Loading...
01 January 23, 2006 CommissionRECORDS " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION" 75646 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 p.m. - NOON DATE: Monday, January 23, 2006 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chairman: Marion Ashley 1 s` Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson 2' Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone 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, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Shenna Modeet / Bill Davis, 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 Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, 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 Rick Gibbs / Douglas McAllister, 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 / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Buydos, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 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. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:00 p.m.- NOON Monday, January 23, 2006 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 will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1 CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda) 5. 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. /f 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 January 23, 2006 Page 2 6. DELIVERY OF THE STATE ROUTE 60 - VALLEY WAY TO INTERSTATE 15 WIDENING AND THE STATE ROUTE 91 - GREEN RIVER ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECTS Overview This item is a placeholder to maintain delivery of the State Route 60 - Valley Way to Interstate 15 Widening and the State Route 91 - Green River Road Interchange projects. 7. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 8. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Case No. 72 199 Y 00108 03 9. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL January 23, 2006 Present Absent County of Riverside, District l County of Countyr of` County of �ourity of Riverside, Riverside, Riverside, Riverside, City of Banning O City of'Beaumont O City of Blythe City of°Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta >ity of'Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley ;ity of >Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm 'Desert 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 District II 2(',0X1 ka 015ittict 5 District .ILI. District IV District V RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SKEET January 23, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS gic) .6tr,, di." 6")-b1:- c ' T L2/--= ✓��- zi,c,� Fi�if/i% leJ . s / nil 6-4,0 a-a-4- `1 Nr)A �✓ `'71J ‘c" a.,,�tcG/t6,S'f -----k _., i±e/z4.,62 �G���E C U r 6 ,An.tS 4r�txS /fir i C.�12 �- re . (� l I eS -ey-� Lvs., 1ey. (-0,4 t... L�� i c �j/,,,.t. A,G'T'C ,...:A,, /P �..c�. cw. to4 /'L 1 c7n i � 14 \� 1 �/ �!',' ov. it. 1i;t, / / ,0c.1 egg c k,� L 11 ` \ Ji A) A Xlie �r' J C-9 3 - s' 6rds /1/- //436(gc,>f JMC/f�/15A)/co� � *--_ l� , df �/1-L/�/f `.. fi/✓ C LC IX //1XA- a rI �C(�/✓� /1%i4g�� i�1.eije 69riaz..�/` ,J�t�iY 111 cl%�- iJ I L " -N AI.b l d l 7- e�.)1'/� � iir 7/77i"z/ a / , ,� . L� mai` rock oc2/ : dY C%�J' 1� "'�;._- /ile,x lade .. ia� des_e.e/�� fibs vaiadee edyesa((15,(M M AGENDA ITEM 6 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 23, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Anne Mayer, Programming and Administration Director Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Delivery of the State Route 60 — Valley Way to Interstate 15 Widening and the State Route 91 — Green River Road Interchange Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the use of up to $16,000,000 of un-programmed Western County Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds on the Route 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project; and 2) Approve a 61 % State and 39% RCTC share to fund cost increases over the $55,356,000 funded contract value for the Route 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project per the Master Agreement; and 3) Approve an amendment to RCTC's Regional TUMF TIP to include $3,1 14,600 of Regional TUMF funds for the Green River Interchange improvement project; and 4) Approve the use of $10,898,400 of RCTC's Commercial Paper program for the Route 91 Green River Interchange improvement project; and 5) Approve a 72% State and 28°% RCTC share to fund cost increases over the $18,130,000 cost estimate for the Green River Interchange improvement project; and 6) Authorize the Executive Director, subject to Legal Counsel review to negotiate any further amendments that may be needed to the Draft Master Agreement which documents the funding arrangements between the State and RCTC for the Route 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project, the Route 91 Green River Interchange Improvement project, and the 60/215 East Junction HOV project; and 7) Amend the Commission's 2006 STIP proposal (approved January 11, 2006) to be consistent with these actions i I� ISSUE/BACKGROUND: Route 60 — Va ley Way to 1-15 Recently Caltrans received bids on ! y, i;, a theIA3oute 60 Valley Way to I-15 widening project. The project is the median widening of Ro I to 60 to construct a mixed flow and a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) ane, on the east bound and west bound side of Route 60 from Valley Way to 1-15. ! if' constructed, the project would provide a 5 lane "match up" project with the segment of Route 60 in San Bernerdino County. r,Irj i It is important to note that this project,yiras a 100°r6 State responsibility when it was funded tilirough the Transportation' Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). As you are aware, the TCRP has been de-fundedby State budget actions ,through loans from the TCRP to fund other State priorit es. Subsequently, while'Lthe Route 60 project is not a Measure "A" program; project it is a priority that should be constructed. { N While there have been a series of act oins over the past few years to support this project, the laet Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and California Transportation Commission (CTC) actions for the project in October 2005 added $4,782,000 Inter -regional Improvementl'P,rogra0 (IIP) and $3,058,000 Regional Improvement Program funds (RIP) iundslto previously committed Western County 'Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF $8 j88[1 ,000) and RCTC Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ $26,Q00,000) funds which in total provides $42,721,000 to the project. Ca trans ' recently j received bids to' construct the project and the low bid requires ar4addrtional $12,,635,000 of funding in order for Caltrans to award the bid for an hest mated total cost, including contingency of $55,356,000 ,',,, '1,i. t;r ' Route 91 — Green River Interchanqe. Improvement Proiect 1, lr , U 1 Caltrans has completed environmental clearance Wand design on this project. The project is ready to advertise for construction. This project was or ginally a State funded responsibility. There have been ,,several RCTC and CTC act ons during the past 5 years Ito support this ' project ;tol, construction. The last actions by RCTC identified $14,541,000 of TUMF funds'as a loan to the project. The last CTC action was to, approve an AB 3090 STIR amendment which will allow RCTC, with CTC concurrence, to move $10,062,000 of IIP fundsland $3,889,000 of RIP funds to the 60J215 East Junction HOV connector project. ' i of III The route 91 — Green River interchange improvement project cannot be advertised until a cooperative agreement between° Caltrans andI RCTC is in place. Therefore, language for ithe cooperative agreement: must be determined. Given the current construction bidding environment staff,liis''concerned that the project may require additional funding and given the AB.3,090 arrangement, there is no agreement on how potential project cost increases n;ay be handled. The project is currently funded with a $14,541,000 RCTC TUMF loan and $4,417,000 federal demo �. funds. 'sio: fl, DISCUSSION: Route 60 — Valley to 1-15 Staff's recommendation is fund the $12,635,000 bid price over -run with $12,635,000 of RCTC's un-programmed Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. In the attached draft Master Agreement Caltrans Headquarters staff has included wording which would commit Caltrans to identify 61 % of the $12,635,000 or $7,707,350 of future IIP funds in either the 2006 or 2008 STIP cycle to either the 60/215 East Junction HOV project or other IIP eligible project that RCTC identifies. RCTC will be responsible for funding 39% of future increased costs for the project with un-programmed Western County RIP funds. The percentage arrangement is based on the amount of funds provided by RCTC and Caltrans to the last cost estimate increase approved prior to putting the project out to bid. In the last action by RCTC and CTC on the Route 60 project approved $3,058,000 of RIP and $4,782,000 of IIP funds for a total of $7,840,000. The IIP and RIP contribution in the last action creates the 61 % State and 39% RCTC shares. Therefore staff recommends the Commission approve $12,635,000 of RCTC Western County un-programmed RIP funds for the Route 60 — Valley Way to 1-15 improvement project. Staff also recommends that the Commission identify an additional amount of un-programmed Western County RIP funds up to $3,365,000 to address unforeseen issues that may arise during construction of the project. The total amount of funds recommended in this action is $16.0 million of un- programmed Western County RIP funds. This action reallocates previously approved RCTC commitments from the Route 91 — Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 IC project to a non Measure "A" project. This is recommended because if the Commission were not to make this commitment, the Route 60 Valley Way project would be delayed indefinitely and would likely have higher costs in the future. There is a chronology attached which identifies RCTC and CTC actions to date on the Route 60 project. Route 91 — Green River Road Interchange Improvement Project While there have been several actions to fund this important project (see chronologyattachment) in the midst of bringing the item forward to the Commission's Special Meeting, a new cost estimate was released for the project. This action is intended to revise all RCTC local funding contributions to the project. The new Caltrans cost estimate for the project is $18,130,000. There is $4,1 17,000 of Federal Demo funds available to support construction which leaves a remaining balance of $14,013,000 to fund. This project is also eligible to receive up to $3,114,600 in Regional TUMF funds, leaving a resulting balance of $10,898,400 to fund. At this time, staff has determined that the Green River Interchange Improvement project is eligible to receive funding under the 2009 Measure "A" Western County Highway Program. The rationale for the project's eligibility is that the Green River I i 1, Ar II bridge improvement over Route 91 needs to be in piece before the" Commission's future improvement to add a lane in each direction on Route 91 from Pierce Street to the 'Orange County line can be achieved. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission approve the use of $1 ,898,400 of Commercial Paper program funds for the Green River Interchange Improvement program project. II As we are c Interned about future cost increase's to the project because it still remains to bel put out to bid. The 'draft 'Masted Agreement has language under which RCTC would fund the cost increases and the State would provide IIP funds for 72% of any cost increase RCTC1funde to the Route 60 East Junction project of an IIP eligible project that RCTC identifies at a later date. RCTC, would absorb 28% of all future cost increases. i lh Financ ,...,„ 4Information p In Fiscal Year udget: No Year: FIY�' 2005/06 Amount: $14,013,000 Source of Fun s: Commercial Paper Regional TUMF $3,114' $10898,400 6, p Budget Ad ustme'nt: Yes GLA No.: 303 31 81301 P8100 80 210 72 81301 P3016 ��1 � 1` 11 � Fiscal Procedures Approved: '1� 4 Date: �r 1 /23/06 u r i DRAFT (Dist:-Co.-Rte-.M.) (Source Code - E.A. No.) District Agreement No. ( ) MASTER FUNDING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , 2006, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE"; and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC." DR AFT 1 Agreement No RECITALS p o. 1. STATE and RCTC, pursuant to Streets and Highway s s Code sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State Highways within RCTC's jurisdicti n I, 2. STATE and RCTC wish to fee rd inlll'this Master Funding Agreement,the relevant funding history of two projects and the terms and conditions for immediate and future funding of four projects: :" i�",' ,1 I, 10 • RIV-60, Valley Way to 1-15, EA' 354801, herein referred to as RIV-60: ir 0 Past funding actions by RCTC and (STATE for RIV-60 are included in Exhibit A attached and made a part of thisjagreement. �, l ', 0 The project has been environmentally cleared, designed and advertised by Caltrans. TCRP funds were used`; for the work to -date. 0 Bids were opened Jan 2006. Additional funding of approximately$12,635,000 is needed to award the construchon'`contract. !, ' !a • RIV-91, Green River, EA 45661, hierem referred to as RIV-91: ' irk „ 0 Funding actions by RCTC and STATE for RIV-91 are included in Exhibit B attached and made a part of this agreement. �C I. t 0 RIV-91 has been environmentally cleared, and designed by Caltrans. A cooperative agreement for Construction is drafted but pending the execution of this agreement. RIV-91 will thei N ready tO advertise. 0 As recent trends indicate, the bidi4ening may contain bids that are higher than the final estimate and the v lati^li Y of material prices may affect the ultimate cost of the project. 1"l1,^ i � ^i I'' • RIV-60/215, East Junction HOV'connector project, EAST JUNCTION: !; I'p• ' I' I lEA 44931, herein; to referred to as G 0 Is a future project_ Construction is not yet programmed. 0 Is the identified replacement project for the AB 3090 STIP amendments 04S-018, March 2005, and 04S-066, Juneg005. :41 0 Will be the focus of the IIP fundn ;commitments of this agreement. DRAFT Agreement No. • The Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan, herein to referred to as MSHCP. 0 An environmental mitigation property arrangement "9999 0 Involved a shared funding commitment from RCTC and IIP funds. "9" 0 Could probably use a fact sheet also for an exhibit (there is a PSR — we are seeking the date of the document. Additionally we are looking for a document which may have updated costs to a lower figure because the original arrangement was $32 million RCTC and $8 million Caltrans..If the PSR documents the arrangement then two points above may be eliminated 3. There is a previous cooperative agreements on RIV-60, agreement 08-1219, and one amendment, agreement 08-1219A-1. 4. In case of inconsistencies, this Agreement supersedes any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to projects. 5. It is noted that the next opportunity for programming IIP funds, unless an opportunity arises in the adoption of the 2006 STIP, is the 2008 STIP. SECTION I RCTC AGREES: 1. For RIV-60: 0 To support a supplemental funds request $12.635 million funded with RIP funds from its RCTC's un-programmed reserve to allow award of the construction contract. 0 To fund any further cost increases in an identical fashion. 2. For RIV-91: 0 To fund the project using a commercial paper program and or eligible local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Any commercial paper funds used for the project will then be retired with the use of future Measure A funds. 0 To be responsible for any STIP amendment, if they choose to pursue one, for the amendment of the AB 3090 arrangement of STIP amendment 04S-066 to reflect any changes in RCTC funding contributions to RIV-91. - 3 - q 3. For MSHCP: ri Agreement No: li 0 To apply the IIP funding commitment of $5,1250,000 to EAST JUNCTION g, i ��„ y :! !, G SECTION II STATE AGREES: f 1. For the RIV-60: F i" i!, 0 To submit a supplemental funds�request to the CTC for $12,635,0'00 to allow award of the construction contract. u 4 2. For EAST JUNCTION: 0 To program $7,707,350 in 'IIP s �„funds to EAST JUNCTION or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County in the 2006 or 2008 STIP;h This amount represents the IIP share (61 %) ofthe $12,635,000 cost increase on RIV-60. a.'y 0 To program $5,421,000 million;?' in'JIP funds t STIP. This amount repre entg: the IIP share Replacement project. p' N {V EAST JUNCTION in the 2006 (61 %) of the RIV-60 AB 3090 il ,1,'„ 0 To program IIP funds to EAST':TUNCTION, or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County to be panted;later, equivalent' to a 61% share of any future cost increase necessary for the completion of RIV-60 in the 2006 or 2008 STIP. , Iw, " 0 To program $10,062,000 of IIP; funds to EAST JUNCTION inithe 2006 STIP. This amount represents the IIP, share (72%) to the RIV-91 AB 3690 Replacement 1 proj, ect. ; i Il, H 'Ik 0 To program IIP funds to EAST, JUNCTION, or other IIP eligible project within Riverside County to be named; later, equivalent to a 72% share of any future cost increase funded by RCTC (necessary for the c_ ompletion of RIV-91 in the 2006 or 2008 STIP. l ir 11 II 0 To program $5.250,000 in IIP funds to EAST JUNCTION in the 2006 STIP. This amount represents the IIP funding commitment to MSHCP. r S iI s II 11 It u DRAFT Agreement No. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. STATE's contractual obligations are subject to State Budget Act authority, the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, and the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. 2. That the State and RCTC will cooperatively work together to obtain STIP amendments necessary to secure State's share of current and future cost increases (per this agreement) that RCTC funds for RIV-91 and Route 60 projects. 2. That the IT commitment to EAST JUNCTION is defined by the funding commitments to RIV-60 and RIV-91 and MSHCP stated above and is capped at that level. 3. That each project requires a separate cooperative agreement as appropriate for the completion of work. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not party to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the development or design of State Highways and public facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that consistent with the indemnification given hereinabove, RCTC shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all its officers and employees from any and all claims, costs, suits (including appeals), or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RCTC under this Agreement. 6. Neither RCTC nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that consistent with the indemnification given hereinabove, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RCTC from any and all claims, costs, suits (including appeals), or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. - 5 - �I DRAFT f Agreement No. 7. This Agreement may be terminatect or provisions contained herein- ;may be altered, changed, or amended by mutual consent of the parties hereto. j 1# 1, �I 8. No alteration or variation of the terms'Of this Agreement shallbe valid unlessmade by a formal amendment executed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall' be binding on any of the parties hereto. `r, i I' r 9. Notwithstanding any provisions in, Agreement to the contrary, this Agreement shall terminate upon completion; anal acceptance of the construction contract for EAS JUNCTION, or on January, 1`; �2020 whichever is earlier in time. � g; P i w� r, r4 s i DRAFT Agreement No. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [Name in Capitals] Director of Transportation By: Chairman — Riverside County Transportation Commission By: Attest: District Director Clerk of the Board Approved as to form and procedure: Approved as to form and procedure: Attorney Department of Transportation Certified as to available funds: District Budget Manager -7- Steven DeBaun, Legal Counsel Riverside County Transportation Commission TTir DRAFT (1r w ,Ile, li Agreement No., 1, µ Exhibit A E ',���; ; RCTC and State Actions on SR 60 HOV MF lane project from Valley Way to I-15 ,� jai Sep 2000 Dec 2000 Mar 2001 Feb 2002 Oct 2003 Jul 2004 Aug 2004 Dec 2004 Mar 2005 Mar 2005 Oct 2005 State programmed $25 million of Traffic Congestion Relief ( the SR 60 HOV lane project"(TCR) funds on a ''I k ,; it State programmed $9.785 million of Interregional Improvement Program (I1P) funds in 2000 STIP. r'" ` j 4 1 ROTC approves programmirig I��of $3.261 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds inl the 2002 STIP (as requested by Caltrans to complete funding) I II II I Ijl 1, j Governor suspends TCR program due to state budget crisis.''' $21 million of TCR funds on SR 60'HOV ar'e suspended. lII RCTC approves $21 million; lof federal Congestion Mitigation; and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to replace suspended TCR funds. i; , r ph u I U RCTC approves additionaV CMAQ funds "up to $5 million" to cover construction cost increases! ''r I a k,, Allocation request for $3 261 i million'6 of RIP and $9.785, million of IIP funding was denied due to 64 of available funds in the STIP: lr ,, r' RCTC approves ,1) $8.881'million of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds to replace IIP and RIP construction costs; 2) ;Entering into an AB 3090 agreement; and 3) Committing future RIP funds o0 interchanges on the TUMF network as reps' }yinent of loan. RCTC also identifies the 60/215 East Junction Connector a's the AB 3090 Replacement project' I;� California Transportation Commissionl�� (CTC) approves AB 3090 request (STIP Amendment #04S-018) ,tl II A Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) (#TL-',05-01) was approveclrby the CTC that 1 Payback �� RCTC �e. commits a $21 million payback to RCTC in the event TCR funding is available in the future. 11' I!. It Final construction estimate reveals $7.840 million shortfall. RCTC approves an additional $3.058 million o� RIP funds to cover construction cost increases. State receives approval for; an additional $4.782 million of I'IP funds to cover ,„ construction cost increases' ,I, l 1, r u it • DRAFT Exhibit B Agreement No. RCTC and State Actions on SR 91/Green River Interchange Jun 2003 STIP Amendment 02S-097 was approved to transfer $8.550 million of Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds to cover Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funding suspension and construction cost increase. Apr 2004 2004 STIP total programming for SR 91/Green River interchange project consists of $15.615 million of IIP funds, $4.417 million TEA 21 Demonstration funds, and $3.889 million of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. In addition, the SR 91/Green River interchange project is delayed from fiscal year 2005/06 to 2007/08. May 2004 RCTC approves 1) $13.4 million (subsequently revised to $13.951 million) of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds as a loan to replace IIP and RIP construction costs in order to maintain the construction schedule in fiscal year 2005/06; and 2) repayment of TUMF loan to be repaid by committing future federal funds to TUMF eligible projects (e.g. Mid -County Parkway or Route 79 Realignment). RCTC also identifies the 60/215 East Junction Connector project as the recipient of the replaced RIP and IIP funds. Jun 2005 California Transportation Commission (CTC) approves an AB 3090 Agreement (STIP Amendment 04S-066). - 9 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: January 23, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Delivery of the State Route 60 - Valley Way to Interstate 15 Widening and the State Route 91 - Green River Road Interchange Projects BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the time of the agenda mail out, staff was in the process of memorializing the , obligations of RCTC and Caltrans in order to maintain delivery of the State Route 60 - Valley Way to Interstate 15 widening and the State Route 91 - Green River Road interchange improvement projects to construction. Either the draft agreement or the commitments and obligations of Caltrans and RCTC, respectively, will be provided at the January 23, 2006 meeting. • JOHN F. TAVAGLIONE SECOND DISTRICT SUPERVISOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE January 20, 2006 STAFF ANNE STEPHENS, Chief Deputy JOHN FIELD , Chief Deputy KAREN CHRISTENSEN, Legislative Assistant LILIANA ALLIN, Legislative Assistant DONNA JOHNSTON, Deputy SUSAN SWIECA, Deputy Proxy Vote - Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Special Meeting Marion Ashley, committee member of Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) - has approval to cast my vote on the RCTC Special Meeting held on January 23, 2006 during my absence. /101111111 �. JIFF - Sec• . istrict Supervisor 4080 LEMON STREET • 5TH FLOOR • P.O. BOX 1646 • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502-1646 • (951) 955-1020