, and shall be included on each monthly invoice. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE [_insert charges J Per Diem $ /day Car mileage $ /mile Travel $ /trip Computer Charges $ /flour 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. 27 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2. Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Contractor's adjustments to individual compensation. The Contractor shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change it 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. 3. 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 terns 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 28 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 oneitemof 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 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. 29 I EXHIBIT D-2 Sample Cover Letter to RCTC Date Mr. Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 314 Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Accounts Payable Re: Project Title - Invoice #_ Enclosed for your review and payment approval is the City's invoice for professional and technical services that was rendered by our contractors in connection with the 2002 Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Funding per Agreement No. effective (Month/Day/Year) . The required support documentation received from each contractor is included as backup to the invoice. Invoice period covered is from Month/Date/Year to Month/Date/Year . Total Authorized Agreement Amount: Total Invoiced to Date: Total Previously Invoiced: Balance Remaining: $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 $0,000,000.00 Amount due this Invoice: $0,000,000.00 I certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the contractors listed. By: cc: Name Title 30 i i i 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 Total Base Contract Amount: Authorized Extra Work (if Applicable) TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT: Total Invoice to Date: Total Previously Billed: Balance Remaining. Amount Due this Invoice: Month/Date/Year $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $000,000.00 $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 31 • EXHIBIT D-4 SAMPLE TASK SUMMARY SCHEDULE 32 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 01 —100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Responded to Segment 1 comments from Department of Transportation 2. Completed and submitted Segment 1 final PS&E B. Current/Potential Problems Encountered & Corrective Action Problems None C. Work Planned Next Period Corrective Action None TASK 01 — 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL 1. Completing and to submit Traffic Signal and Electrical Design plans 2. Responding to review comments RVPUB\DAB\688180.1 33. AGENDA ITEM 7E • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2005. 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 Agenda Item 7E 34 • • Riverside County TranspoHatlon Corn/Weston Inveebnent Portfolio Report Period Ending: Sepio/aty 2005 OPERATING FUNDS RATING PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED MOODYS/FITCH/S&P VALUE DATE DATE MARKET PRICE VALUE GAIN (LOSS) City National Bank $ 37,584 A3/6613+ Cash with County Treasurer 158,753,343 Aea/MRI/AAAN+1 Leval Agency Investment Fund 3,397,837 Not Rated Agency/Treasury Securllles: FNMA 1,278,120 AANAAA 2,000.000 03/29/04 03/26/06 2.05% 2,000,000 14178,120 (21,880) Federal Farm Credit Bahr 2,086,320 AANAAA 3.000.000 02/15/05 02/15/07 3.5095 3,000,000 2,365,320 (34,580) Federal Home Loan Bank 1,983,780 AAA/AAA 2.000,000 02/18/05 08H8i08 3.38 % 2,000,000 1,983,700 08,2401 Federal Home loan Bank 2,976.570 AANAAA 3.000,000 06/15/05 06/20/07 4.01% 3,000,000 2,978,570 (23,430) Federal Home Loan Bank- Mortgage Certificate 3,971,880 AANAAA 4,000,000 04/26/05 11/15/05 3.78% 3,098,425 3,971,880 (26,545) Federal Home Loan Bank 2,984,079 AAA/AAA 3,000,000 07/15/05 04/27/07 4.13% 3,000,000 2,984,070 (15,030) Money Market Mutual Funde -CNI Charter 238,444 AANAAA 238,444 2.91% 236,444 236,444 0 Federal Home Loan-MED Term Note 1,095,620 AANAAA 2,000,000 11/12/03 11/15/05 220% 1,903,716 1,995.820 1,904 FNMA Note 1,832,333 AAA/AAA 1,050,000 03/17/04 03/17/06 2.08% 1,354086 1,932.333 (18,733) FHLB Global Notes 2.489,525 AAA/AAA 2,500,000 01/27/05 05/15/06 3,24% 2488,808 2.400,525 718 FHLMC Global Reference Notes 2,460,400 AANAAA 2500,033 01/27/05 O8/15/06 3,31% 2,478,950 2,468,400 (12,550) SUM -Total 187,798,807 $26,182,444 $25,127,403 325,860,042 $ (161385) FUNDS HELD IN TRUST Cash with County: Looal Transportation Fund 46730,503 Aaa-MRI/AAAV41 Sub -Total 48,730,503 INVESTMENT WITH CITIES (1) Maturity Data % City of Canyon Lake 300,000 O6/01/09 4.75% Sub -Total 300.000 COMMISSION BOND PROJECT FUNDS/DEBT RESERVE First Amerman Treasury 12,968,490 AANAAA U.S. Treasury Notes _ 15,504,171 AAA/AAA First American Government Obligation Fund 23,79E023 AANAAA First American Treasury -Held In Trust 042703 AANAAA Sub -Total 53,308,027 TOTAL S 2$$,111 1 15.632,000 SUMMARIZED INVESTMENT TYPE Banks $ 37,564 Cash with County 205,483,336 LAIF 3,047,837 Mutual Funds: First Amerman Treasury - Trust 13,918,233 First American Government Obligation Sub - Total Mutual Funds Federal Agency Notes U.S. Treasury Notes Investment Agreements TOTAL 23,788,623 37,714,856 25,980,042 15,5114,171 300,000 21 135425 O5/24/05 35 (1),Investment with cilies is reported as a loan recess for Mandel Mach r* purposes. 11/30/05 1.88% 15,025,101 15,5104,171 (900230) 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 •� Chief Financial Officer 36 • County Admimd'trative Ceneer Investment O ijeetives • 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 good 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 beset 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.' L/ -mC itek Paul McDonnell Treasurer -Tax Collector yI Ltill e. o 11 Durable Goods Orders -for September 28h 3.3%actual vs. 0.7%survey _ Grass Domestic Product(GDP)-for Sep- tember29th 3.3%actual vs. 3.3%survey Consumer Confidence —Index -September 27th 86.6 actual vs. 95.0 survey. Fa dory O rde rs- August - 30th -1.9%actual vs. -2.3%survey Unemployment Hate -"for September2nd 4.9% actual vs. 5.0%survey At months 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 September (NbnffrEnd Book Value �tuUM1>-End M+rlmt Value• '. -. August July June May April j Percent of Paper Gain or Loss Yield Based upon Book Value Vteighted Average Nbhaly (Yrs) tvbddied Duration •Marker velum does not include seemed interest 3,292113,524 $. 3,099,360.598 r $ 3,067,073.774 $ 3,274,356759 $--3,986,651,772 $ 3,049,921,183 $ ....-(17,756,765)1$ ---- (12.70681 "_$- -0.54%! 3.37! 0.79 0.75 -0.41% -0.56% 3.25E 3.11 0.80I 0.79 0.731 0.75 3,117,778,438 $ 3,341,044,821 I $3,635,536,228 3,105,755,99041 $.-_ 3,328,650,991 i $3,618,941,842 (12,022,534) $ (12,393,830)(16,594,386) -039%j -0.37% _ -0.46% 3.00; - - 2.901 2.81 0.75 0.60 0.71 0.58 0.64 0.60 THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURER'S POOLED INVESTMENT FUND IS CURRENTLY RATED: Aaa/MR1 BY MOODY'S INVESTOR SERVICES AAA/V1+ BY FITCH RATINGS 37 CREDIT QUALITY Federal Agency AAA A-1/ P-1 or better N/R 3aarket 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% Portfolio Characteristics SECTOR MINI.TIMTMETELini. Federal Agency Cash Equivalent & MMF- Commercial Paper Negotiable CD's Medium Term Notes Municipal Bonds_ Certificates of Deposit r- Local Agency Obligati. Total Cosh Equiva sot & M 0.1 7.12% 2,313,720,107.32' 233,060,000.00 348,122,513.89 250,000,000.00 19,999,000.00 82,745,137.40 25,000,000.00 1,770,000.00 3,274,356,759 Gsti(ipplei oel*posit .1...._.__.._ _..�..-...... 3o days or Less; 416,611,944.44 3o-so Days 960,849,180.56 i 90 Days -1Year . 872,868,658.96 1-2Years 711,136,190.85 2-3Years 306,175,483.80 Over 3Years 6,715,300.00 _...__.._._....._. Total _ 3,274,356,759 24 Month Gross Yield Trends Page 2 38 � rLi',Y.' a �T� 9/30/05 8/31/05 Diff. 3 M 3.538 3.498. .0399 6 M 3.916 3.707 .2089 -. 2 Y .4.165 -. 3.811 .3536 5 Y 4 189 3.859 .3505 10Y 4.324 4.014 .3103 30 Y 4.567 4.254 .3130 �. -- 51i . °5 - s-br3 17'5 .. 3 - .. 2. 1 o 3Mo 91/I0 2YR 5YR MYR Sam * Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TiMMI) is compiled and reported by the Riverside County Treasurer's Capital Markets division. /t 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 detailsavailabie `. Upon request • • • Treasurer's Poolec Investment Fund September 30, 2003 Month End Portfolio Holdings Report CUSIP PAR CESCR IPPON - _ CASH - UBOC DEPOSIT ACCOUN- : -4.Y I a'tEONNIQ NDSC t1DEE4169E@d@. ERN 150,9N,000.N CUM - CALTRUST SNORT TERM 25AOG,00DM CPD-COMMERCW. PAPER -DIB 5663710%3/3 ..; d1fiNVI /3�2'r H- 89233GX43 50000,00000 TOYDTAMOTOR CREDIT At 466230)X5 60,000000:00 3P MORGAN A1HFi+P1 ' COUPON 46 0.08 0.08 : OAi-. 3.66 10/312D05 4900403333 99.37 48685,033.33 - 3.60 OAB ON ' SSttt-M.tE.,..ri: 2MMIPI4`.lid 7h'f4Ni.�'ATRP'ee' ,s a fidg s'4t+s 24fOre B+'•:... - 14figiff0o.'00. i rtsI"'3ANA10. 90@, 17307RYG3 50A00000A0 CITIGROUP A14011F1377 11/152005 4E743.430.56 99.49 49743A3036 • 379 0.13 013 902SM22H :5IF:0170,000N,I BS F1FZNO0'A 6M a. 3 E 7.... 1: %..:O .222009'. Ah =149-0 3 , w$ 5131000.00:1:.. W'-::;.7,ritraEM 11•J U/i! 0.16.: - 350000,000.00 840,12261339 - 0,14.122.513.89 3.69 0.N '0.08 FFCB -FED FARM CREDIT BAWL 4)10111.51.9-7 3133105519 2000 000M FED FARM CREDIT BANK225YrNr331 310317033 - 5000.000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 2YrNc6Mo 31331TXF3 10,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANKM31461Yr iEYi t"-wit'.,'S'92FOOG` KMISCFP AY>i DMF-' 3133112C3 5,000000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK175Y64e 30313 dgosi� A `C�`I�,El;.'U`ifMii. E!>%rNASak+LKZIF.;.''k-.oa-:'r 31331 SF57 _1 0000,000.11FED FARM CREDIT BANK 1YrNc 4114..1401 412; :5 ...WO:F :6ft 0 ',B .E.%T;i F3FR//3 .cir= 31331SM. 5,000,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANN 3701065/0 AWN-SKTV•- r_e' aa..-. €Eo' �- r:.mwA:aweTiF#7yYa94F.WE" 313315UR2 500090609 FED FARM CREDIT BMIKI5NC : 0E-1f .f., .:'.9f1 '1,,,il rin:'.RIISt.YSITYf. L. a y3x 3133130X4 10,009000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK15YN4c _• I:.:A"'`'eira61/0,3 313317326 10000,000 DO FED FARM CREDIT BANN 5YH4c1Tr 207 9292oo6 313315WC3 500000E00 FED FARM CREDIT BAN11SYeNr3Mo 3.76 11/W20N 5.�I; :_ "y _!'a ,,,L,:S?.,�dr.(Wu �''Ci',','vt �: ®. sA2 11%21 ... 31331SFW8 500000000 FED FAR M CREDIT BAW(2YH1022,1X 325 12HI2006 '�3i'!�..� It7t,�.-.;�olS5A5�,•c`6�1assase�era,nA-crvr�m_, .gym �- s . 3133139134 5000000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK 15YMk J.75-12522005 5000.000.00 9818 496405E60 313314A01 500000000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YMc6Mo 325 12H512036 5900,00000 9669u 4939400M (65600,00) 335 1.18 121 Vii.slit C'su90,� ing.P IiRa. Et sAi 3] �ofi91 rstti rAHn.w.ur�(5�,2a8 M2,2`r.3l1Agg 34 M3315225 5,00000000 FED FARM CREDIT : BANKTHNOQ1oiz 335 1H92007 50008Nb0 atm � 403595000 6405000) 335 128 30 ]1.32I0NY6 :;..I$,�f ..Nti. +3."OZBE- :� .- _. EISTe',NMEirrPT _ .......... 313315ME0 5004,00000 FED FARM CREDIT BANK235YrNc3M 3.63 4H9200] 5,070,000.00 S0.88 4943750A0 (58,250-00) 203 • 1.5D .55 �j 3rt3Yos ?0t031..0.gf.' H:"..M .. 61 V214N. l]'S�*-, _g - {,0120i------..,.,'C �@3A y1y¢0. .1i• 013315Y68 50000000D FED FARM CREDIT BH02YrNlc 3.75 5252007 4,996075,00 99.00 1950000.N 146075:00) 376 1.60 1.65 r14i'L�YM :� ": AK*. J141k'EPiF elit90'."z 7.i; ._Bra n u; z'3A�Al. '"�.9 s- K.9 a W2J75. 05.i A7 3133132F3 yp�y5��0-0�00��00- OD FED FARM CREDIT BANK2YMct 3.94 641126.7paw woad 99.19 19594N.00 40600:»� 394 1.63 68 awd§ryti..02 r9,1 KN07a FE., Q7 Y' _ v '-'le . .../ .�. J. ' ,c$c 41XrkD,A�'*1CA„ rbrIA TA 313315LX] B 00000 FED FARM CREDIT IYANN25YK4O6M0 72/2007 036173242 98,56 9244.79433 (116907AM f3,58 1.77 A2 . _ _ .. 5. .. 66 ester y _rAMON54P4)r 3 - -,� it 313315SV8 100000001M FED FARM CREDIT BANK2SYMc3M 9242007 10,021000.00 99 SO 9950,ONA0 5006E00}� 420 L92 198 a§. .E.fif11T9 - #fa T#"i,TS 08 9919 , . ^ .m 30) A� k27 Ax'237 313315RM] GABS OOOOD FED FARM CREDIT BAKK2.BSWNC3M 4.13 11t42008 6;0H$:000,00 9919 4629,OW.N (55,90610) 413 i2T 2.T i�t i1, 4_ ,. _. _ 7 3�'AOO QO FE * rEo'1iCi2':Y'iti:Y9 'R1hes6 %H Y4ik�MAIM?. i '99821TSiZy ]13J15WM1 SOOO op0b0 FED FARM CREDIT BANIO Rk 42 3 5R2008 -99.6s+ 7�4� 4 1 ) 423 7 R 9'9 _ �,,,�,..,,y� 4,934100Ap 185600A91 423 3A8 2B1 3n9�f5'.::� - :1CtarA0_s[.c68 #F, .:` •E�r:+ 1r '• , 424:. 913 6/3N2m6 s9V0,000b0 N.19 4.fi08.400.09 60000 113.. 2.60 2.75 -. �i'�T6iaem :.� Rb9 MATURITY ` SOON V.ALU Et. PRICE NI. VALUE* 150000,000.00 150;009 00900 I' 510Uii`✓15AA0',AL02007.7E/I25;go8C'6u'.ap�r"�. 10/ 2005 25,000.000.00 - 25.000,000.00 1.90 t024R0p6 20,000,000.00 10000. 20,000000.00 - 190 0.02 - 9D5 . . ...:_.a'l 00 ... is='9+,:.a?3.?3d` ..._ ' k; 20D 1232006 5,000.000.00 9641 19T0.30D,00 ,700.U0J 200 031 031 - u'?°4�' - 6 V S3 1 „DSO ,17M4 £{ry51;�1 • - t.90 3/172006 fopoo,o00.o0 98.94 9,693000.00 (106200.00) 1.60 046 0A0 mt? 99dfi � _0 P•,:4aTA IO-. _. �Sk "?'�`A'1,). 2.60 5119l1006 5,00E000.00 959.97 4,948,45000 (51990 260 -0.63 0,63 A0010_1 3.70 6272006 9.99E43730 99.50 9,950,300,0D �;(4422.13730) 3 72 0 T3 074 . 3b4 i4 -:-Z dai3 1 1 L"n,. .,a .Ni 3.00 6202008 -5 ..9959150..�., H 7. `i'i#5$ > OOD,000,00 99.08 1,953,150A0- (40.B5 3t, 0.74 0.75 3.77 820006 s000A00.00 9933 52,6 IJUr (2*A.LAN0) 37T. 0.83 061 ,3 0Ia 9.921. 00PI.::" 'a#ICF.q?i f''7GR`r r O',::OA6 0�6- 336 91/20N 9991,Z08]0 ,1J9]2 � 8.921.BN.00 (T3 ]N:30) 356 0.93 094 9,781,300.00' j218,70000) 2.07 0.99 .00--- 99.4 4067200.00 '. „L--.r°i--'„'E F38 C. 10,000000.00 9781 3I41;3144c 1410X006.R0 FE f�0f� jj3�'�3'�'1r�} �0,00 _C^� G V W.SV3f.� CTI W .5n` taii..r 313313042 5030,000.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YMo-1Y/1% 213313063 10000000N FED FARM CREDIT BANNS/N(3Mo.: 3133154V2 smapOo.00 FED FARM CREDIT BANK3YrNe1Y41X IO BtZ*24=:' 37 LOAN BANK 'NEB -FED HOME LOAN BNIN 3133X05118` .r 1000000000 FED HOME LOAN SANK2257216 o 3133X9833 o.aaao0o.00 FED HOME LOAN BANK/ c-IMo 3133XA3G0 1000000000 FED HO I313 Irte 313322/2 131500000 FED HOME LOAN BANK135NC6M 4040: ., :: � ,.cam -:,. �0y�1�33Y(3ET8 500000000 FED HOME LOAN BANM[YMctYr 4YY._ :? 1, _ 3133%72413� 5AN.NEN FED HOME - �42E.• 3103XBRST 5 00000 FED HOME LOAN BANO(175YH4OOMol 3139X3TA1 5000000.00 FED HOME LOAN BAN/LW/NON 7i53 .-�_`�".IR.iL7Y OTOTH Y;: i1lFE 'AAi N2Y...N33/4>S8n' r ]133X5IF4 500000000 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2Y042M0 3333W.r.t.031.0,0MINDYFF,ONEWEN/4 WAWA 3133322M 5000000;00 FED HOME LOAN BANK 2YrNOtYr1X Dt4,' 7.. . AMA " 3133X6$40 5000.000.00 FED HOME LOAN BAMQYINOM_o14 3133XBXF7 10oork000 OD 1YF LOAN BANK 1 356 4.20 .F' FAS E 7.1 *4145':'?h 774 LA i0.00 NS9 4,929,700.00 00.309001 3.25 1.15 1.17 •. 7F'.G"'2.P'A f r t�S#.3L kJw3-TKr 5.Wa00000 cdOU', r ,-vE ,317), 4A8 72112009 ,9.99975000 .@ SIB2�OOBAs14,99l g730 kJC1" 995 - 9.025200.00 99 6 •riANF t• .n.=+?r r. dit3ns t A60.760.00) gezZ.450 332810.394A7 339109122.65. (270527212) 2.03 11/102005 t0009000M 4 10a00 10R00,0Oa00 450 2.65 201 283 0.13 0.13 ,...L_ ,.. 57, y+'3�. i14yyt, Loam BANK 1 SNcB.Io moN13M0 •/1 ._al.lz rPty S**2 FED HOME LOAN BANK IYINC114/2 av 2.45 12/162005 5.000.000.00 - /00.00 A .DO 1H 10A00 mue 242 1202008 216 1272006 7313205.55 LASE' s000000AD +<rAN; .,1."'.''C','' -; • a, `s.. 90.72 9.971.900.00 9958 7j83,033.45 2810000) 0¢521 99A4 4,971.9000D (20,100, sr i' A+suit, iN z.67 22102006 5R10.0HN 99A7 4,973,450.00 2.26 22172006 235 2/2712006 pl. aFQ•nelh+�1 �../ r- 6,000000.00 5,000,030.00 l FF.A 1.45 3N 2.45 2.18 0.01 021 0.30 8.30 030 03 a Ee a Me 0.36 030 X 5 99.38 9966,7 00. 13125900) 228 .'0.30 030 9934 4967.2oo.ao (32,80p00) 1 '4 235..:041 0A11. <r 2.00 _ 5000,20.00 98.041 _ 4.62.20020 , ) . (57.800002.00 0.0.5 --:53 .3 �9 L1i . 2` _ 03B; 2,15 4R32006 5000000.00 00.84 49422N.00 A5] 215 037 057 r4TIL*.;:u_ ,4[j[. .q1t . ; fl t..[j. •,.��, c, .rsNA-"-T�.b _.„,..r- t,. 4/13/2006 #J aAY.) 2.50 5/1912006 5000.000.00 .63 6/142008 10000.000 Pogo 10f I 39 90311 ,10 99.63 4.045,30900 if 9059100.00 (46, 0q 2.50 DAS A.M. 7 "i 3.84 0.83 070 0.70 > sY R it k� yt= Month End Portfolio Holdings Report Month End Portfolio Holdings Report. • • n 'WIW Y 5 § I g. g a R gag g> grgg u ala do a�R$ 4d 0 N FARO ;ate a s II w e DWI 4 sl 8w a all 19.0 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 Countys Investment Oversight Committee and approved by the County Board of Supervisors. 'Investment Category LOCAL AGENCY BONDS CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY DEBT ,EQE_E California Government Code iV,aximum Maturity Authorized % Limit Ovality S&P/ - Max,mum'Matur- Moody's . ity , Count Investment Pocy Authorized % Quality S&P/ .Limit Moody's Actual Riverside Portfolio. 5 YEARS I NO LIMIT ' 3 YEARS C 1516/ 5150MM ; A/A2/A j 2.53% S YEARS INO LIMIT 3 YEARS i 2.5% s INVESTMENT GRADE € �0.05% . I BILLS OF EXCHANGE 270 DAYS 40%Ia 180 DAYS 130% �r1EIt01AL CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS REVERSE REPOS CaITRUST SHORT TERM FUND .'SIMI FUNDS . .,w? SECURED BANK DEPOSITS -MORTGAGED y 'THROUGH. S CUijIC ,...=- LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 5 YEARS 30% i 1YEAR 25%MAX 92 DAYS j 20% 60 DAYS 10% MAX N/A I N/A - N/A DAILY LIQUICCY £ 1% 5 YEARS t NO LIMIT 5IEARS N/A NO LIMB NJA., 3 YEARS 0% MAX No more than 30%of th6 category may be invested with any one commercial hank , Mutual Funds maturity may he Interpreted as weeated average aelw(ty nut exceeding 90 days +Of must have an investment advBorwTh not leis man 5years experlence and rnTh assets under management of5500,000,00e ;A1/PI/F1 A' 2Of3`- TlNlyi5 1,00. 0.66%.' - 0.00% 7.64% 0.00% I�94q 0.76% 0.00% 0.00% Proiected Cash Flow The Pooled Investment Fund cash flow requirements are based upon a 12 month historical cash flow model. Based upon projected cash receipts and matu- rating investments, there are sufficient Funds to meet future cash flow disbursements over the next 12 months. Month Monthly Monthly Receipts Di sbmts Difference Required Mat Invest Balance Actual Inv. Maturities Avail. To Invest 1Yr. 1.0/2005 F y!A.z.,.. 03/tu b Totals 8,524.1 9,009.4 (485.3) 466.3 444.16% 2,264_3 68.78% 2,825.8 85.84% THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: 2006 State Transportation improvement Program Development PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the draft 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The development of the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is well underway. The 2006 STIP Fund Estimate (FE) was adopted at the September 29, 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting. The 2006 FE provides five-year estimates (fiscal years 2006-07 through 2010-1 1) for the State Highway Account (SHA), the Public Transportation Account (PTA), the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF), and the Transportation Deferred Investment Fund (TDIF). The condition of the STIP continues to beunstable largely because the FE must be consistent with existing law, ,which includes revenues from Proposition 42 and Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds. Given that there is no certainty that Proposition 42 funding will be continued and :that receipt of Tribal Gaming Bond proceeds are dependent upon the outcome of ongoing litigation, it is very possible that the programming scenarios included in the FE may not materialize. If this is the case, the 2006 STIP may result in a zero STIR, where no new funding is available for programming, .or, in a worse case scenario, -regional agencies may have to deprogram projects from the STIP. However, there is a strong statewide momentum among transportation agencies and the legislature to support the continuance and protection of Proposition 42 that could prove to be a- positive impact on the, 2006 STIP. Although the funding picture is, unclear, RCTC is required to prepare and submit a STIP in accordance with the adopted FE. Agenda Item 7F 44 There are three funding scenarios that are presented in the fund estimate: • Target Scenario — $167 million new ;programming capacity_ This scenario assumes programming of county shares through FY 2010-2011. • Minimum Scenario — $45.5 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes programming of county shares through FY 2007-08.. • Maximum Scenario — $197.3 million new programming capacity. This scenario assumes county shares through FY 2011-2012. Staff has prepared draft proposals for the Target and Minimum Scenarios only since the likelihood of the CTC adopting the Maximum Scenario is extremely low. Attachment 1 reflects the Commission's adopted STIP Intra-county.Formula for the . Target and Minimum scenarios. In addition, Attachment 2 identifies Regional Improvement Program (RIP) project programming associated with the Target and Minimum Scenarios. Target Scenario CTC staff has recommended that the regional agencies focus on the Target Scenario for their respective STIP submittals. However, the likelihood of achieving this scenario is largely dependent upon a STIP submittal that proposes a large amount of funds that would qualify for PTA funds, which are transit and rail type projects. It is staff's understanding that the SR 91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project, from Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 Interchange, qualifies as a PTA eligible project due to the usage of the HOV lane by Bus Rapid Transit or Express Bus services. However, if HOV lane projects are determined ineligible by the CTC for PTA funds, staff will propose programming STIP funds on the Perris Valley Line rail project and review other rail efforts that may be eligible for PTA funds. We will continue to work with CTC staff on preparing a STIP submittal that would meet the TargetScenario, In 2000, Western Riverside County formula funds were previously approved by the Commission for the SR 91 HOV project. Another commitment approved by the Commission over the last year was the funding of the 60/215' East Junction connectors project as the last or seventh segment of the 215 Corridor project, which is currently` under construction.' This commitment was included in the AB 3090 agreements for the SR 60 HOV and SR 91/Green River interchange projects that indicated the RIP and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds be reprogrammed on to the 60/215 East Junction connectors project. An additional $8 million of IIP funds will also be recommended for reprogramming in Agenda Item 7F 45 the 2006 STIP. Caltrans will reprogram the $8 million IIP funds currently programmed for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) land acquisition project to the 60/215 East Junction connectors project. Staff will replace the IIP funds from the MSHCP with Measure "A" funding, which will allow the purchase of the required acreage earlier than when Caltrans proposed -in the STIP. Coachella Valley formula funds are proposed for funding cost increases on the Interstate 10 interchange projects due to the rising price of construction materials. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is currently reviewing the cost increases for these projects and will provide the final project estimates soon. The updated project costs along with CVAG's final proposal will be included in the final recommendation to the Commission at the January 11, 2006 meeting. The Target Scenario also proposes the deletions of projects currently programmed, in the 2004 STIP. The reason why staff is proposing to delete these projects is because they are all local arterial projects. Over the past three years, when STIP allocations are limited due . to lack of sufficient funds, allocation plans are developed. These allocation plans rank categories of projects in priority order. Localarterial projects tend to be ranked very close to the bottom, and therefore, these 'projects stand a good chance of being delayed if they stay in the STIP and the State continues to have funding problems. Staff is proposing to replace the STIP funds with other federal funds as noted. Should the Commission approve this action, staff will follow up with changing the fund sources in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Lastly, the RIP funds freed up from the deleted projects would be placed on the 91 HOV project. Palo Verde Valley Formula funds historically have been programmed on local arterials. It is proposed to delete one of the current STIP project on Lovekin Boulevard and reprogram the RIP funds on the other current STIP project on US 95/Intake Boulevard. Staff will continue to work with the County and Blythe on programming new capacity funds from the 2006 STIP. Palo Verde Valley's proposal will be included in the final recommendation to the Commission at its January 11, 2006 meeting. Minimum Scenario The Minimum Scenario identifies a very minor amount of new programming capacity. Staff would recommend the deletion of the local arterials for the same reason cited in the Target Scenario (arterials are historically ranked low by CTC when funding is limited). Staff would propose that Western County funds be programmed on 1) the SR 91 HOV lane project right-of-way phase; Agenda Item 7F 46 and 2) the 60/21.5 East Junction construction phase. Funding identified for Coachella Valley would be proposed for covering cost increases along the Interstate 10 interchange projects. Both scenarios also include AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements that were approved for the 60/91/215 Interchange and corridor improvement projects and for Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds programmed in FY 2003-04. The cash reimbursement for the 60/91/215 in the amount of $31,324,000 ($26,625,000 are RIP funds, and $4,699,000 are IIP funds) is proposed for the SR 91 HDV project and will be reimbursed in fiscal year 2006-07. The PPM reimbursement of $166,000 will be received in fiscal year 2007-08 and will be reprogrammed to support future PPM activities. Staff will continue working with CVAG and Palo Verde Valley (County of Riverside and Blythe) on finalizing the 2006 -STIP proposals for the respective subregions. The draft STIP proposal is being presented in December for purposes of discussion and allowing sufficient time to adjust the proposal should new information become available regarding funding or project changes. , Staff will bring back the final 2006 STIP proposal for approval at the Commission's January 11, 2006 meeting. The deadline for 2006 STIP submittals from the -regional agencies and Caltrans ,is January.30, 2006. Staff will report to the Commission on any state or federal issues that may impact our proposed 2006 STIP submittal. Attachments: 1,) 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity 2) 2006 STIP Proposed Programming Agenda Item 7F 47 • • • 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Target Scenario (PTA heavy/County Share ending 2010-2011) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming _ 2004 STIP Unprogrammed County Share Balance 2% Planning, Programming & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total PPM Available $ STIP Funds Available for New Program Capacity Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24,76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming Capacity $ 2,488,030 827,449 26,401 3,341,880 121,913,453 40,545,025 1,293,642 163,752,120 $ 68,375,000 $ 98,719,000 $ 167,094,000 $ 3,341,880 $ 163,752,120 *2004 STIP Adjustment $ (612,743) $ $ 591,875 $ $ 20,868 $ 121,300,710 41,136,900 1,314,510 163,752,120 ATTACHMENT "Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal, Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 NOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. 48 2006 STIP Intra-County Formula for New Program Capacity Minimum Scenario (County Share period ending 2007/08) New capacity available for 2006 STIP programming 2% Planning, Programming, & Monitoring Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley , 0.79% $ Total PPM Available $ Unprogrammed Share for Project Programming: Formula Breakdown: Western County 74.45% $ Coachella Valley , 24.76% $ Palo Verde Valley 0.79% $ Total New Programming; Capacity $ 678,120 225,524 7,196 910,840 *2004 STIP Adjustment 33,227,899 $ (612,743) $ 11,050,675 $ 591,875 $ 352,586 $ 20,868 $ 44,631,160 $ 45,542,000 910,840 44,631,160 32,615,156 11,642,550 373,454 44631,160 ATTACHMENT *Programming for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley funds was not determined at the time of the 2004 STIP submittal. Therefore, the $612,743 of Formula funding was programmed in the Western County (SR 91 HOV) to protect funds from being reprogrammed outside of Riverside County. 49 • DRAFT 2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Target Scenario Current Projects • $ (000's • ATTACHMENT Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave. Interchange $ 15,112 $_; 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W,Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren Interchange : $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con Caltrans 60/215 IC AB 3090's (60/215 E Jct connectors) $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects $ 65,854 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 7,849 $ - $ - New Prolect Proprammina Caltrans 91 ; HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 138,182 $ 22,000 $ 116,182 R/W, Con CVAG 10 Cost increases for 1-10 interchanges $ 41,137 $ 41,137 Con Palo Verde Valley TBD _ $ 1,315 TBD RCTC PPM Program Years TBD $ 3,342 Con Sub -total New Projects $ 183,976 Total Current and New Projects $ 249,830 STIP ProgrammingTargets Per FV.: , AB 3090'Cash Reimbursements $ 22,000 $ $ 26,429 $ " 25,763 41,137 $ $ 94,713 $ 45,175 7,849 $ 11,798 $ 116,182 $ $ 116,182` Caltrans 91 HOV lanes; Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 26,625 RCTC PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 166 Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP Total RIP Replacement Funds Proposed Programming FY 07/08 Blythe Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ - RSTP Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385' RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road Grade: Separation $ . 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella "" Dillon Road Widening $ 2,117 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY 06/07 Moreno Valley" Reche Vista Dr Realignment, signal $ 1,967 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St' Widening $ 2,040 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County De Frain Blvd Reconstruction $ 810 RSTP FY 07/08 RCTC Rideshare Activities $ 820 RSTP FY 05/06-08/09 Total Deletions from STIP $ 16,882 50 DRAFT 2006 STIP Proposed Programming - Minimum Scenario Current Projects $ (000's ATTACHMENT 2 Agency Rte Project Total RIP FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Phase RCTC, PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring $ 1,105 $ 105 $ 500 $ 500 Con Caltrans 10 Ramon Rd/Bob Hope Interchange $ 19,022 $ 19,022 Con Caltrans 10 Jefferson Street Interchange $ 10,560 $ 10,560 Con Caltrans 10 Indian Ave Interchange $ 15,112 $ 2,000 $ 13,112 R/W, Con Caltrans 15 Calif Oaks/Kalmia Interchange $ 7,366 $ 2,324 $ 5,042 R/W, Con Caltrans 91 Van Buren Interchange $ 3,465 $ 3,465 Con Caltrans 95 Intake Blvd Widen/Signal $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Con Caltrans 60/215 IC AB 3090's.(60/215 E Jct connectors) $ 7,349 $ 7,349 Con Sub -total Current Projects $ New Project Programmin 65,854 $ 4,429 $ 53,576 $ 7,849 $ Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ - R/W Caltrans 60/215IC Connectors $ 10,615 $ 10,615 Con CVAG 10 Cost increases for 1-10 interchanges $ 11,643 $ 11,643 Con Palo Verde Valley TBD $ 373 TBD RCTC PPM Program Years TBD $ 911 Con Sub -total New Projects $ Total Current and New Projects STIP Programming Targets Per FY: AB 3090 Cash Reimbursements 45,542 $ $ 111,396 22,000 $ $ 26,429 $ 25,763 11,643 $ 10,615 $ $ 65,219 $ 45,175 $ 18,464 $ 11,798 Caltrans 91 HOV lanes, Adams to 60/91/215 IC $ 26,625 RCTC PPM $ 166 Projects Proposed to Be Deleted from STIP Total RIP Replacement Funds Proposed Programming Blythe " Lovekin Blvd Rehabilitation $ RSTP FY 07/08 Cathedral City Ramon Road Improvements $ 1,385 RSTP FY 06/07 Coachella Dillon Road, Grade Separation $ 4,559 CMAQ FY 05/06 Coachella Dillon Road Widening $ 2,11.7 RSTP FY 05/06 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Improvements $ 3,184 RSTP FY 06/07 Moreno Valley Reche Vista Dr Realignment, signal $ 1,967 RSTP FY 06/07 Riverside County Miles Ave/Clinton St Widening $ : 2,040 RSTP ;; FY 06/07 Riverside County De Frain Blvd Reconstruction $ 810 RSTP FY 07/08 RCTC Rideshare Activities $ 820 RSTP FY 05/06-08/09 Total Deletions from STIP $ 16,882 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 12, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" John Standiford, Director of Public Information Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Agreement No. 06-15-008-00 for Communications and Graphic Design Consultant Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF- RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-15-008-00 to Geographies for a three-year consultant agreement 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; and 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1999 the Commission approved a multi -year consultant contract with the Riverside based firm of Geographies 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 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. Agenda Item 7G 52 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 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 718 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 Geographies 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. Agenda Item 7G 53 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 contract be awarded with two one-year contract extension options. Funding for communications and graphic design services totaling $650,000has 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 I will be used pursuant to Legal Counsel review. i Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY2005-06 Amount: $650,000 Source of Funds: Various Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: S-15-65525, 65526, 73120 and 73704 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \pa,u4cajizei, Date: 11/28/05 i Attachment: RFP for Communications and Graphic Design Agenda Item 7G 54 i DATE: September 28, 2005 TO: Consultant Firms i FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for the Provision of Communications and Graphic Design Consultant Services The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 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 55 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 processesin 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. 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. 56 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 B. Consultant written comments may be submitted on or before C. Mandatory pre -bid meeting at 10:00 a.m. D. Proposals dueatRCTC offices no later. than 4:00 p.m. E. Evaluation period F. Short list interviews (if required) G. Evaluation Committee recommendation presented to RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee H. Committee Consultant recommendation presented to RCTC Board for approval to award contract I. Selected Consultant work begins on or about September 29, 2005 October 13, 2005 October 17,.2005 October 24, 2005 October 31— November 4, 2005 November 14, 2005 . November 28, 2005 December 14, 2005 January 1, 2006 The above dates are subject to change at the discretion of the Commission. 5.0 OUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS Questions regarding the content, intent or procedural matters of this, RFP should be addressed to: 57 3 Ms. Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Program and Public Affairs Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street,'3`d Floor PO Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone: (951) 787-7141 FAX: (951) 787-7920 E-mail: mwilliams@rctc.orq (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 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, 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; 58 4 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 widevarietyof 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. 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-bidmeeting or mailed thereafter to the Consultant firm at the discretion of the Commission. Bidder's are required to submit six (6) original pmposals (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 pm, on Monday, October 24, 2005. All proposals will be date and time 59 5 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 facie 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, 3rd 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/ " 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 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 6 must include the name, address, telephone/fax numbers, and a -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 R_ CTCs 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. CONSULTANT PROFILE: 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. 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 61 7 • 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 ORGANIZATION/PERSONNEL; 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 ROTC. 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 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. 62 8 A list of the Bidder's proposed vendors should also be includeddetailing 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. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 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. 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 submittedto determine their responsiveness to the RFP requirements. Proposals determined to be responsive will be evaluated and points awarded based uponthe 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 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. - 63 9 • 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. 9.0 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. Firm'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 64 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 Commissionshall 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 "Proceedingl, 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. 65 11 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 Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Frank West / Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Kelly Seyarto / Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly) Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Governor's Appointee 66 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 67 13 ATTACHMENT B SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Agreement No. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR [ DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 1 SERVICES . WITH [ CONSULTANT 1 1. 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 [ NAME OF FIRM, 1 ("Consultant'), a [ LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT e.g., CORPORATION 1. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing [ INSERT TYPE OF SERVICES } services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain consulting services for the [ INSERT PROJECT NAME 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 furnishto 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 shaft 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 68 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 [ INSERT NAME OR TITLE 1 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, consistentwiththe standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of Califomia. 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 69 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 taws, 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 subcontractuntil 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 Califomia and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence; limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 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. Employers Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. r INCLUDE ONLY IFAPPLICABLE-DELETE OTHERWISE 1 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 r INCREASE IF NECESSARY —:OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS NOTE 1 :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: 70 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 chairs 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 (3p) days prior written notice by certified mail, retum 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:VD!, 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. 71 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 taws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.' 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not exceed ( INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT j (Sr INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT 1) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director ("Total Compensation"). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of 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. Afany 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. 72 18 • under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have :and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant: Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to . Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related:. industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, orany publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or I radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 319 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 Attomey'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 losingparty reasonable attorney'sfees 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, 74 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 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. Agreement. - 3.24 Time of Essence: Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns.. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 . Prohibited Interests: 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely. for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty,. Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity: employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion; transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting: Consultant shall not subcontractany 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. 75 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 seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every. qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is indentured. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the Califomia 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 Califomia Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Consultant shall forfeit to Contractor as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code. 76 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: '[INSERT NAME] Signature Chairman [NOT NEEDED IF APPROVED BY COMMISSION] By: Eric Haley Executive Director Approved as to Form: By: "Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 77 Name Title 23 EXHIBIT „A" SCOPE OF SERVICES j INSERT j 78 24 Exlimn- 'B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES j INSERT 1 79 25 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION [ INSERT j 80 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 1 nor the above firm than 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 Califomia Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) 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 81 27 EXHIBIT "E" CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION I 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) (b) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Ca[trans) 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 82 28 AGENDA ITEM 7H s RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: TransTrack: Transit Performance Management Software PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $153,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to TransTrack Systems LLC (TransTrack) for the implementation of a Transit Performance Manager software application and training package; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-62-007-00 with TransTrack for $153,000 in LTF funds; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2005, the Commission reaffirmed its commitment to the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. The PIP was designed to meet Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244 which requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operations (public bus and commuter rail) through the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the triennial performance audit as well as compliance with PUC requirements for State -mandated fare box recovery and cost efficiency. Whilereviewing and analyzing individual route productivity should remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively. Historically, Riverside County transit operators utilize TDA funding for well over 50% of their operating Agenda Item 7H 83 and capitaf budgets. Currently, reporting of transit operator performance is done through an Excel spreadsheet format and is provided at a systems level for dial -a ride and fixed route operations. Computerized Tracking of Operator Performance Data Commission staff and the transit operators spend a significant amount of time compiling, tabulating and reporting transit operating information for use in the SRTP, monthly management reports, quarterly transit operator reports as well as annual reports to external agencies (e.g., State Controller and National Transit Database reports). This information assists the Commission's policy board in complying with both the PUC and State -mandated requirements. One of the recommendations made in RCTC's triennial performance audit was that the Commission needed to strengthen its analytical capabilities to oversee operator performance. Further, it was recommended that: "ROTC should develop a computer -based- program that displays useful interpretations of performance data. The programshould be able to directly interface with the information submitted on a quarterly 'basis by each operator, and provide linkages to previous data to form trends. At its September 2005 Commission meeting, staff was directed' to pursue the development of a computer -based program to assist with data analysis. Since that time, a meeting was held with a representative of TransTrack, a computer' tracking software program, which Commission staff believes will improve the data collection capabilities and reduce the time commitment that is currently required in data analysis. The TransTrack system was presented to the Riverside County transit operators for their review and feedback. The presentation(s) were well received as both Commission and transit operator staffs believe that the computerized tracking program and the PIP will provide the analytical tools necessary to assist' with the issue of 'productivity as it relates to the disparity between ridership and operating costs previously reported. Staff is requesting approval to allocate $153,0001 in Local Transportation Funds to TransTrack Systems, LLC for the implementation of TransTrack, the Transit Performance Manager software application and training package described more fully in Attachment 1 If approved, the initial implementation of TransTrack will be at a summary data collection' level However, included in the $153 000 funding ' If approved, $20,000 of the $153,000 funding will be placed on reserve for the development of various computer reports. Agenda Item 7H 84 • request is $18,000 for Phase 1, a business process review that will consist of TransTrack representatives conducting a systems review (at all eight public operator sites) to identify the various types of data currently being collected. The intent behind the Business Process Review is to identify data elements that may be able to be integrated and consolidated at the transit operator level in order to streamline the data collection requirements and provide more detailed reports, The completion of the Business Process Review will highlight what additional data tracking elements can be performed through TransTrack. At the time of writing this agenda item, staff from both the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) have indicated an interest in tracking more detailed level information (versus summary level data), however, they were unsure of the level of additional tracking they were interested in. Given RTA and SunLine's operating complexities, staff believes that more detailed level reporting may be beneficial to their operations. Once Phase 1 is completed, it is anticipated that additional funding may be requested to implement a more detailed level data collection system at both RTA and SunLine. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NIA Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $153,000 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 601-62-90101 - 2210 $95,625 601-62-90101 - 2211 $19,125 601-62-90101 - 2212 $19,125 601-62-90101 - 2213 $19,125 Fiscal Procedures Approved: NIXIA,,,,tay.. L+'avmO Date: 1 1 /21 /05 Attachment: TransTrack - Schedule of Fees and Costs Agenda Item 7H 85 Attachment 1 TransTrack: Transit Performance Management SCHEDULE OF FEES AND COSTS — Deliverables (a) Amount Payment Due Basic Software Application License Fee $40,000 Contract Signing Phase I: Business Process Review $18,000 Completion of Phase I Draft Report (Estimated. 45 Days from Contract Signing) Phase II: Set -Up & Training Services, Including Six Week Follow -Up Training $43,000 Due Upon Completion of the Follow -Up Training (Estimated within 90 Days From Contract Signing) Annual Maintenance & Support Services Agreement and Annual Escrow Materials Fee (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) Rate based on 250 or fewer active transit vehicles and modular functionality defined in Exhibits A, C, and D. If there are any changes either requested by Licensee or required to be implemented by Licensor (i.e., government mandated changes) then the rate shall be increased in accordance with Licensor's then current published price list. With no changes in functionality, the annual Maintenance and Support fees for continued on-line service shall not increase by more than 15% per year. In the event that the Licensee commences use of the $32,000 120 Days From Contract Signing Escrowed Materials defined in Article IV, Paragraph 7.A, it shall require that the Licensee procure third -party software at the expense of the Licensee. Transit Performance Managernl utilizes SQL Server 2000 for the database and Crystal Reports Version 8.5 for all reports. Customized Reports (at the discretion of Licensee) $20,000 To Be Determined During First Full Year of Implementation Total $153,000 (a) Deliverables are contingent upon the availability of Licensor and Licensee representatives for training and set-up, based on a mutually agreeable schedule, as well as data for the first six months of FY2006. Hourly rates for additional services available on a time and material basis: Training and process review $150; Software Engineering $125; and Data Entry $45 86 • AGENDA ITEM 71 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Designated Recipient for the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5307 Program — Small Urbanized Area Funding PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Name the Riverside County, Transportation Commission (RCTC) as the Designated Recipient (DR) forplanning and ,programming of Section 5307 funds for the Hemet urbanized area (UZA); and, 2) Adopt Resolution No. 05-013, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Recommending that it be identified as the Designated Recipient of Federal Urbanized Area Formula Funds for the Hemet UZA." BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2003, Caltrans announced a two-year pilot program to transfer designated recipient status to Transportation Planning Agencies (TPA) for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 program for small urbanized areas (population under 200,000; in the Governor's apportionment). A recent survey of TPAs;and transit operators that participated in the pilot program found that the delegation streamlined the FTA Section 5307 grant application process and recommended its continuance. In June 2004, the Business, Transportation ,and Housing Agency launched a Performance. Improvement Initiative (PII) to improve efficiency of operations for departments under its purview. One of the recommendations of the PII relative to Caltrans was to permanently delegate the administration of the Section 5307 program, Consistent with the Pll recommendation and the subsequent success of the pilot program, Caltrans is requesting the permanent delegation of the small UZA program to TPAs that are legislatively authorized to program and administer funds for public transportation projects. RCTC, created under Section 13050 of the California Public Utilities Code, is the TPA for Riverside County. Agenda Item 71 87 In order for RCTC to be named the DR for the Section 5307 program currently administered by Caltrans, the following three documents are required: 1) An opinion of legal counsel certifying the agency's legal capacity to perform this function; 2) A letter from the Executive Director or agency head acknowledging that the agency is the DR for specified small UZAs in its planning area; and, 3) A letter of support from the Metropolitan Planning Organization — SCAG. Resolution No. 05-013 was developed by RCTC's legal counsel and recommends' that the Commission be identified as the DR for the Hemet UZA. At the time of writing this staff report, ;SCAG's legal :counsel was in the process of drafting_a letter in support of RCTC being named the DR. It is anticipated that the letter of support will be received in the near future. Upon Commission approval and subsequent receipt of the required documentation, RCTC will request that Caltrans notify FTA of the delegation of the DR status to RCTC. At that time, for planning purposes, Caltrans will identify the current fund balance of the Hemet UZA. Staff is in support of the request for the Commission to act as the DR for small urbanized area Section 5307 funding as it will facilitate transit planningfor Riverside County. At this time, SCAG will continue to act as the DR for the large UZAs in Riverside County which consist of 1) Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs; 2) Riverside/San Bernardino; and 3) Temecula/Murrieta. Tasks Associated with the Planning Process Including the Role of the DR The following tasks are associated with the transit planning process including the role of the DR: - 1) Identifies funding level available for transit' projects; 2) Notifies the transit operator of available funds; 3) Plans for projects through the Short Range Transit Plan` process; 4) Programs the projects in the Regional Transportation lmprovement Program (RTIP); 5) Maintains an ongoing history of grant application amounts; and, 6) Once the transit operator applies for the FTA funding, the DR reviews the electronic grant 'application to ensure grant amount is equal to or less than funding available: Additionally, the information is reviewed for consistency with the RTIP. If correct, DR pins a supplemental agreement which enables the transit operator to access the grant funds. If incorrect; the DR works with the transit operator to resolve any discrepancies. Agenda Item 71 88 e In reality, the role of the DR is a formality as the transit operator will continue to receive funding directly from FTA. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: FTA Section 5307 Funds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: ' �j+'>� Date: 11/18/05 Attachment: Resolution No. 05-013 Agenda Item 71. 89 RESOLUTION NO.05-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE IDENTIFIED AS THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT OF FEDERAL URBANIZED AREA FORMULA FUNDS FOR THE HEMET URBANIZED AREA WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the Bureau of the Census released the urbanized area . designations for the 2000 Census; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses this data to allocate federal funds hum its Urbanized Area Formula Fund program to the Governor for urbanized areas with populations under 200,000 under 49 U.S.C. 5336; and WHEREAS, the Hemet urbanized area is within the planning area of RCTC and was identified by the Bureau of Census as having a population of under 200,000; and WHEREAS, under FTA Circular 9030.1C Section II 1(d) the Governor or his designee may elect to relinquish control of these funds and approve another agency to be the Designated Recipient; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") has received a letter from the California Department of Transportation requesting that RCTC or the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") be recognized as the Designated Recipient of FTA funds; and WHEREAS, SCAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") desire that RCTC be identified as the Designated Recipient of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds for the small urbanized area of Hemet; and WHERAS, RCTC is a regional public transportation authority created under Section 13050 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, the naming of RCTC as the Designated Recipient of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds for the Hemet urbanized area will foster an effective planning process that promotes efficient overall transportation investment strategies; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby recommends that the Governor of the State of California identify RCTC as the Designated Recipient for the Hemet small urbanized area. NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission directs staff to work with the Office of the Governor to formalize the recognition of RCTC as the Designated Recipient with the FTA. 90 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14t day of December, 2005. C. Robin Lowe, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 91 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Request for Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds as Match for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Section 5310 Program from Friends of Moreno Valley PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Friends of Moreno Valley (Friends) to provide the required local match for the purchase of an accessible modified van; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-26-002-00 with Friends for $9,800 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds available in western Riverside County; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Friends was recently notified by Caltrans that they were approved for $49,000 in funding under the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 program for the purchase of one eight -passenger, wheelchair accessible modified van. The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of capital projects. Friends is requesting that the required 20% match ($9,800) be funded from Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds available in western Riverside County. These funds are specifically set aside, on an annual basis, to provide local match to non-profit operators located in western Riverside County participating in the Section 5310 program. Staff is in support of this request as Friends has been a long time recipient of Measure "A" Specialized Transit funding to provide transit services to seniors and persons with disabilities for residents of Moreno Valley. If approved, the funds will be placed on deposit directly with Caltrans. Agenda Item 7J 92 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2005/06 Amount: - $9,800 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225-26-86103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Atusa.01144,, Date: 11 /18/05 Agenda Item 7J 93 AGENDA ITEM 7K • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Request for Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds from the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate an additional $50,000 in Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities for its Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project; 2) Approve Agreement No. 05-26-517-01, Amendment No: 1 to Agreement 05-26-517 with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with ;Disabilities in an amount not to exceed $50,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Transportation Reimbursement, and Information .Project, known as the TRIP program, is provided through the Partnership to Preserve independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. TRIP provides information to seniorsand persons with disabilities on the availability of transportation, including brochures, and schedules for all specialized transit services. In addition,. TRIP provides mileage reimbursement to volunteer drivers of people_ unable to use other transportation services: Through the Commission's FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program's Call for Projects, $290,698 in Measure "A" funding was allocated to the TRIP program for FY 2005/06 services'. Based on first quarter ' $72,675 in Measure "A" funding is disbursed on a quarterly basis. First quarter expenses for the TRIP Program were approximately $78,250. Agenda Item 7K 94 performance (July through September), the TRIP program has experienced a 30% increase in. Measure "A" participants with 51 new Measure "A" riders added during the quarter.- As a result, expenses in the first quarter exceeded the Measure "A" funding disbursement by $5,575. For the second quarter of FY 2005-06, the level of demand for TRIP services has continued to exceed program resources. As a result, TRIP is requesting additional" Measure "A" funding in the amount of $50,000. If approved, $35,000 of the funds will be allocated so that the TRIP program can ,continue to provide monthly mileage reimbursements for the remainder of the fiscal year.. The remaining $15,000 will be placed in reserve and will be made available to cover expenses should demand exceed the TRIP Program's projection. Program Overview The TRIP program has been in existence in Riverside County since 1993. It complements public and private transportation services by reimbursing volunteers to transport individuals where no transit service exists or when the individual is too frail or elderly to use other transportation. -During the past fiscal year, the western Riverside County TRIP program reimbursed 24,393 one-way vehicle trips for 277 riders traveling approximately 495,200 miles. A typical candidate for TRIP assistance has generally outlived his or her family and friends and is now suffering from debilitation. As "health issues multiply, seniors decrease their- social involvement in the community and ,typically end up isolated and alone. The overall goal of the TRIP program is to work to improve and maintain the independence and dignity of the elderly and persons with disabilities through programs that educate and empower. . Financial Information In Fiscal- Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: $50,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funding - Western Riverside County Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 225-26-86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1414.2440,11", Date: 1 1 /18/05 Agenda Item 7K 95 AGENDA ITEM 7L • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and implementation "Committee as a Whole" Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006-2010 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2006-10 Measure "A" Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco. 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 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 Agenda Item 7L 96 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2004-2005 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE"A" FUNDS 2004-2005Completed Prolects 1 ISTEA project (match) Fifth Street - Norco Drive to California Avenue Overlay $400,430 $45,930 Seventh Street - Valley View to California 2 Bluff Street - River Road to Stagecoach Drive Roundup Road - Stagecoach Drive to Trail Street Reconstruct/Overlay $364,000 $235,000 3 River Drive - Center Street to Hillside Avenue Reconstruct/Overlay/Widening $45,000 $45,000 River Drive - Corona Avenue to Valley View Avenue 4 Fourth Street Intersection Improvements Street/Signal Improvements $50,000 $50,000 5 Street Striping Striping $20,000 $20,000 6 Misc. Pavement Repairs Pavement Repairs $30,000 $30,000 7 Parkridge Avenue - Second Street to Kips Korner Road Rehabilitation $35,900 $35,900 97 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005-2006 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS Carryover Proiects 1 Riding Ring Road - Western Avenue to Pacific Avenue Overlay/Reconstruction $100,000 $100,000 Pacific Avenue - Second Street to North End c- 2 Caballeros Road - Indian Horse Drive, Roan Court, Staynor Way, Lori Court Overlay $40,000 $40,000 Ridgecrest Avenue - Temescal to Curtis Drive Third Street - Hillside to East End 3 River Drive - Center to Hillside Reconstruction $45,000 $45,000' 4 Bluff Street - Vine Avenue to River Road Rehabilitation $64,000 $64,000 5 Golden Gate Circle - Santa Anita Road to End Rehabilitation $9,450 $9,450 6 Hamner Ave. Third St. to Santa Ana River-ISTEA (match) Overlay/ROW $65,000 $65,000 7 Buckskin. Lane - California to Crestview Overlay $45,000 $45,000 8 Cedar Ave. -,Norco Drive to River Ridge Rehabilitation: $22,000 $22,000 9 Sixth St. - Cedar Ave, to River Ridge Dr. Rehabilitation $15,000 $15,000 10 Mt. Shasta Dr. - Mt. Verde To Mt. Rushmore ° Rehabilitation $150,000 '$150,000 Mt. Verde Dr., Mt. Blanc Ct., Mt. Baldy Ct. Mt. Rushmore Dr. - Crestview to Mt. Shasta 98 66 000'Z4$ 000'OZ$ 000'03 000'913 000'03 000'93 009'Z££$ 000'0L$ 000'£44$ Ooo'o4 4$ 009'09$ 000'S5$ 000'983 000'Z3 000'0Z$ 000'0L$ 000'913 000'SE$ 000'03 000'$L$ 009'ZE£$ 000'0L$ 000'E4 4$ 000'014$ 002'09$ 000'S5$ 000'se3 /(epano AepenO AelJen0 lonulsuooeb lonulsuooea uoilel!gleLle l uoilellligeye l AepenO Aepen0 Aepen0 uonelpigeyal{ uopeimeege Reuen0 pue y1J0N" of •lS ylueneS - AeM euowell 'env auel!3 of pJempooM - •lS UlueneS pue pin 01'19 4141d -'env walseM pue pee of euelS - ao poomelows des-ep-po to pu3 01 •env euwo0 - 0H-lpel aeuweH PIO olaauuleH -'IS Ilel lae49UlxIS 01411 d - enueny elleiS leGuIS ylmod of p-1lyl - enueny eale!S 0£ZOE loe.ili.o eun thud weiN -'env elw0Ple0 •JO -leA! 01 'IS glx!S - •env MelA /alien env allelS of lSald - •anv meln Aellen 44 04 6 g L 9 S b e Z 4 £4 Z4 44 sloelold peltlopy 900Z - 900Z 'env JepeO of 'IS IoogoS -'env MEW oeS-ea-InO of ieuweH - 'env eamwwoO/lePlsnpul leosewal of aionUasea - •a0 snanO epplIN of ipuesaa - 'env en0.10 uepieo epenH 01 en0.10 uepae0 - leM mule° el SONfId 1S00 3dA1133P011d S11WI1/31Ab'N 1331.011d 'ON „v..3ansvaW 1d101 114311 900Z-200Z Ad Wb2100Nd SONru -wool „v.. 3af1Sv3W NOISSIWWOO NOI1V1110d9NVIII l.1Nf10O 301S113Ala • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2005-2006 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 12 Pedley Ave. - Seventh St. to Eighth St. Overlay . $68,500 $68,500 13 River Road - East of Bluff St. to Santa Ana River Rehabilitation $90,000 $90,000 14 Raquel Road- Temescal to End Rehabilitation $25,000 $25,000, 15 River Dr. - Temescal to Eighth Overlay $60,000 $60,000 16 Corona Avenue - First to Second Streets Rehabilitation $60,000 $60,000 17 Hamner Ave. - Widen Portions Between 3rd & 5th Widen/ROW/Design $130,000 $130,000 18 Hamner Ave. - @ Second St. Left Tum and Signal Modifications $120,000 $120,000 19 Hamner Ave. - @ Hidden Valley Left Turn and Signal Modifications $120,000 $120,000 20 California Ave. - Sixth St. to Buckskin Reconstruction $150,000 $150,000. 21 Sierra Avenue - Third to Fourth Street Rehabilitation $150,000 $150,000 22 Crestview Ave. - North Dr. to Sixth St. Reconstruction $450,000 $450,000 . 23 Traffic Signal Improvements - Misc, Signal Improvements $50,000 $50,000 24 Fifth St. • Signal Improvements Signal Improvements $25,000 $25,000 25 Street Striping: Striping $22,000 $22,000 26 Misc. - Seal Coats Slurry Seal $60,000 $60,000 27 Misc. - Pavement Repairs , , . Asphalt Maintenance $30,000 $30,000 100 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2006-2007 ITEM NO. PROJECT NAME/LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE"A" FUNDS 1 Pikes Peak Drive - Sixth St. to Mt. Shasta Drive Overlay $50,000 $50,000 2 Norconian Drive - Fifth Street to Norco Drive Rehabilitation $63,500 $63,500 3 Hillside Ave. - Second St. to Third St, Rehabilitation $325,000 $325,000 4 Reservoir Dr. - Corona to Temescal Rehabilitation/Overlay $175,000 $175,000 5 Parkridge - Second St. to Kips Korner Reconstruction $35,900 $100,000 6 Street Reconstruction $100,000 $100,000 7 Misc, Pavement Overlays $300,000 $300,000 8 Street Striping $40,000 $60,000 9 Misc. Seal Coats $75,000 $75,000 10 Misc. Pavement Repairs $130,000 $30,000 11 Traffic Signal Improvements $25,000 $25,000 12 Completion of Hidden Valley Parkway 1-15 Interchange $250,000 $250,000 101 Zoe 000'09$ 000'0E$ 000'92$ 000'0b$ 000'00E$ 000'09$ 000'0E$ 000'92$ 000'017$ 000'00E$ sluawanoudwf!euB!S oweal si!eda2l luewened •osiN sleo0 lees •ospi Bu!dPlS la011S s,tepeno luewened •os!W 9 5 17 E ` Z 000'0017$ 000'0017$ uogorulsuooaa }awls I. s0N11d 1S00 3dA1103P02id S11WIl/3WtlN io3road 'ON „v.. aansvm 1V101 W311 800Z-LOOZ Ad Wd210021d S0N11d ivooi „v., 3?l11Sym NOISSIWWO3NOI1V1210dSNIALL A1Nf10O 3018213AI21 £01. 000'09$ 000'03 000'9L$ 000'017$ 000'00ES 000'0S$ 000'0E$ 000'9L$ 000'017$ 000'00E$ sluawenadwl 1eu6Is oweiy smede2{ luewaned .osm sleo0 leas 'pm Bulduls halls s,tepanp luewaned '0911A1 g 9 b E Z 000'00b$ 000'00b$ uoilonAsuooaa laaJls I. SONnd 1500 3d.t1103CONd S11WI1131NYN 103P021d 'ON oV., 32111svm 1`d101 IN311 600Z-800Z Ad Wb210011d SOMA 1V301.,V., 32111SV3IN NOISSIWW00 N011V1210dSNV211.11N1100 3018213AM • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2009.2010 ITEM NO. 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 $75,00D 5 Misc. Pavement Repairs $30,000 $30,000 6 Traffic Signal Improvements $50,000 $50,000 104 AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE- AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2006 Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Desert Hot Springs. 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 July 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 also 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 Schedule Agenda Item 7M 105 74663 JR City of Desert Hot Springs November 3, 2005 Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, California 92502-2208 ir@ED J E JJJnII\\( NOV 07 2005 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Subject: City of Desert Hot Springs Measure 'A" Five Year Capital 2005-2006 — 2006-20I0 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 FY 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, The 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, Patneaude Assistant City Engineer Enclosures Cc: Corky Larson John Soulliem Linda Kelly 65950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 • Telephone (760) 329-6411 • www.desert-hot-springs.us 106 Agency: Prepared By: Phone #: Date: • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 City of Desert Hot Springs Dan Patneaude, Assistant City Engineer 760-329-6411, extension 243 November3, 2005 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure "A" $ 56-1 City Wide Striping Improvements New striping and reflective paint imprv. $25,000.00 $25,000.00 56-2 Hacienda Avenue - Mtn. View to McCarger Street/Storm Drain Improvements $450,000.00 $100,000.00 56-3 Pierson Blvd. Reconstruct - Miracle Rd to L. Morongo Street Improvement $2,900,000.00 $315,000.00 56-4 MSWD Sewer Projects - Joint Projects City Street Imprv. Sewer Assessments $500,000.00 $250,000.00 56-5 Two Bunch Palms AC Pavement Cap Cap out Two Bunch from Cuando to Verbena $100,000.00 $50,00000 58-6 City Wide Slurry Seal Improvements Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Misc. Streets $250,000.00 $100,000.00 $180,000.00' 56-T La Mesa Drive Improvements* New AC Paving / Street Grades $200,00000 * NEW PROJECT Totals $4,425,000.00 $1,020,000.00 AGENDA ITEM 7N • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Riverside County Call Box System Reduction and Maintenance Agreement BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION 'COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to reduce the number of call boxes throughout the Riverside County Call Box system by approximately 422 boxes; 2) Award Agreement No. 06-45-003-00 to Comarco Wireless Technologies for the removal and installation of call boxes and annual maintenance services for the Riverside County Call Box Program; and, 3) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: t 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 '% 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 %Z mile to IA 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). Agenda Item 7N 108 Over the last several years, the Riverside County call box program, along with call box programs throughout the state, has experienceda reduction in the number of calls received through its system. Since FY 1999-2000, the call -volume in 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. Giventhedecline 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 % 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 uns_ erved highway of the county. The three actions will result in a total decrease of 422 call boxes leaving a balance of 682 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. Agenda Item 7N 109 • • The maintenance agreement with Comarco expires December 31, 2005. Comarco Wireless Technologies has provided call box equipment and maintenance to the 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: 2005-06 Amount: $192,000 Source of Funds: SAFE DMV Fees Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 202-45-73301 Equipment Maintenance - General Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lia, 1 , Date: 11/28/05 Agenda Item 7N 110 • AGENDA ITEM 70 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Award Agreements for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 06-45-006-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Hamner Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $47.75 per hour per truck; 2) Award Agreement No. 06-45-005-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Pepe's Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $48.50 per hour per truck; 3) Award Agreement No. 06-45-004-00, a three-year agreement with two one-year options, to Hammer Towing for tow truck service on Beat No. 26 of the Freeway Service Patrol program at a cost of $49.50 per hour per truck; and, 4) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE), re►eased a Request for Proposal (RFP) on September 29, 2005 for tow truck service provisions on Beat No. 2, Beat No. 25, and Beat No. 26 of the Freeway Service Patrol program. The new Beat No. 26 will provide FSP coverage on the highly congested section of the I-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 Agenda Item 70 111 proposals werereceivedfor Beat No. 2 and Beat No. 25. Only oneproposalwas received for Beat No. 26. An Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from the California Highway Patrol Inland Division, Caltrans District 8, Sari Bernardino 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: Beat #2 Award Beat #2 agreement to Hamner Towing, starting July 3, 2006 Hamner Towing Tri-City Towing Final Score: 94* 67 Beat #25 Award Beat #25 agreement to Pepe's Towing, starting July 3, 2006 Hamner Towing Pepe's Towing Tri-City Towing Final Score: 90 Beat #26 Final Score: 91* 65 Award Beat #26 agreement to Hamner Towing, starting February 2, 2006 Hamner Towing 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 No. 26 through the end of the current fiscal year. Financial Information i In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2005-06 Amount: _ $75,400 Source of Funds: State of California — 80% . SAFE DMV Fees — 20% m Budget Ad ustent: g Yes GLA No.: 201-45-81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: pp ved: \440,1 Date:. 11 /28/05 Attachment: Freeway Service Patrol Maps — Beat #2, Beat #25, and Beat #26 Agenda Item 70 112 FSP Beat No. 2 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 FSP Beat No. 25 Description: 1-15, Riverside County Line to Hidden Valley Parkway (9.4 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:30a.m. to 8:30a.m.; 3:OOp.m.to 7:OOp.m. Current FSP Provider: Pepe's Towing, expires June 30, 2006 FSP Beat No. 26 , Description: 1-15, Hidden Valley Parkway to Temescal Canyon Road (9.6 miles) Hours of Operation: 5:30a.m. to 8:30a.m.; 3:O0p.m.to 7:OOp.m. Current FSP Provider: NEW BEAT Agenda Item 70 113 AGENDA ITEM 7P • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc., for Property Management Support Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enter into Agreement No. 04-51-030-02, Amendment No. 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; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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. Agenda Item 7P 114 Approval of Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $301,850 will increase the total contract ` authorization to $913,677. It is anticipated that, $176085 of Amendment No. 2 will be spent this fiscal year, requiring a budget amendment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2004-05 Amount: $176,085 Source of Funds: Property Lease Revenues Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.; 105-51-65520 $158,585 105-52-65520 $17,500 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Pyzeido, Date: 11 /28/05 Attachment: Proposed Scope of Work for Amendment No. 2 Agenda Item 7P 115 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 24050 Madison Street, Suite 205 Torrance, CA 90505 Voice: 310-378-1178 Fax: 310-378-0558 Memorandum m To: Stephanie Wiggins, Claudia Chase From: Holly Rockwell Date: 11/28/2005 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 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.epicland:com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 116 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. November 28, 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 $NSF 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.epicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 117 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. November 28, 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: • 1-215 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 - $71,016.25 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 118 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. November 28, 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 - $99,347.35 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 fmalize 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 $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. www.epicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 119 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 91 November 28, 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 fitture 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 - $21,321.56 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.epicland.com RIGHT OF WAY SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 120 Epic Land Solutions, Inc. November 28, 2005, Page 6 FEES SUMMARY 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 $301,850 www.epicland.com RIGHT OF WAY -SOLUTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD 121 • AGENDA ITEM 7a • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Division Head, Programming and Administration SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line 5,200 5,000 n 4,800 .` 1— 4,600 0 u 4,400 4,200 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line tx OG�A\° 406,o,a�o�o\S N•94'-'\ J oh,J P��ocool oG�oh Month' Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of October averaged 4,688 which is up 108 (+2%) from the month of September. The Line has averaged an overall increase of +2% from a year ago October 2004. Agenda Item 7Q 122 100 d- 95 90 c d 85 u `m 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line �a� Vie,' fat QQ� `,0 �`�� .s P c3e,/ Month October on -time performance averaged 96% inbound (+5% from September) and 93% outbound (-3% from September). There were 14,delays greater than 5 minutes during the month of October, same as the month of September. The following were the primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Other Riverside Line On -Time Performance Follow Up The Riverside Line has improved due to improved dispatching from the UPRR. The Line On -Time Performance was 71 % in April, improved to 99% in August, and remains above goal for October at 96%. It appears that the recent performance meetings with UPRR have made a difference. It is important to wait and see if the improved performance can be sustained, but the railroad is off to a good start. Agenda Item 7Q 123 i Inland Empire -Orange County tine 4,400 4,200 4,000 a 3,800 0 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line cf ‘4° Oe Q� oh PQ� �a�Ah,��Ah J�� °'‹ O°� A QJ 5e Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of October averaged 4,237 an increase of 294 riders or (+7%) change from the month of September. The line has increased 16% from a year ago October 2004. 100 95 90 r 85 a 80 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line Ao, D< 5 5 h Oh o�h �h 0 4 O°4h � �`°J eFu4.'z' Q•)qce�O pP o • • Month Agenda Item 7Q 124 October on -time performance averaged 95% southbound (.+9% from .September) and 94% northbound (+0%.from September). There were 14 delays greater than five minutes during the month of October, a decrease of 10 from the previous month. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other TOTAL 2 8 3 1 14% 57% 21% 8 % 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,200 2,000 0 1,800 o 1,600 N. O 1,400 1,200 1,000 oa ah 4 Q4 (P oh o(0 ( D o`0 o' o� C)e) oecr lac (<0442( 4.`§ QQr tad �Jc, �J Qo� cooQ' O Month Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of October averaged 2,002, an increase of 128 riders or (+7%) from the month of September. The line has averaged an increase of +6% from year ago October2004. Agenda Item 7Q 125 On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 95 am 90 • 85 d 80 a 75 70 Oo� �o� O� <<ep �mt PQt 40 1 ��� PJ� ��� 061/4 Month October on -time performance averaged 89% inbound (-6% from September) and 93% outbound (+0% from September). There were 16 delays greater than five minutes during the month of October, an increase of 4 from September. The primary causes were: Signals/MOW/Track Dispatching Mechanical Other Metrolink Holiday Toy Trains Events The Holiday Toy Train will be decked out with thousands of twinkling lights, tinsel and animated decorations. Santa will be making stops at the local Metrolink stations for a fun show and sing -along event. Kids will be able to play in real snow at the Pedley, La Sierra, and North Main Corona stations. Music, food, and fun will be part of the festivities. Also, the Annual Spark of Love Toy drive sponsored by the firefighters will be collecting toys to distribute to needy kids in the community. In addition, RCTC is sponsoring a school contest that will provide up to 8 Metrolink field trips to local elementary school classes that have at least 5 students attend one of the events. Agenda Item 7Q 126 Event Dates Date Train Time Metrolink .Station Address Dec 3 5:20 pm Pedley 6001 Pedley -Rd. Dec 11 .5:15 pm Riverside Downtown 4066 Vine St. Dec 11 6:05 pm Riverside La Sierra 10901 Indiana Av. Dec 11 6:55 pm North Main Corona 250 E. Blaine St Attachment: Metrolink Performance Summaries (October 2005) Agenda Item 7Q 127 NNI1011131/4� �I 1110. 500Z �ago40p S31It/U11UVf1S 3gNrW1iQd3d �tN1�4113W NOISSMINO0 NOIDMOdSM11d8l XI/MOO 3CUS83N8' Sooz fi I AoN EA-p E O E@ eldeie a tMee vaPfa ABIAGGM eny SO -PO 90-0a$ somr Muni' e" 1Purri o—tova+oiaMmral swAew so -+iv twee vss'es sNew 90983 s0"uer SdIb1 N3JN3SSVd AvaN33M 301M3AV mNI'lomim 90'0e0 90•AeN 90900 000'0Z 000'LZ 000bL 000.9Z 000'9t 000.0E n 000'ZS- 000'7£ 000'0£ 000.9E 000'00 000'ZY E %d10 ulekLIE %dt0 Atuessed e01nies pueleeM sepnpul e(nPa4P3 lO selnuIVW9 u1411M , * MAIIl-NO SNPINI SA Milli -NO SIMON3SSb'd IN33213d ®µaNOIN21710 B ull PainPawn lO swum-9 umim 9uimiv %® . 50130 So deg 50 Bny CO Mf SO un f 40 Ae :;,; ... .. ..� W 5041:1 SO JeW 50 4e4 50 uef 40 080 q0 noN 1,0130 (stpuoW £ 6 Ise el) suieal Aup seem 33NdW0A?!ad 4Wt1-NO )1N1102i13W %0'O8 %DVS %0'0B MVO / %0'001 M S 661 El 991® elnpet{oS;o BeMulIN•9 ulgilM • S �b %0'05 - %0'$$ - %0'09 - %0'99 - %WO/ - %0'S1 - %0'09 - %0'$9 - %0'O6 %0'S6 %0'OOl MOGNIM 141NOW-£6 39NVI1110dNad 311N11-NO 9omi3S QaavHS mvaumH %ZL ONIE133NION3- %CIL 2f310a IEMOS • MI SNOIlYa3d0 %Z %9t A110 a31N1-MLI.W44,O 21ad(1 XiINNO0 SOOZ leg0400 SulPu3 Polled 4nuoIN Z6 Ammisuodsea Asa sAelea um!. % %el a3H10 =MIS PWNwM IOPngVI %9L 11310 NSINOS %6L 011I2133NISN3 SNOIltla3d0 rill lit, %ft aNS ALIO'MINI-MUM %0• awn kaINN00 Soot Jegoro . it ulglsuodsas As shieo uleal;o % %z %> vaaoS %4 a3H10 MOS vWo$Pit API M • M T v M dfl-NO EI. - SItIVH.0 33NVW1I 1113. eldt*OUr+AiOnri MOPriVM&V %1 %9 %9l %O4 %Z %9- %9 %6 %Z. 40 PO sn 90100 a6uegp % %S %1 %L %9 %Z %£- %0 %Z %£ 90 deg sn SO 100 a6ueuj % %£ °AS %Z %Z- %4- %0 %L °AZ %E %L %4 %Z LL4`L4 810'Ott LSO'6£ 08£ 8£' 400 6£ LS4 6£ 499`os 961. 6£ 8Z4'8£ 49Z'L£ nett 648'8S 9£9 8£ ZOO'Z 4L9't 906' 4 S96' l IL6 I 910'Z L46'4 £88` 4 069' 4 809' 4 499'4 Z99 4 £69'4 L£Z'4 946'£ 48L'8 499`£ 909'£ 048'£ 96L E OM'£ LZ6'£ 09l'£ 649£ L49`E 999'9 99Z'9 SZ£ 9 04£'9 L96 S 644 9 S90'9 696'9 9£9 9 90Z'S L00`9 £L6'S 989` . 099'4 LIE 4 944'4 60£ 4 BL£'4 449 4 EZ9'4 144'4 969 4 SLS 4 S49 6Z9 S99 Z 49 OZ9 149 L49 Z9S Z99 909 969 LL9 449 LL9' 1.4 £48' I.4 49£'44 44£ 4 4 4Z9 44 19L'44 4CO' Zt £04'4t L£Z tl Z90 04 ZO6 04 LZZ'l4 £OL'L ` ZL6'9 498 9 9S£ 9 9L8'9 On ££L`9 £LS 9 644 9 £96'9 L8l'9 69L'9 04S 9 LL0'4 696'£ 9£9'£ 999'£ 466'£ £00'4 411'4 6L6'£ 9Z8 £ 9L£'E 660'4 £41'b 901e0 so unr SO J GO JQW 90 tied SO usr 40 *00 40 NM 40 PO 031St1rOV A1/0110H MOONIM MIAOW N331N1H.1. Sd1211 N3ON3SS1/d AdaH33M 301/113A1/ NNP102113N1 900tief t MoM L Itetl-Mons iota %99 00 % 1 Z 6 Woo AOPOoSN MOM to AeW kt) •aown stm tAspAuo mess, ettienV 'sump oA sop W spou pssinuo1N swat Vox Aleapea pue Ammer ul (t t) APO sosultlpO &OPP= seemtV fat) . AkI IPO l ONPMOsaote+otV l6) Lowe t Alnr Oulprnd><a eeenmv (a) se Revs & P P* eeenev (4) 14iAnst0 sAePt "01 08eisnY; Iran Y>to41ots. Poi Wien YIP0000eoMps;Marto° woe u, 'Aepee%>me pee t Lamer&Immo a8awed (a) LNtt uo lotioteltP 01 eeP ANON oP *PIM •t00t N 3LON 'e+IBPON Aso tAPPA,tela pus mom PoplingamV (4) 91uno0 GPM t Ilea N PoPPIDPI amPlosasad AtpuOw'40/LHLL Vl fe isms togs tuns ape PeYe18 :agIN-:'Meet OuNOaluevy Ks JCS stud N;Impels ssAeoo plows) seerta7ue to s6wanV (+) . 'ldue'w Poe remlo ASP'Nery PAPOadsai to A:SWOP' dlsatsps penal eh ken Le PeNo(Pe tees me slap Nem (8) . - TOM mOwPlde4 Pellets wand gem s leg (t) 'PAPA APP300# 18MOV u0 Not ANO aeM watOold drKtOS (nen-clout wubur •qeN L nea %AVd. (l) %9E %£4 %Zt %1Zl %6 %99 %i£ %84 40100 an 901P0 s6ue40 % %9 %9G %G %l6 s/oLZ %0 %0 %S L %Z so OBS .11A 90100 e8ueun yo 64 PSG %9 %9 I. %G ZS£ SZte GZS`i Z4 L4 CO OM 9LE 992'1 S0-130 64 GC %9 %91- %S- _ GEE 99€ LOS`L ZZ L£ 49Z 60£ 62£ L4Z'1, 16>90-deg LS LEZ %L %G£ %9 ZGf- b44 49S'i LZ 6L- E92_ S9Z £9£ GE£'G 90-6n1/ LS 9GZ %£Z- %LZ- %G• ZBZ 04£ ZLY'i 92 S£ 69Z L9Z 50£ £0Z'G <a)SOier 95 SZi %6G %I: %Z- LL£ 994 46V'G VP 69 4ia EC£ 61£ Kr 90-unr 99 es' %SG %9G %0 el£ 9L4 61.91; 29 46 EZZ 99Z Oe£ Let', ILF) SO-Aori 94 94G %EZ- %£Z- %4 92 204 41•91. £Z 9S GU £5Z its £6Z'L SO'-161f OS 68 %4Z %LGG %9 9SE £ZS L99`G LE 04 9GZ 6l£ £84 5EZ'G S0•Aeyy 0£ 99 %G£ %Li. %L- LSZ en us'i iS ZG 6LG 9£2 98E , Z61.1 41>go-qej 84' COI %I.- %0Z- %b 61Z Z 1 Z Ee£'i OZ ZZ ex 661. 061. SGL'G (0)S0-uer 64 Se %SS- %BI- %9- GZZ 49Z 9££'i 42 EG ZGZ L6G GSZ £ZG'G (0)40'080 94 £8 %91 %9 %£ 962 en 8691. 9Z LZ ZSG OLZ 96Z 94Z'G (+>4(TA0N S9 %VG %BZ %M. 99Z 862 eget. 6G £4 LEL LEL SSZ =VG (0G) 40-100 ....:.... sE+4., '''IM - :a?as:.xa:1:1: y��.Yd�y.��y�, . o!ii?il>G •. ..,y:�.:....,.. :: :.:::::i;i;i;l :.::.: ... i•..::.::.s: •:.y�:. ......:..: ....:.:. ,!?.156..,.. 1:Miii€F?)!Pi?ite4j:1-: •a i::is�(aawf .: •... �: �:.:1...:::2......�..:...?.:.:.r.::.:..:..:�:d:::::::tr?::.:aA�::<,•e:.,.:E<.::::::..�(1,4 Pilli]..:,. y:r:. ::r-.0: ,.. i.: 1 . .. .. _ . p,i!L.,.�,R,!fig8`:. ' i:AI s�a:::::a:.-r-ro ''''• o-r;•:,f. .... ... : r .:n;e.ili::;.,..iiiN.••;.•.:• ..... ........... .�?p�!?.' ., :... ::��:::::. .: 1•l•, •::�::• .... . 11p :i i?rP( ,,.ice! :.8.....:gA?. :...: ...... ...ni. ..y.^ '•::: ... .. ... ... i;i ,:...:..::� 1(lil ' e .. :.. :. ...... j aef! : as ;::�.,::!„'.: i . :�:::• . .:,:.u!iS'' ••�-�... i;n, ..f�� •.. •. .o- :...:.: •;::,�:.:,.:'. :?•:•1.:•n:•?,.s F,::I:I:::A::j.if::i::.i:� ....�... ...... :iY.W., - .: :;,:li ..'i`�.^ . ::: ,.. (.i..:.i.1.. r oil., _ .IVHI :. ^jYtg?::v �i;:.:�.?:;��' 1 liblr=.:�. � ..F..,..,:•:.,•. e...e •...::, ..,:;.:... : .,::. .,:. ,. .. F ... .....:iiiioiaai!;te;:;i;iiili: :...:.::::' :::, r :.:f::°. •.: •.:. d:: k?i i.:: F, ::flit:fi'i: ,:4;%, : n,.i:;l :•:,, MOONIM HINOHI taai ims NI/21AV NO SHE1-1014SSdd AlHINOW NNIION.L31N d111110 3011213AV ®4Ce10 eN7Puti ePRI s+ePRl My • unp ,Sept' 46/£6 Ad��� 56/46 R 96/96 Ad *�—�'�""—_*ter 861L6 AA 66/86 qeA 00166 10/90 Ad LO/t0A £0/Z0 A.4 90/£0 A 50140 AA 90/So Ad atm 01 NOIld39N1 amsnf a`d AV0110H - Seta 2130N3SSbd A.'dam33M 301/213AV )INI'10l113W Iry 000'9 000'9. 000'z l 000'41 000'91" 000'9l 000bz 000tz 000'4z 000'9z o00'ez 000'z£ 000'4£` 000`9£ 000'9£ 000`04 ti M 00N0u0IM5001 tit 9000 dog ReW 1eW uer sdul.1eBuessecf 1peQ 06eieny °owes i(epuns eun °immune ues 10090h10 ug0•0 MAAS,01009 *ON A0N 40100 0 009 ow r> 0091 3 000Z a oosz 000E 009E 90100 des eny 110r Aeyy !ew qej uer sdPlJe6uessed Apa e6eleny *mimes Stepan}es eun ouipaeuae8 ues lseePM 403 Alum* "Vi tePrVt0 Oye9 34ON AON 40120 0 009 0001, D 009E � coot %I, 009E 000E 009E 000b • AstiImOINS001 z� des BnV SOinf sdpi Jammed leap eBeleny °owes Aepung 0031 sdpi ienessed Apo eSeueny 001na0g Ae11111;89 eul, AGIIBA ed0104UV AeN611C910 %Z6 1.4,31745 %EB %E8 - - %E8' %48 %Se £4 wor a rrapo emewo ate ut PaPnpte lou we sum; peewee •uaneuluuel Jo ltryod le ewo-uo eiern,te em 10 petople= we sum. peleutuuel 'eAeleP elgeneeat ice anew meg eney slueuesnipe of %96 %69- 10a. 49A %E6' '"%BB ` %06 %06 " %SO %99 au�ul Rem Need 90160 etn Pelnsptasio serum s imam BuIMW sWeulmod Need %E6 %ZB %£6 %EB %89 1646 %58 %Le %06 %E6 %96 %Le %98 %%3 %96 %49 %OB %06 %69 90 PO %E6 %48 %Z(3 %£B %S6 40+6 %99 %96 '3/469 %96 %46 %L6 44/6 %96 %96 %OB %46 %LB %BO 90 des %96 %96 %96 %LB %96 %56 °%S6 %96 %96 8666 %98 %98 %001 %96 5696 %69 %96 %SS %96 SO BnV %E6 1646 %96 %LB %98 %ZB %L6 %46 %1.6 %L9 %06 %66 %OOL %56 %66 3/449 %99 %46 %E6 SO MI' %46 %Z6 %96 %96 %46 %46 %96 %96 %96 %Z9 %Z6 %BO %00I. 95E6 %LB %L9 %16 ' %£8 %96 SO unr %£6 %Z6 %46 %96 %Z6 %98 %46 %56 %46 %SL %SS %66 %96 %96 %L6 %99 5946 %46 91)L6 50Atm C C 506 %£6 %48 %06 %26 %08 %96 %46 %56 %L9 %9L %00I. 4466 %56 %LB %96 %96 %96 %Se 90 AV ' %46 %£B %96 %LB %ZS %6L. %1.6 %ES %SE %LL %69 %88 %86 %66 %66 %96 %96 %£6 %96 90 AM %46 %OS %ZB %98 %96 %99 %Be %L9 %69 %96, %LB 5516 %96 %26 %96 ,4,a %06 %89 %08 90484 %69 %L9 %06 MI %L9 %99 %46 %Le %Se 900L %ZB %98 %L6 %46 %98 %LL %LS %49 %99 90'119£ %96 %98 %46 %L6 %96 %48 %EB %96 %Z6 %L9 %LS %66 %66 %L6 %56 %£6 %46 %98 %66 40 dsO %48 %66 %46 %Z6 %46 3/446 %Z6 %46 %06 %E9 %89 %98 %96 %SS 7396 %96 %46 %L6 %96 PO AoN %EB %Z8 %Eel %48 %06 %S6y %06 %46 %LB %89 %S9 %96 %L96 %89 %46 %£6 %Se %96" %66 40160 p £ the RfyJ %5ti i i k > �V9 fEa{ i 'C<: i:K '4'3 .`:» ��J:If=.V'a. q S �r�`s� .« otl $$ {,yj i'. F:;: ftp {Yy"' > QY k �TA• y �S� i .} ..v(�{N If M '�i'M p(j([��y��,[9 .q. to. + kM 8� Y6'k �� }�k�A rk� S:Uny 5c�.1..aL��•'.�L< .�I .' 'u)Yi ��F � � 'J^�� .. ......... .. $ j.ygp{ hA� .. s' ��,; k�J... � j $W P IA sUi Sa£.' '�Ni :i(% 8411NOW el MIMI OW11 Pe1013e9081.0 swum S uRRIM Butmuy sule.11;0 see;umed 301A213S ANICIN33M Amvmunins 3ON32131-110V 311103140S liNnoti13W •S[WJ900L 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0031 Z 0 0 0 L 1 0 0 0 0 0 8NS ftepung 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0031 L L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lAV bWn18S £L £ 0 0 G 0 0 E 0 8NS 41' 831f1NIW a N114uL. H31.V3;I0 SAY130 NM:U.30 novo ALlVW121d. %OM. OZZ OL bL 9Z 4L 6 L£ 99 Sb WW1 %Z 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 L b 3'ONV 1•Sd0 %OZ bb Z 0 L 0 £ 9 ZZ L L siSSOS•Sd0 %9 LL L 0 0 0 0 b 01 Z SSON3S9Vd-Sd0 %L 91 Z 1 L £ 0 9. £. 0 213H10•6d0 %ZE LL 9 9 fiL LI 1. i 8 1rL. HOlVdS10?$d0 %Gi. L£ f £ 9 0 0 £L 9 9 HO3W %I. Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z >10VLilliON3 %£L 6Z 0 Z 0 0 9 Z EL L 019- ONS %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213810-LION3 %0 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0 18N0013A0b1d111-LIONS J.0lJ0%-7V101 V1-48 OWN 40 AIN 21f18 FINS 9AV NSA 13911V9 Sule+l ARNOW SOOZ JeUaPO SA11120 Nrinotuaw do smenH0 FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION October 2005 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IEIOC RIV/FUL TOTAL %;of TOT NO DELAY 335 329 574 201 215 304 221 167 2,346 79.3% 1;MIN -5 MIN 41 109 107 21 23 68 17 5 391 13.2% 6 MIN -10 MIN 28 32 14 4 2 12 6 5 103 3.5% 11 MIN - 20 MIN 12 17 8 3 5 11 4 5 65 2.2% 21 MIN - 30 MIN 4 13 8 2 7 3 4 6 47 1.6°% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.2% ANNULLED 1 4 2 0 0 1 • 0 1 9 0.3°% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 421 503 712 231 252 398 252 188 2,957 100°% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 86 174 138 30 37 94 31 21 , 611 20.7% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 45 65 31 9 14 26 14 16 220 7.4°% 15 1005FREQ.. AGENDA ITEM 7R RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE' AND; -STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update: Initiative Readied to Fix Proposition 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 tomaterialize 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, Proposition76, along vvith 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 willculminate 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 Agenda item 7R 143 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 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 Sunset Avenue Grade Separation — Banning State Route 60 Potrero Road Interchange — Beaumont Road Improvements = Desert Hot Springs State Route 91 Chokepoint Improvement — Corona State Route 79'Realignment San Jacinto Valley Corona Transit Center Riverside Transit Center Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Bus Project Calimesa Pedestrian Walkway Project $ 300,000 $1,000,000' $1,000,000 $1,000,000' $1,000,000' $ 700,000 $ 500,000' $ 750,000 $ 600,000 $1,000,000 In addition to the above, two earmarks will requireadditional 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 Agenda Item 7R 144 might be decades away, an investment in improving rail crossings through grade 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. Agenda Item 7R 145 AGENDA ITEM 8 PRESENTATION AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County -Orange County Major Recommendations - Investment Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Establish State Route 91 from State Route 55 to Interstate 15 as a priority for improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. Emphasize SR 91 improvements between the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) and 1-15 first, followed by improvements between SR 55 and SR 241. 2) Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the connection between the SR 241 and SR 91 corridors and accelerate capacity improvements on State Route 133, SR 241, and State Route 261 to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. 3) Continue .to evaluate costs and impacts with Corridor .A within the. SR 91 right-of-way through a future preliminary engineering process in ;cooperation with other agencies. (This is a revised recommendation based on the MIS Policy Committee direction.) 4) Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor B concept including costs, risks, joint -use opportunities, benefits, and potential funding options in cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, Transportation Corridor Agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. 5) Continue work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. 6) Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1 B (Corridor A with the SR 55 widening) from further analysis due to high number of residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to the SR 55. Agenda Item 9 146 7)Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (State Route 74)' widening and realignment concept due. to high cost and environmental: impacts, and direct staff to focus on, Ortega Highway operational improvements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/E TCA) joined together to find transportation solutions to ease the commute for residents and workers on bothsidesof the county line: A Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated in June 2004, guided by a bi-county policy committee comprised of RCTC, OCTA, and F/E TCA Board members (MIS Policy Committee). A Project Development Team comprised of public works staff from affected cities and the federal and state resource agencies met monthly to provide feedback throughout the study. A Stakeholders Advisory Committee including interested parties from environmental organizations, the building 'industry, local chambers, etc. was also formed to allow a forum for information sharing. Additionally, two series of open houses were held in both Riverside and Orange Counties to obtain input from the public. The purpose of the MIS was -to'determine, through a cooperative process, the appropriate strategies to improve the transportation system in order to accommodate an additional 200,000 average daily trips by the year 2030. After nearly 18 months of study, draft recommendations for the MIS were presented to the MIS Policy Committee on November 18, "2005, attached. The draft recommendations were approved by the Committee with the proviso that the proposed roadway (Corridor A) parallel to SR 91 stay' within' the SR 91 right-of-way to minimize potential business and other impacts in the City' of Corona and other locations (as shown in Recommendation 3). Staff is requesting Commission approval of the recommendations. 'Once approved, staff will initiate follow-up efforts and expects to be before the Commission in January with next steps on the project. Attachment: November 18, 2005'Committee Memorandum Agenda Item 9 147 Committee Memorandum November 18, 2005 To: Riverside County - Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee From: Eric Haley, Executive Director Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Subject: Selection of Locally Preferred Strategy Overview After nearly 18 months of study, recommendations for the locally preferred strategy for the Riverside County- Orange County Major Investment Study are presented for Committee review and approval. Recommendations A. Establish the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) from the Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55) to the Corona Freeway (Interstate 15) as a priority for improving transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. Emphasize State Route 91 (SR 91) improvements between Eastern Toll Road (State Route 241) and Interstate 15 (1-15) first followed by improvements between State Route 55 (SR 55) and State Route 241 (SR 241). B. Continue to work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a mutually acceptable plan to improve the connection between the SR 241 and SR 91 corridors and accelerate capacity improvements on Laguna Canyon Road (State Route 133), SR 241, and Eastern Toll Road (State Route 261) to optimize utilization of the toll roads to improve transportation between Riverside and Orange counties. C. Continue to evaluate costs and impacts of a Corridor A roadway through a future preliminary engineering process in cooperation with other agencies. D. Continue to study the technical feasibility of the Corridor B concept including costs, risks, joint use opportunities, benefits, and potential funding options in cooperation with the transportation agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies. 148 Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 2 E. Continue work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on Anaheim to Ontario Maglev alignments in the Santa Ana Canyon or alternate corridors as appropriate. F. Eliminate Strategic Alternative 1 B (Corridor A with SR 55 widening) from further analysis due to high residential right-of-way impacts adjacent to SR 55. G. Eliminate from further analysis the Ortega Highway (State Route 74) widening and realignment concept due to high cost and environmental impacts, and direct staff to focus on State Route 74 (SR 74) operational improvements. Background The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have embarked on a study: in partnership with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/E TCA) to evaluate proposed long-term projects for improving traffic congestion along the SR 91 corridor. The Riverside County -Orange County Major Investment Study (MIS) is an 18-month study looking at various types of multimodal alternatives between the two counties. In July 2005, the Riverside County — Orange County :Major Investment Study Committee (Committee) directed the technical team to evaluate three strategic, build. alternatives further described in Attachment A. Projects included in one or more of these three alternatives are: 1. Widening SR 91 to add one or two lanes in each direction (primarily within existing right-of-way) between the SR 55 and 1-15. 2. Building a new fourtosix-lane facility parallel to SR 91 from the SR 241 to the 1-15. Lowering tolls on SR 241 to help move traffic or widening SR 55 and not lowering SR 241 tolls are two options included in this proposal. 3 Building a new four- to six -lane facility, major portions in tunnels, from the intersection of the SR 241 toll road with theStateRoute 133 (SR 133) toll road to 1-15 in the vicinity of Cajalco Road in Corona. 4 Upgrading SR 74 to a four -lane road by widening and realignment. Technical results describing cost and performance for the projects above and the ;strategic alternatives, were presented to the Committee on October 28, 2005.;General. recommendations and potential actions are discussed below. 149 Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 3 Discussion ' In working with the Committee, cities, stakeholders; and elected officials through the MIS process, it is clear the highest priority should be given to SR 91 improvement projects. The freeway segment from SR 241 to 1-15 is the major SR 91 bottleneck, and this segment should have the highest priority for improvements in the near term. Improvements between SR 55 and SR 241 are important as well, but the need for widening in this segment could be deferred' if SR 241 can accommodate increased north/south traffic. The SR 241 is a toll facility operated by the F/E TCA: Tolls are set to offer a congestion -free commute and provide revenue to F/E TCA to •pay operating costs and retire construction bonds. One potential solution to move traffic off SR 91 (especially between SR 55 and SR 241) is to dower tolls and to add more lanes to SR 241 and related facilities. Traffic projections prepared by the technical team indicate SR 241 would carry substantially more traffic than is does today if tolls were lowered. Carrying more traffic on SR 241 is a key strategy if a new four to six lane facility is constructed parallel to SR 91 between SR 241 and 1-15. This has been called Corridor A. This parallel facility could move a significant amount of traffic off SR 91 and south to SR 241. Widening the toll portions of SR 241, SR 261, and SR 133 would need to done in conjunction with the new parallel facility. Not lowering SR 241 tolls in concert with this project concept is problematic given the traffic impacts to SR 55. For this reason, lowering SR 241 tolls and adding more capacity is preferred and recommended if this project moves forward in the project development process. - While a parallel facility to SR 91 offers many traffic benefits, this Corridor A roadway also has risks and issues that need to be further evaluated through future preliminary: engineering efforts. Especially important is developing a future alignment that minimizes impacts to the City of Corona's business district. Benefitsandrisks also exist with a new corridor between Riverside and Orange counties. This link has been called Corridor B. Benefits include new capacity, SR 91 congestion relief, and a secondary route offered by a new facility. However, tunnels present a series of construction opportunities and uncertainties that should be further evaluated by continued technical studies focused on environmental impacts, geologic evaluation, seismic design, and discussion of co -location opportunities with water and other agencies. For these reasons, continued study of the technical feasibility of the new corridor concept should be pursued in cooperation with the transportation agencies, Metropolitan Water District, and other interested agencies and parties. 150 Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 4 Moving vehicles through a new corridor and/or parallel SR 91 facility will greatly improve mobility between the two counties, but moving. people with new transportation systems is important as well. A separate but related project proposed by the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission (Commission) would construct a new high-speed rail line between Anaheim and Ontario Airport and offers the ability to extend the reach of Ontario's air market and lower vehicular demand on SR 91. Continuing to work with the. Commission on alignments within the Santa Ana Canyon or other corridors should be considered in future plans. Congestion relief and moving people and vehicles have been important goals throughout the MIS. Unfortunately, not all the project concepts have met the overall goal to improve mobility between the counties. The proposal to widen and realign SR 74 between the future SR 241 extension and Lake Elsinore proved costly foreachdollar invested. As a result, the technical work suggests a focus on operational, improvements to SR 74 to continue to move traffic as effectively as possible but not wholesale widening and realignment as originally considered. The discussion above suggests the following general roadmap for the future: ▪ Make the SR 91 the immediate priority. Focus improvements between SR 241 and 1-15 as a starting point followed by improvements between SR 55-and SR 241. ■ Evaluate Corridor A concepts through a future preliminary engineering process. ■ Continue to study the technical feasibility of Corridor B in cooperation with other interested agencies. ■ Work with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a plan to improve the connection between the SR 241 and SR 91: corridors and add new toll lanes. ■ :Continue to work with the Cal -Nevada Super Speed Train Commission on potential high-speedrail alignments in the Santa -Ana Canyon or other corridors as appropriate. ■ Drop Strategic 1 B (Corridor A with SR 55 widening) from further analysis. ■ Drop the SR 74 widening and realignment concept and focus on operational improvements. Funding these efforts will be the subjectof future -discussion among the transportation agencies as well as Metropolitan Water District and others. 151 • Selection of Locally -Preferred Strategy Page 5 Summary General recommendations for the MIS are suggested for Committee review and potential action. Next steps would focus on continuing the project development and evaluation process on multiple corridors and projects. ` Attachment: Strategic Alternatives Overview ATL: kb EH: cb 152 OCTA NO BUILD STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE The improvements listed as part of the No Build Alternative are anticipated to take place regardless of the results of the MIS study. The No Build Alternative provides additional capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by including improvement projects that are currently planned and expected to be constructed in the near -term. The No Build Alternative includes the following improvements: Transit Improvements • Improvements to the Anaheim Regional Transportatiott Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and associated transit improvement projects • MAGT.FV (Cal-Nev) Highway Improvements • Addition of an eastbound SR-91 auxiliary lane from SR-241 to 5R-71 • One additional lane in each direction from SR-241 to I-15 • The extension of SR-241 from Oso Parkway to I-5 Arterial Improvements to Increase Accessibility • A new interchange at Fairmont Boulevard and SR-91 • The extension of Jeffrey Road to SR-241 NtY:.M4 FOA pd.USTRAIWE PURMJSESOKY 153 p 188END v Existin44(00W .a. Pmp., i:4l hnprO.eumt* PsowsedNair+'Ve satio EximingSR-91 lanes 9111.1 Proposed Ad6Emm18R91 &wow Isms P1oWS14 Mode'+Tra sk lmprgyemMs ..... •+`-' PromsE ens:mtlSR.�tS OCTA STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE I Strategic Alternatives I -A and I-B increases capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91, Corridor A (Santa Ana Canyon), and Corridor D (Lake Elsinore/I-15 to SR-74). Corridor D construction could include a partially new alignment - either with or without tunnels - that would deviate from. existing SR-74 to connect with 1-15 at Lake Street or Nichols Road. Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30- minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service (Corridor D) Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241, and one additional general purpose lane eastbound on SR-91 from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • One additional general purpose lane in each direction of SR-91 from SR-71 to 1-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on eastbound SR-91 from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • An elevated reversible six -lane grade -separated facility which directly links SR-241 to I-15 and SR-91, with the only interchange being located at SR-71 (Corridor A) • A four -lane arterial with or without tunnel sections (Corridor D) Further Options to be Studied A. Convert SR-241 into a toll -free highway from SR-91 to SR-133. This would require additional capacity on SR-241. B. If Option A is not feasible, SR-55 would need to be expanded. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND einem Highway Prroposed 80-91 Imprevotee t ti6t� ProPneed.Adtldknat SR-91 Lanes OM &dsN*p SR•91. Lanes Proposed Cookies AA#jpmed OWN ProposedContdos Akopresetnenl8 ..... Proposed Extengpri of SR -gel -+r Proposed Corridor D lniprmremerds Prgwsed Corridor O Route man Proposed Conies* C Lanes +2 Proposed Number of Addtho iel Lanett 154 Fri OCTA STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE II Strategic Alternative II increases capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91 and Corridor B (Cajalco Road/I-15 to SR-241 /SR-133 vicinity), Corridor B construction could include a new alignment with or without near full-length tunnels and would be reversible. Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30 minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service (Corridor B) Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241 and one additional general purpose lane on SR-91 eastbound from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • .One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on SR-91 eastbound from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • A reversible six -lane toll -free freeway with or without a full-length tunnel (Corridor B) Further Options to be Studied, • Improvements to SR-91 for two HOV lanes and five mixed flow lanes in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Possible reconstruction of SR-91 express and HOV lanes to incorporate a reversible lane(s) • _Proposed Corridor B tunnel (center) to include reversible lanes FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND ®� Edstie4 Highway Proposed SR-91 Improvements sum Proposed Additional SR-91 Lanes_ aalas Existing SR-91 lams ® Proposed Extension of SR-241 4= Proposed Corridor H Route nvp,,.,,.d corridor a tams i2 Proposed Number o1 Additional Lanes 4C`i'A STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE III Strategic Alternatives III -A and III-B increase capacity between Riverside and Orange Counties by incorporating a suite of transit, highway, and TDM/TSM improvements to SR-91, Corridor A (Santa Ana Canyon), Corridor B (Cajalco Road/1-15 to SR-241/SR-133 vicinity), and Corridor D (Lake Elsinore/I-15 to SR-74). Transit Improvements • HOV/HOT lane(s) commuter bus service on SR-91 • Expanded Metrolink commuter rail service, which would double operations to 30-minute service with an additional third track (Corridor A) • Mixed -traffic commuter bus service within Corridor B and Corridor D Highway Improvements • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 westbound from SR-55 to SR-241, and one additional general purpose lane on SR-91 eastbound from SR-55 to Lakeview Avenue • One additional general purpose lane on SR-91 in each .direction from SR-71 to I-15 • Two additional general purpose lanes on SR-91 eastbound from Lakeview Avenue to SR-241 • An elevated four -lane grade -separated (managed lanes for Strategic Alternative III-B) facility directly linking SR-241 to 1-15 (with lessened access to SR-91) with the only interchange being located at SR-71 (an additional interchange will be located in Corona for Strategic Alternative 11I-B) (Corridor A) • A four -lane toll freeway with or without full-length tunnels (Corridor B) • A four -lane arterial with or without tunnel sections (Corridor D) Further Options to be Studied • The elevated four -lane grade separated facility will be considered for construction within SR- 91 right-of-way • Proposed elevated structures and SR-91 could include reversible lane(s) between'SR-241 and I-15 Not to Stale FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY LEGEND ...•„ Existing Highway ++++ ProposedSR-111 Improvements wa.. Propseed:Additional SR•91 Lanes . mew Wed% sFi3t Lanes «. PrpposedExtenslpn or SR-241:. Proposed Corridor A Adoloneal • e11r18 Proposed CorrkbrAImprovements - xsa Proposed Corddor B Route .. Reposed Corridor B lanes Proposed Corridor D erprovements • ... Proposed Corridor D Route:...: 1® Proposed Cwddor Dienes +2 Proposed Number atAdddmnitones • 411 Fri OCTA GLOSSARY ADT - Average Daily Traffic (number of cars that travel daily through an area, typically representing the average over a year) Alignment - Route Arterial - Is differentiated from a freeway by lower speeds, lower carrying capacity, intersections at -grade signalized or not, driveways, etc. Auxiliary Lane - Lane of typically short length added to help traffic merging onto the mainline highway or exiting from the mainline highway Bore - tunnel Direct Connector Lane — A facility that directly connects two different highways, commonly found linking two freeways Grade Separated Facility - Highways in which different movements or directions of travel take place on different levels, above or below HOV/HOT - High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) — With HOT lanes, single -occupant vehicles are allowed to pay to use the lane Lane Balancing — New lanes added to balance the number of lanes in opposing directions of travel Muted Flow Lane — General purpose highway lane available to all users 3-Lane Connector Distributor Road - Connector Distributor Roads provide a separate roadway for traffic to merge and diverge off of the mainline highway Toll Congestion Pricing Options - Different options for how a toll is set fora highway depending on time of day, with tolls usually higher at peak periods I Transit - May indude urban light or heavy rail, commuter rail, bus, express bus, bus rapid transit, "paratransit" like small buses available on advance call -in basis for mobility -challenged individuals, etc. i Transit Transfer Center- Transit Center where different modes of transit meet at the same location ;providing easy transfers between modes TSM/TAM - Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Example TSM treatment might be providing special lanes for buses and carpooling vehicles; example TDM measure might be charging higher tolls during peak travel periods (Variable Message Signing - Electronic Message Boards that are changeable and provide infotmation to the motorist on the spot 157 AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee as a Whole" Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement 05-31-561-01, Amendment No. 1 to Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Bechtel Infrastructure Agreement No. 05-31-561, to Provide an Assessment 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 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE" AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 05-31-561-01, Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2005-06 Bechtel Infrastructure Agreement No. , 05-31-561, 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) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 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. Attached to the item are, the scope, schedule and cost proposal for the 1989 and 2009 Measure "A" efforts. Agenda Item 10 158 DISCUSSION: The scope of services proposed is a seven (7) month work effort directed at supporting and receiving policy direction from a Commission Ad Hoc- Committee, coordination with the western county Cities, the County, Caltrans, and WRCOG and CVAG as necessary to delineate the various project issues :and challenges. This effort will require the involvement of an Ad Hoc Committee to be appointed by RCTC's Chairman. It is anticipated that the Ad Hoc Committee will provide periodic reports to the Commission on progress of the work effort : ,and discussion/disposition of policy issues that may arise. This effort will include: • Development of a report on the status of the remaining 1989 Western County Measure "A Highway program of projects. The effort will focus on what are the challenges in delivering the remaining projects- and the identification of steps necessary to assure delivery in a timely fashion. Most of the challenges facing these projects are the normal ones, time to develop and funding. • Preparation of traffic forecasts for the 2009 Western County Measure "A" Highway projects including an assessment of the freeway interchange program of projects funded through TUMF. • Collection and development of project cost information and order of magnitude cost estimates: • Preliminary environmental screening. Including a consistency check with existing plans like the MSHCP to determine the type of environmental document that will likely be required and a listing of the cooperating agencies that may be involved. (e.g. EPA, Army Corp, 'USF&W, FHWA, CDFG, Caltrans FTA, cities, County, transit operators, etc..) • 'Development of initial timelines for each project's, or project segment's implementation. • Quantification of user benefits resulting from the implementation of the projects. • Development of a project evaluation model based on the state's recognized performance measures • 'Development of a cost -benefit analysis for each grouping of projects. • ` Development of an evaluationmatrix combining quantitative and 'qualitative measures to rank projects, or project segments. • Development of a'financial model which will 'apply the estimated revenue availability to the highest ranking projects • Development of a final report. Agenda Item 10 159 • 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: No Year: 2005-06 Amount: $700,000 Source of Funds: $42,000 Measure "A" $658,000 Commercial Paper Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 303-31-81001 Agreement No. 05-31-561-01 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,444,14 Date: 1 1 /28/05 Agenda Item 10 160 Proposed Scope of Work for the DELIVERY PLAN FOR THE FIRST TEN -YEARS OF THE 2009 MEASURE "A" WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATIONPROGRAM r November 23, 2005 161 Section TABLE OF CONTENTS 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 OF SCOPE OF SERVICES 7 3.1 Requirements to Complete the 1989 Measure "A" Highway Program 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 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure 'A' Western Riverside County Transportation Program 162 Page i 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Since 1988, Bechtel has been engaged by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) 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: A. 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 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure 'A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 163 Page 1 ➢ 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 havedirect 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: • StateRoute91 - Pierce Street to State Route 241 including State Route 91 westbound to northbound connector to State Route 71 • I-15/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 'vvork, a budget and a schedule aimed at the development of a Delivery Plan for the 1" 10 years of the Western County 2009 Measure "A" Projects (The Delivery Plan). Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for the First Ten -Years &the 2009 Measure "A" Westem Riverside County Transportation Program 164 Page 2 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 assignrnent, description of the scope of services, an implementation schedule, and a cost estimates for the identified services. Proposed Scope of Work for the Calvary Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2099 Measure "A' Westem Riverside County Traneporlation Program 165 Page 3 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 mostof 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 the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure A' westem Riverside County Transportation Program 166 Page 4 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 or Work for Ne Delivery Plan for Vie First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 167 Page 5 9 eBed dmsea4y. E.u56 el000,103'01 sdalS pannba){_uo Im[0.ay leugl ,laP0p.1 e100001A pow ueld hcarmaa .; �9a,iriAal r l sl0o1oJd Pasodwd Jo uollEzljiibud j, Pue 001101110o; •,V a,nseelyd hArik col sdais p9Jmbou VR:1) Ieuko weiecud uopepodsueliAlunoo swami WeleaM .V« ounseeVI 600Z 64110 666A•66111+1i a41 Jo; ueld ken960 641 Jul VoM Jo 800:5 pesodad spalold ,amseal(y 609Z'76961. ` - -Jo sall:uatmuJpUD Fiimolt G(R. )101'MA rolua(Nd dolabaa Pur e1q1.11ASEV pueld151.107 aeJsty'6gf. s71� laq i0a(o�d � ; amseaUd 607LJo uwlusWW0np Ip a loamd0lanep unld'IJa'hgea +Od epalPJ POE `A5010p01119rd IJOIln zIlliolJd ' . ;u�iedolenep Ueld di?9;IOJ_suog0anaiCOgod` `� 4apu n 014.1ao a•,nsPelA :60QZ: . CO CO Y 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 lone 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 Oehler). Plan for the Fist Ton -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Westem Riverside County Transportation Program 169 Page 7 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 A 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 A Return to Source Issues otherwise known asthe distributionof 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 thesetwo components in the form of a cost -benefit ratio or net, present value. But, project Proposed Scope of work for the Delivery Ran for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A' Western Myeloid° County Transportation Program 170 Page a 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 transportationneeds 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 Rt91l1-15 Interchange New Connector from 1-15N to Rt91 W Rt9.1/R171 _ Interchange Improve Interchange 13171 ' Rt91 to San Bernardino' County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction 1-215 60/91l1-215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line Add 2lanes 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 1-10l13t60 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 Defrvery Plan -for the Fest Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure `A' Western Riverside County Transportation Program 171 "Page 9 I 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 MeasureProgram the Commission has taken action to begin implementation of the two intra-county corridors.' The north -south intra-county corridor will be collocated with I-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 Ca[trans.; 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 willgenerally 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 Winchester to Temecula 'Widening of 1-15 to 14 lanes from the junction with 1-215 -south to SR-79 IPala Road) and the widening of 1-215 to 10 lanes from Newport Road to the . junction' with 1-15 North/South Intra-County ,Corridor Mid County Parkway Ramona Expressway - Rt79 to 1-215 Cajole') Rd -1-215 to 1-15 East/West Intra-County Corridor Riverside to Orange County Parallel Route to SR.91 between . Corona and Lake Elsinore Part of Major Investment Study (MIS) " East/Wes f Inter -County' Corridor Moreno Valley to San Bernardino Rt60/1-215 to 1-10. @ California St North/South Inter -County ..' Corridor Proposed scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure A' UVestem Riverside County Transportation Program 172 Page 10 • 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 I-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 I-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 Domenigoni Parkway State St to 1-215 Hemet & Riverside County _17 18 Railroad Canyon/Newport Rd 1-215 to 1-15 Riverside County, Canyon Lake & Lake Elsinore Proposed Scope of Work for the Derrvery Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure -A' Western Riverside County Transportation Program 173 Page 11 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 beobtainedfrom 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 Planfor the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A' Western Riverside County Transportation Program 174 3.6.2 Undefined Projects Thereare highway projects, however, that are not sufficiently defined, and for I 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 t 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/ElS/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. i 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 the first Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure "A" Westem Riverside County Transportation Program 175 Page 13 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. 38 Project Evaluation and Prioritization This task will address the evaluation of each proposed project against the set of qualitative and quantitativecriteria 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 oethrery Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure `A" Westem Riverside County Transportation Program 176 Page 14 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 the First Ten -Years of the 2009.Measure 'A Westem Riverside County Transportation Program 177 Page 75 4. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS This study will address numerous projects in various stages of development by various stakeholders. In general, this study will use existingand 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 ROTC 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 the Fast Ten -Years tithe 2009 Measure `A' Westem Riverside County Transportation Program • 178 Page 16 5. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES 2009 Measure "A" Delivery Plan -:Study Schedule ® Months sf( SewdgMlanagemenrand Coordination Poiry;Ucectbns • for Delivery Plan Status of Remaining 1988 Measure'A' Fmgraiirot Prujacls - • _. 18B9 Measure A1Completion• Report -- Pdorittaatlo'n McMadubgyend Criteria Engineertag Charzciedstics for 20419 'MeasurePtdjeck;_ 00**40.i of Project genesis • Costi.*:pte of2oo9Measure `A" Projects Cost BeneliAnalysp �.. - . ProJeet Evalratlon and Prioritization 7ert-Year fjelNery Ptah & Financial' Model Drat Defiveryi Plari•Report - r.Cornini0012eilew&-. - Final Delivery peso 'Report' _. tf� I Proposed Scope of Work for the Delivery Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure 'A" Western Riverside County Transportation Program 179 Page 17 6. PROPOSED STAFFING AND COSTS -PERSONNEL SERVICES:. '. Project Manager Data Collection/Coordination Data Analysis .. .. !schwa,' Engineering ... . Envinonnievital. Reviews c fphhics-and Report Support Project Cantrola - ransportazron Consultant?S. SWbt ROW Support Coliiultait. . .::..: .:. ...: Support-WRCOG " rafrui Consultant- �' OlherDirect Cost Bechtel KO. Staff.'--. ravel Aidarer-l2 hips .40$700 ..... -. ! • ,"i Transportation-8:pihBt:; :r. • ntoations;:Pestage Peeing;t_::?.,:;. 'btolal Cost �Y w0pdanattashs.B requeata :-. Fatal al cost trent Bechtel htrastromtre Agreement:: LABOR AND. PAYROLL COST r) (Base x 1.479) T HOURS !� Project Office --Riv .; .360 :& ..::400 . 6, '3fi0 - :::-200 160 ,460 '120 ..2320 400 55fif46 - 519 523 16 - 514S42 3 512,095 $7,014 • S9 229 $95 149 LABOR AN D PAYROLL COST (Base x 1.496 Hone Office -S.F. '"=': TOTAL COST . . r • 1852 $14,27 v E421 71 S12.925 $22,' •I .. 519150 .:.$.32:1- ! - _.52043 815,700. .:$39 ..1 kk - 915 r�+1 .::. 1198,76 $700 00 $2t041V3-1 i Proposed Scope oiWork for the Delivery Plan for the First Ten -Years of the 2009 Measure A' Western Riverside County Transportation Program 180 Page 18 AGENDA ITEM 11 e RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Alameda Corridor East (ACE) SAFETEA-LU Call for Projects PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Release of a Call for Projects for the SAFETEA-LU ACE Earmark; 2) Approve the Evaluation Criteria for the ACE Earmark Call for Projects; and, 3) Authorize the use of the Commercial Paper Program for , up to $7.5 million 10-year loan per successfully approved application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 2005, Congress approved the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill which is now known as SAFETEA-LU. Among, the categories of earmarks are the "Projects of, National and Regional Significance." The Commission joined with others in seeking an earmark for the Alameda Corridor East (ACE). The money will be split evenly between Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and .Los Angeles Counties and will be used to mitigate the impacts of ever-increasing freight traffic. The Commission anticipates $31,.25 - $38.75 million to be available for allocation to address immediate grade separation needs. The allocation of the funds will be determined by a Call for Projects. _ In October 2005, the Commission approved the ,updated ACE Grade Separation Priority List (Attachment 1). The prioritization of crossings is weighted in favor of safety and current and forecast delay. Additional factors in prioritization include -- air quality, noise, nearby grade separations, ,and local jurisdiction preference. Crossings in Priority Tiers 1 & 2 provide the preliminary list of eligible projects for the Call. As part of the approval of the updated list, a request was made to analyze whether switching activity has a substantial impact on the List for Priority Tiers 1 & 2. Agenda Item 11 181 According to the Federal Railroad Administration database, none of the crossings in Tier 1 are -affected by daily switching; 6 crossings in Tier 2 are affectedby switching; and 4 crossings in Tier 3 are affected by switching. Therefore, the additional crossings that may be eligible for the Call for Projects based upon the switching analysis results include: • Streeter Avenue, Riverside • Brockton Avenue, Riverside • Riverside Avenue, Riverside • 22' Street, Banning The analysis of the switching activity and the impact on total scores on the Tier 1 — 3 crossings will be complete by December 12,2005. Call for Projects Guidelines The guidelines for the Call for Projects are as follows: • Eligible Projects encompass Tier 1 and 2 grade crossings (see Attachment #1) with an allowance for additional crossings substantially' impacted by switching activities; - • Evaluation criteria of submittals emphasizes Project Delivery: *50% Project Readiness *25% Local Funds Available (documented by formal resolutions) *25% Benefit/Cost Ratio (performed by RCTC) • Maximum award of $7.5 million (federal) per grade separation project with an additional allowance of $7.5 million from the Commercial Paper Program via a 1'0-year loan per project, if requested by applicant in accordance with Commission policy. • `Application submissions limited to 2 per jurisdiction. The schedule for the Call for Projects is proposed as follows: • Release Date: • Submission Deadline: • Policy Committee: • Commission Approval: December 19, 2005 February 20, 2006 March 27, 2006 April 12, 2006 Attachment: 2005 Grade Separation Priority List Agenda Item 11 182 ATTACHMENT 2005 Rail Crossing Grade Separation Priority List Overall Rail Cross Weighted Line Street Jurisdiction Score Group BNSF SB SUB Magnolia Av Riverside Coun 4525 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Av Riverside 4380 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd St Riverside 4060 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Columbia Av (BNSF) Riverside , 4000 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley St Corona 3950 1 BNSF & UP (S 3 SUB) Iowa Av BNSF Riverside 3820 1 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams St Riverside 3665 1 BNSF (SB SUB Smith Av Corona 3613 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Sunset Av* Banning 3500 2 BNSF SB SUB T ler St Riverside 3500 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Mary St Riverside 3465 2 UP (LA SUB Jurupa Rd Riverside County 3462 2 BNSF SB SUB) Auto Center Dr Corona 3438 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave St Banning 3425 2 UP LA SUB Magnolia Av Riverside 3380 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison St Riverside 3340 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 48/Dillon Road Indio/Coachella 3325 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Center St Riverside County 3283 2 UP (LA SUB) Clay St Riverside County 3235 2 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th St Riverside 3135 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce St Riverside 3090 3 BNSF & UP SB SUB Palmyrita Av UP Riverside 3010 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Railroad St Corona 2925 3 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Spruce St (BNSF) Riverside 2845 3 UP LA SUB Riverside Av Riverside 2810 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan St Riverside 2800 3 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge St Riverside 2650 3 BNSF SB SUB) Washington St Riverside 2580 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2525 3 UP (LA SUB) Streeter Av Riverside 2515 3 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Av Riverside 2400 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson St Riverside 2380 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd St Banning 2375 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Av Banning 2300 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2265 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 52 Coachella 2233 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Cota St Corona 2113 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Rd Calimesa 2100 4 UP LA SUB Bell. rave Av Riverside Coun 2048 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Av Beaumont 1983 4 UP (LA SUB) Palm Av Riverside 1965 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Airport Drive Riverside Coun 1892 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson St Riverside 1805 4 UP (LA SUB) Rutile St Riverside County 1746 4 UP UMA MAIN Apache. Trail Riverside Coun 1727 4 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main St Riverside County 1681 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) Broadway Riverside County 1604 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison St Riverside 1545 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy St Corona 1525 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Av Beaumont 1500 4 UP LA SUB Mountain View Av Riverside 1450 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Rd Corona 1450 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Jane St Riverside 1310 4 UP (LA SUB) Panorama Rd Riverside 1290 4 UP UMA MAIN Ti•ton Rd Palm Sprin•s 1100 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Pennsylvania Av Beaumont 917" 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan St Corona 813 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 54 Coachella 767 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson St Riverside 695 5 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 Riverside County 638 5 * Crossings In BOLD ITALIC denote switching activity to be analyzed by December 12, 2005. 183 as of 10/12/05 • AGENDA ITEM 13 • i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 14, 2005 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Election of Riverside County Transportation Commission Officers STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to conduct an election of officers for 2006 - Chair, Vice Chair, and 2"d Vice Chair. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Election of Officers In accordance to the Administrative Code, the Commission must annually hold an election of officers. The officers of the Commission shall consist of the Chair, Vice Chair, and 2' Vice Chair. The Chair, the Vice Chair, and the 2nd Vice Chair shall annually alternate between a regular member of the Commission representing a city and a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. During the year that the Chair is a regular member of the Commission representing a city, the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and the 2"d Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city. During the time in which the Chair is a regular Commission member who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission representing a city, and the 2"d Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Commission who is a member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the 2"d Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence of the Chair and the Vice Chair. When so acting, the 2"d Vice Chair shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair. For 2005, the elected officers were Robin Lowe (Chair), Marion Ashley (Vice Chair), and Terry Henderson (2' Vice Chair). For 2006, the Chair and the 2"d Vice Chair shall be a regular member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and the Vice Chair shall be a Commissioner representing a city. Agenda Item 13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 13 16. CLOSED SESSION ITEM REVISED PAGE 13 Additions are noted in Bold Italics A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case Nos. RIC 386647 and C-05-01525 JSW B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Item APN Property Owner(s) 1 571-170-002 571-270-006 571-320-008 Cordova Property 2 580-080-012 580-090-001 580-090-005 580-090-006 581-100-066 581-130-001 581-130-002 581-140-001 581-140-003 581-140-005 581-140-008 Jalem Productions There were no announcements for the Closed Session items. 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:19 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Board Room, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Commission