Loading...
02 February 14, 2007 CommissionRECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Terry Henderson 1' Vice Chair: Jeff Stone 2nd Vice Chair: Bob Magee 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 Brenda Sales / Barbara Hanna, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Charles Grotke, City of Blythe John Chlebnik / Bill Davis, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Hank Hohenstein / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Marc Searl, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, 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 / Kelly Bennett, 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 Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Dom Betro, City of Riverside Chris Buydos / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Mike Perovich, Governor's Appointee Eric Haley, Executive Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director 79735 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 TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item Listed on the agenda 10: 00 a.m. Wednesday, February 14,. 2007 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 Board 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 ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak five (5) continuous minutes or less. " The Commission may,1 either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this five minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to three (3) continuous minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair : Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.. Under the Brown Act, . the Board should not take action on or discuss matters. raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to : staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration: Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 10,2007 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 itemm v :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. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters on the '!Consent`' Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioners) 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. ORDINANCE NO 07-001 TO. AMEND' THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE This • .item is for the Commission to adopt .Ordinance: No. 07-001, "An Ordinance Amending the Riverside -County Transportation Commission Administrative Code", : to reflect changes related ' to the Executive Committee and to addressing the ;Commission on agenda items. MID YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Overview is item is for the Commission to. prove the mid: -year revenue projections; approve the budget adjustments to reflect lithe revised Measure A revenues, of $3,000,000 and expenditures of $1,477,000; and 3) Approve the budget adjustments to.' reflect_ the;„ revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF). planning revenues of „$371,803 and expenditures of $371,803. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda .: February 14. 2007 Page 3 2) 7C. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 LOCAL : TRANSPORTATION FUND AND MEASURE A REVENUE- PROJECTIONS Overview This item is for the. Commission to: Page13 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, ,and Palo Verde Valley areas; and, Approve the projections for Measure A and: related allocations. 7D. MID-YEARBUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Overview This itemis for the Commission to approve ,a $229,700 increase in FY 2006/07 .expenditures for mid -year budget adjustments. 7E. PROPOSED AUDIT SCOPE FOR TRANSIT ' AND. 'TRANSPORTATION AUDITS Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed audit scope for Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants.. 7F. AMENDMENT TO ADVANCE OF FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 CITY OF HEMET MEASURE A LOCAL STREET AND ROAD FUNDS Overview Page 24 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve, Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 06-31-068-00, to advance to the . city of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road funds in FY 2007/08 rather than FY 2006/07; and 2) Authorize the Chair, . pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007 Page 4 7G.... STATUS OF TOLL PROGRAM AND STRATEGIC. PARTNERSHIP ADVISORY SERVICES AMENDMENT Overview :This item is for the Commission to: eceiveand.; file summary of . 'Orange County ! Transportation Authority (OCTA) goals to support Riverside County 1 O-Year. Delivery Plan; Support the continued coordination : with . OCTA . regarding its goals, including conceptual approval!: of 'the`: Commissions fair share of OCTA's expanded travel and revenue studies; 3) Receive and file report on status of legislative approval 4) Receive and file report on status of Corridor A analysis; 5) Approve a $750,000 contract increase for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as' necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00, and Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, toexecute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 7H. PROGRAMMING OF CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS. FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA METROLINK PARKING STRUCTURE Overview. This item is. for ,the Commission to approve programming $15 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to. the North Main Corona Metrolinkparking structure. 71. FISCAL YEAR 2007 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF NORCO tis item is '.for the Commission to approve the amendment to -; the FY 2007 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan;'(CIP) for- Local. Streets and Roads for the city of Norco as submitted. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007. Page 5 7J. ' EXTENSION FOR i EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH BRE PROPERTIES FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT AT THE = LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION Page 43 Overview This item is for the. Commission to: 1) Approve a six-month extension , for the . exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with BRE Properties for joint development at the La Sierra Metrolink station; 2) Direct staff to enter into discussions with BRE Properties regarding an increase in the good -faith deposit up to an additional $25,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7K. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item. 7L. COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT -HUMAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) . Approve Agreement No. 07-62-096-00 with A-M-M-A for the development of a Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan for Riverside County; and.: 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007 Page 6 7M..- STATE ROUTE 60 MIXED FLOW HIGH OCCUPANCY . VEHICLE LANE MITIGATION PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and fife the recommended list of : replacement transportation control measure (TCM) projects necessary to provide mitigation for the SR60 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) mixed lane demonstration project. COACHELLA VALLEY AIR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT GRANT This item is for the Commission to: Accept the Coachella Valley Air Quality funds; Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, and. Authorize a budget amendment to create additional spending authority to accommodate the contract. Enhancement Grant MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO» 07-31-097-00 FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT'OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS FROM WASHINGTON STREET , TO . WEST CITY LIMITS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA lis item is for the Commission t Approve memorandum of understanding No. 07-31-09.7-00 for the funding reimbursement. highway improvements within the city of La Quinta, and Authorize the. Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, toexecute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.. Riverside County Transportation Commission, Agenda • February 14, 2007 Page 7 7P: 2007 STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) LEGISLATIVE n PLATFORMS AND Adopt the 2047 Legislative Platforms and Programs; 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report, and 3) Approve the following bill positions: a) SB 53 (Ducheny, D-San Diego) Support in Concept b) SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope. Valley) Support AGREEMENT NO. 07-6, 5-105-00 WITH KLEINFELDER TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION, TESTING SERVICES AND TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IRVINE .: TO CORONA EXPRESSWAY PROJECT Overview This item is for. the Commission o.: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 0.7-65-1.05-00 to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing g services andi technicalevaluations for the proposed lrvine to Corona Expresswayproject: 2) Staff is currently negotiating the final scope .ofwork and it is anticipated that the final project scope, schedule and cost will be presented for Commission approval at, its meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 2007. 9. PIERPASS PRESENTATION Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a j presentation by Bruce Wargo, President and CEO, PierPASS. 10. STATE ROUTE 74 PRESENTATION Overview Thisitem is for the Commission to' receive a presentation by Caltrans District 12 on the upcoming SR-74 safety improvement project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007 Page 8 APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Page 82 This :item is ::for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake ;Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula to. select their representative to the Executive Committee. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR'AGENIDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commiissioners and the Executive Director to report . on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 14 CLOSED ''SESSION ITEMS NFERENCE : WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION ursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 AAA Case. No. 72 199 01006 04 VIVID AMS Case No. 1220032805 Case No. RIC 462975 'CONFERENCE. WITH .REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 i 8 'Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners - See tist of Property Owners Item APN 279-230-003 327.-2.10-006 430-130-056 430-1:.30-063 430-130-064 430-1' 30-065 430-130-4)66 430-130-067 430_130-068 ''roperty Owner(s). Liston Brick.Company of Corona Edwin P' Jr. and Patricia L. Butler Dolores A. Judy Donald L and, Nellie'Grace Scales Leland M and Ruth E. Zepede Shelbran Investments, L.P. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda February 14, 2007 Page 9 4 279-240-001 279-240-008 279-240-009 279-190-034 282-040-003 279-030-003 279-030-004 279-030-005 279-030-006 279-030-008 Mike Kerr Gary McMillan 15. •ADJOURNMENT The next Commissionmeeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, 2007, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL FEBRUARY 14, 2007 County. of,River`side, ,District I" County of Riverside, District II County, of. Riverside,,District.I11 County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V: City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake Cty of;Cathedral Cityl��� City of Coachella pity_ of, Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of_Hemet' City of Indian Wells City of Indio _ City of La Quinta City_ ofzLake :Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta_y City of Norco ;City of P'aIrry Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perns City of Rancho Mirage City�ofi;'Riverside __F ` City of San Jacinto ;City of''Temecula Present Absent Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET FEBRUARY 14, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS A.,- -„ __ /.f6(2-� 6.4-A.t,i,._,l�7/J _ 4927 —1 F,�frN 4 /A} � 5 7- f 4 jeEif/ O vG II >(l&� r4`L c- Alaecv l C. K C-> l" fi 8--r • 0 cf 2it, � T 77-7/0- 3121 'u S &Y. 65.4ex 72 4 72- �f :IL_,.Mied7��_ YcJaz.,1.. /,4.42eY�,640a0 Kfz 4 lM lC �v Ca� (_4 / 0 / 7- y 0 r w /, J ( -k3T„p2[f /_,ThECJC_,,- or/ /6U✓ ,24e2._,It> (i-1, arkt,e)C\rlen 1ac.,,v`DC� � c r�i 2,,, c, fi.1 D eSew f o ('' M:77- - I L cp, ----e o....- -_____ 1'Y) ]P\ E: iieW3\tCA-1 r-,A1-4?k1,r� S-ttVQ.✓4.^^�1�wn ZC - al .�� , /✓ G� Re- / z_ -��,€,--�/-�-‹..,/ s ��� -1 s") gLeg»!1< C}FL/MESA 6� �oNs MOLLS �fkNC Ho � 1 (2.� � �%% 04- -- (,0 //t,4-17-N' i^-I I:, c-J 4n 1 s 0 SN R\ r �-a Vt 60 / -2,e, AA-1 L�4 e /ei/A-.O !f%.v 91t `1 (� vim Jcs� C9ctCLij ti ,,,,/,Pr�i, re,�i e I n s ° 'r 9 -u4, ,��� ppp e-'2 t of 174 .0 RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of Government Code Section 84308 and 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify themselves from participating in, influencing, or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real property interests, investments, business positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, CommissionersI must personally state the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to .the Clerk of the Board prior to ieavingjIthe meeting. I. Board Member Information Board Member Name City/County Name Meeting Date -a-k-r- II. Campaign ,'Contributions zf`fy Is7 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from 2,.+ wog-, to—d qi3> - n t;el-¢vc (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item , Subject: 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I ;fofam abstaining from participation on Agenda item , Subject: 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item , Subject: 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda item (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) , Subject: I11. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of from/in (State income, real property interest, Investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location] and therefore I lam abstaining from participation on Agenda Item , Subject: 2. I have a financial interest of , from/in j(State income, real property interest, InvestmeM or business position/ (Identify. name of company or property location) and therefore I 'am abstaining from participation on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signature: Date: 7-1l y 137 Please remember you must state the Information in o the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the • erk of the Bo • r prior to leaving the meeting. 11 RCTC Conflict of Interest Form Purpose: This form is provided to assist members of the RCTC Commissioners in meeting requirements of Government Code Section 84308 and 87100 in documenting conflict of interests as related to RCTC Commission/Committee agenda items. Instructions: Under certain circumstances, RCTC Commission may be required to disclose and disqualify themselves from participating in, influencing, or voting on an agenda item due to personal income, real property interests, investments, business positions, or receipt of campaign contributions. If applicable, Commissioners must personally state the following information, for entry into the public record, prior to consideration of the involved agenda item(s) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. I. Board Member Information Board Member Name A%Z(oAvf�L��� II. Campaign 'Contributions City/County Name Q Cavu'1-7 Meeting Date �- —( 1. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore 1 'am abstaining from participation on Agenda item_ 2. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from j (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) and therefore I 'am abstaining from participation on Agenda item , Subject: 3. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from / L(. _L� i PIP F1/4,-z- L- kA , (Ode y the name of the company and/or Individual) , Subject:6 k-ir"-- • /���p ��Zcp�rv4.7�_t- and therefore I .am abstaining from participation on Agenda item 4. I have a disqualifying campaign contribution of over $250 from and therefore I am abstaining from participation. on Agenda item (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) , Subject: (Identify the name of the company and/or Individual) , Subject: III. Financial Interest 1. I have a financial interest of , from/in �i (State income, real property interest, Investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda Item , Subject: 2. I have a financial interest of from/in (State income, real property interest, investment or business position) (Identify name of company or property location) and therefore I am abstaining from participation on Agenda Item , Subject: IV. Signature Board Member Signature. A Date: - Please remember you must state the information into the public record prior to consideration of the involved agenda itemis) and turn in the completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to leaving the meeting. s AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR. ANSPORTA T/ON COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 10, 2007. 1. CALL TO ORDER The ,Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to .order by Chair Terry Henderson at 10:07 .a.m., in the Board Room at the County .of Riverside Administrative . Center, 4080. Lemon Street, : Riverside, California, 92501... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Chris Buydos led the Commission in a flag salute.` 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Daryl Busch: Bob Buster Chris'Buydos Bill Davis Kathleen DeRosa Charles Grotke Frank Hall Barbara:. Hanna Terry Henderson Hank :Hohenstein Dick Kelly Robin :Lowe Bob Magee Jeff Miller Gordon Moller Ron Roberts Patti Romo Larry Spicer Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione` Frank West Michael H. Wilson Roy Wilson John Zaitz Commissioners Absent. Eduardo Garcia Rick Gibbs Ronald Oden Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public.to speak. Chair Henderson presented Commissioner Marion Ashleywith a plaque on behalf of the Commission in appreciation for his service and .commitment. as the Commission Chair for 2006. APPROVAL OF MINUTES , December 13, 2006 M/S/C (Lowe/Miller) to approve the December 13, 2006: minutes:. Abstain: Buydos, 'Davis, DeRosa, Grotke . Moller, Spicer, Zaitz ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive. Director, noted that there was additional inforrnation for Agenda ltem 8, "Potential Highgrove Metrolink Station". CONSENT :CALENDAR M/S/C (Hohenstein/Adams) to approve the following items: REPROGRAM $16.3 MILLION OF : TRANSPORTATION'' . CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM FUNDS 'FROM THE STATE. ROUTE 91` HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE STAGE 2 PROJECT ' (ADAMS STREET TO 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE) TO ° 'THE STAGE 1 PROJECT (UNIVERSITY AVENUE TO':60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE) Approve reprogramming $16.3 million of Traffic Congestion Relief (TCR) funds from the SR 91' High, Occupancy Vehicle '(HOV) lane . Stage' , 2 project (AdarYis\ ,Street to 60/91 /215 ;interchange) to the-SR-91 HOV lane''S,tage 1' project (University Avenue to 60/91 /215 interchange); Authorize the Executive Director t0 'sign!' any agreements with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that :may be necessaryto support this action • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 3 7B. MEASURE A FUNDING FOR STATE ROUTE 91 RE.-STRIPE/AUXILIARY . LANE PROJECT .IN THE CITY OF CORONA 1.) Approve $500,000 in Measure A funds for the SR-91 Re-stripe/Auxiliary 'lane project in the cityof Corona from the 91 /7.1 interchange~ to Serfas Club Drive; 2)` Approve an additional $300,000 in Measure A: funds if necessary based on bid opening; 3) Approve Agreement No. 07=31-076-00 with: the : California Department of :° Transportation (Caltrans) to reflect the above funding .allocation; 4) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-092-00 with the Orange ,County. Transportation Authority (OCTA) for its contribution to „the . project; and 5) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, . to execute theagreements on behalf of the Commission. 7C. AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOw TRUCK SERVICE 1) Award Agreement No. 07-45-090-00'to Pepe's Towing :for tow , -truck service: on Beat No...7 of the Freeway .Service Patrol°` ('FSP) program at a cost of $48.50 per hour .per -truck; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review`, executethe agreement on behalfof the Commission. 7D. COMMUTER RAIL :PROGRAM UPDATE Receive, and file the Commuter Rail, Program Update 'as an information item. 7E. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NO. 07-65-087-00 ON. IMPROVEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES . PIGEON PASS. AND RECHE CANYON ROAD CORRIDORS 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07=65-087-0.0 on Improvement of Transportation Facilities between. the San Bernardino Associated : Governments (SANBAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission, the county of Riverside, the. county . of San Bernardino,, and the cities of Colton, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Moreno Valley, Redlands, Riverside and San., Bernardino; and 2) Authorize the Chair,, pursuant to legal counsel review, execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County'. Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 4 AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR `. FINAL DESIGN . ENGINEERING >SERVICES FOR THE 1-215/SR 74/"G" STREET INTERCHANGE IN THE CITY OF PERRIS Direct staff to develop and .advertise a request for proposals (RFP) for consultant services to provide ,final design services for the 1989 Measure A 1-215/SR=74/"G -`Street interchange improvement., project; Form a selection committee comprised of representatives from ,.the Commission, Caltrans, and city o'lf . Perris staffs to review, evaluate and rank. all RFPs received;, and Authorize staff to negotiate a contract, with the top, ranked consultant and bring back a recommendation',to the Cornmission for contract award. 7G. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE REQUEST,; . FOR PROPOSALS; FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PHASE I AND PHASE li ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES Authorize the issuance of a , re 4n=Call „Right -of -Way Phase Assessment Services; and Approve an amendment to the FY 2006/07::budget in the ':amount _ of .:$=100,000 for Phase I 'Environmental Assessment . Services '.and. $100,000 ,for Phase Il ; EnviropMental `Assessment., . Services. quest' for proposals (RFP) for and Phase II Environmental AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE REQUEST ',FOR PROPOSALS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR COMMISSION RAIL AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS uthorize the issuance of a: request .for proposals (RFP) for A' On -Gall Right -of -Way Property Management, , : Services for Commission Rail and Highwayprojects; and Approve an amendment to the FY i 2006/47 ILbudget in. the. 'amount of $1.00;000 for On Ca11 ° Property f Management Services. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 5 71. AWARD OF AGREEMENTS ° TO ZAMISKI CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE &. CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.. FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES 1) Award Agreement No. 07-51-089-00 to Zamiski Construction and Agreement :No. 07-52-088-00: to Real Estate & Consulting Services, Inc. to perform On -Call Property Maintenance Services; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to Legal counsel review, to execute the :agreements on behalf of the Commission. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE STATUS. REPORT 1) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status repor and Approve the following bill positions: • SB .9 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) - MONITOR • SI3 ,,19 (Lowenthal,. D=Long Beach) .— MONITOR S6 45 (Perata, D-Oakland)- MONITOR SB 47 (Perata, D-Oakland) - MONITOR H.R.5576.:(Knollenberg, R-MI)::=°:MONITOR: - . POTENTIAL HIGHGROVE METROLINK STATION • Leticia Pepper, representing University Neighborhood Association`, provided a r handout dated January 10th from which she read her comments in support of. a Highgrove .Metrolink station., A copy. of this document was distributedto: . the Commissioners. Melanie Zimmermann, ;Highgrove resident, expressed support for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. She provided a handout dated January 24, 2006, that depicts traffic on . Prospect and Spring Streets in Highgrove. A copy . of this document was , distributedto the Commissioners. She does not believe that the county of origin should be an issue. She suggested the Commissioners visit the specific site being suggested. She requested that the :.Commission defer action on this item: for further consideration. Edward D.eMuth, Grand Terrace resident, expressed support .for a Metrolink station in the Highgrove area. He requested that the .Comrnission ` defer` action on this item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 6 Kevin Dawson, representing University Neighborhood Association, expressed support for a Metrolink station in the . Highgrove' area. `He, provided background information on prior community meetings concerning the proposed . Highgrove Metrolink station. He requested that the Commission defer -action on ,this item to allow San Bernardino Associated, Governments (SANBAG) to review and further explore this issue.,;; Denis Kidd, Highgrove resident and member of Highgrove CSA 126 Advisory. Board, also expressed support for a Metrolink station;; in the Highgrove area , and requested that the Commission defer action on this Item to allow SANBAG to review. He read : correspondence ;written by Barney Barnett, dated January .10, :2007 Why you should not stop the Highgrove Metrolink Project. A copy of this document was distributed to the Commissioners. Barney Barnett, Highgrove resident, expressed support .for ea Metrolink.station. in Highgrove. He presented slides that included photos of a 35 acre property in ' Highgrove that he believes would be an ideal l".location for aMetrolink station. The slides also included, photos of .develo'prn'ent in the surrounding : area and the Burlington Northern Santa . Fe (BNSF) mainline. 1He: stated :that he was :contacted.. by the property owner in October 2006, at` 'which time he t °: old the property owner persons other than developers werea interested in the property. In speaking to the property owner again on January 9th, the property owner indicated there had been no contact from the Commission. Hethen requested that the Commission defer. action : on this item to allow SANBAG to review., Anne .Wade -Hornsby; Grand Terrace resident, .expressed ';support for a proposed Highgrove :Metrolink station and requested ` that the Commission defer action on this item as she believes that the ridership statistics are not accurate and do not reflect new, growth in the area. Hugh J. Grant, Grand Terrace :,;resident, expressed support for :a proposed, Highgrove ,`Metrolink station that he` believes would:benefit benefit: ;transportation needs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties -.He provided (background on his previous.; education, employment and memberships to various' agencies. He believes that the ridership, statistics are not 4 correct and ;questioned the capital costs.: Steve . DeBaun,, Commission legal counsel, explained that .the .Commission, has, ,. not , had :formal communication with the property ,owner of the 35 acre. property ` in Highgrove. There are specific requirements under estate and federal law; that the: Commission must follow prior to purchasing property.. In this case, under federal law, the Commission does not have a project and Riverside County Transportation_ Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 7` therefore cannot ;approach the property owner and cannot take action .that would appear to impair their property : rights relative to the. use, development or sale of their property. Stephanie Wiggins, : Regional Programs .Director, explained that the goal of her presentation is to provide a -clear . and complete understanding to the Commission about the challenges andopportunities associated with a potential Highgrove Metrolink station. .She presented the prior decisions made by the Commission, the associated tradeoffs and discussed the following items: • • • Ridership forecasts and funding estimates; Weekday train volumes; Ridership forecast methodology; Daily ridership: forecasts between ;2010 and 2030 for. ,a Highgrove Metrolink _station, . including " county of origin and compared to the five Commission -owned stations; Capital and operating costs for a Highgrove station with eight trains, Comparison . of the number of weekday trains' , and ridership . between a- Highgrove Metrolink station -::and the five, Commission -owned Metrolink. stations, Perris Valley Line (PVL) alternatives analysis in 2003; PVL draft environmental document in 2004; Train movements arbitration; i. Breakdown of capital costs for an increase to 10 trains; Daily ridership forecasts for 2030 for, :a Highgrove Metrolink station compared to potential sites identified in the 2005 RC.TC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study SANBAG participation including - its current station policy, agenda item for its January 18th.- Commuter Rail Committee meeting, and correspondence from the Commission's executive director; 7 Opportunity for other station locations .to serve the Highgrove area; Timeline of Commission actions on the proposed Highgrove Metrolink station; Summary of findings Highgrove layover facility and Tier. II station report, survey results and approval in _ 1999 that included the evaluation " of three sites: and input from Barney Barnett. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007, Page 8 In :summary, she stated the Commission has evaluated the feasibility of ,a Highgrove Metrolink station on the BNSF main line at least four times over: the last '13 years.. She noted that the issues have not changed substantially; during that time: including low ridership forecasts and identification of other sites i .that are more: cost effective, noting an increase in : capital costs associated with developing a station on the BNSF segment between Riverside; and Highgrove. She concluded by stating that as a result of the . five findings. the .recommendation is to decline, development 'of a Highgrove station on the. BNSF main Tine: Commissioner. Roger. Berg explained that based on his review of this item, the Metrolink system and. the impacts and benefits forthe entire region, he believes; that a Highgrove station is : not beneficial,, and that the economic benefit to the residents of 'Riverside County is in the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL)He pointedout that there are ,a number>>of .areas that have and are continuing to experience dramatic growth. However, that growth does not necessarily warrant the :construction of a Metrolink station as : costs, constraints, and ;economic :benefit must be ,considered. He stated that there needs to: be an inter -county transportation system and planning for the: future by extending; . Metrolink service to Perris, Hemet and Temecula to :reduce traffic into Riverside. He explained that the Commission's ''goal is ` to build. projects that provide the greatest benefit ; to the residents of Riverside County. He 'noted the close proximity of two 'existing Metrolink, stations to Highgrove in comparison to . a number of other cities in Riverside County .that have :a considerably longer commute to reach a Metrolink station. In response: to' Commissioner ; Steve Adams question : if San Bernardino decides' to participate. in cost sharing for a Highgrove .Metrolink station and how .that would impact the staff. , , recommendation, Stephanie Wiggins responded thatbased on: successful ridership levels and ridership statistics at the current ,stations and regardless of funding, the level of ridership at a Highgrove Metrolink station is counter' to what; has been seen at other Riverside County stations and therefore the staff ;recommendation' would not change. He-,thankedstaff,for the and st ated;, that, the Commission's goal •, ;. p is :to do what is best for the residents of Riverside' County. He reiterated his question ,that if San _Bernardino does vote to share the: costs,' the Commission' would re-evaluate this issue. Chair Henderson replied that . it would , ' be ommis`sion to consider at that time. r Riverside County Transportation Comrnission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page'9 Eric Haley responded that ifthere was a financial commitment from San Bernardino County, staff would bring the issue back to the Commission. He concurred with Stephanie Wiggin's position regarding the cost benefit of this project, noting that he has received no encouragement from San Bernardino County. Commissioner` Adams responded that he has received negative responses from the elected officials in the . San Bernardino County in this issue. He recommended that if SANBAG .does :vote to participate, .' the Commission should have .the option to re -address this issue. Commissioner. ;Bob Buster thanked staff for the, presentation and pointed out the importance of the history to understand the context. He stated that there needs to bediscussions with SANBAG for the entire transportation systern between the two counties, including the .role of commuter rail'` and bus rapid transit and the reduction of commutes.- He submitted' that commuter rail between Temecula to San Bernardino makes more sense for the future and discussed the basis for that submission. He stated there . is. some flexibility in determining a location for a station v_ site, citing,. the La Sierra Metrolink station as an example. He requested SANBAG's analysis of; a Highgrove station.:. He emphasized that discussion with SANBAG are. critical for improvements along the corridor between the two, counties::. Commissioner Bob Magee thanked the speakers for their ,presentations, specifically Barney Barnett. He explained that each time .the .issue has been raised since 2006, he has requested additional information from staff to allow him to understand this issue and with the presentation today, he believes he has been educated. He recognized _ the ° public request to defer this item until after SANBAG's Commuter Rail Committee meeting on January 18th. He discussed the complexity of the issue and considerations that the Commission must take into account to . make a decision. He noted that based on SANBAG's draft agenda item, it will not support a Highgrove. Metrolink station. He concurred with Commissioner Adams' comments that should SANBAG's _position change, the Commission need's to reconsider:. the current recommendation. Therefore, based on the cost ,benefit that has been presented, he cannot support a Highgrove Metrolink station at this time. Commissioner Marion Ashley thanked the public speakers for standing up for their .community and pursuing .this issue. He believes .that everyone agrees on the need for the PVL to help relieve congestion. He :concurred with Commissioner Buster's comments regarding moving forward with improvements oncorridors between Riverside and San Bernardino. Counties and communications with SANBAG. While he would like to see a Highgrove Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 10 Metrolink station, the facts presented :do not support one. He concurred with Commissioners Adams and Magee's comments"'.`' that support re-evaluation of this item if SANBAG decides to share :" in the costs of a Highgrove'; station. He thanked staff for its detailed and well written report. Chair Henderson thanked the residents for their appearance and their sincere plea for "Highgrove Metrolink station. She stated that these decisions have been.; made by the Commission and not by staff. She thanked Commissioner Buster for his comments on reinvigorating discussions with San Bernardino County. She 'believes ::that the only °-thing that works in public transportation is frequency. When funds are. spread : too thin and lines "me'et .the needs of few, it is notrepresentative of what" public: transportation can, do. Commissioner Daryl Busch ; commendedstaff' for . its presentation and:. expressed support for the staff recommendation. Chair Henderson requested staff provide a copy of ` the timeline of Commission actions on the proposed Highgrove Metrolink, :station to the Commissioners. /C (Busch/Lowe) to decline' development of a Metrolink commuter rail station in the Highgrove area on the. Burlington Northern Santa- Fe (BNSF).: main line. o;: Buster Abstain: Buydos -ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the consent calendar. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE ,DIRECTOR'S REPORT Eric, Haley announced` .the 30-year anniversary of. Commission's first meeting in January 1977 and provided historical information Commissioner Robin Lowe discussed the Southern California Association of :Governments' (SLAG); focus on the ,Regional Housing ,Needs : Assessment (RHNA) process.. Commissioner Jeff 'Miller provided an update on Committee.' • Riverside County Transportation Commission ,Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 11 11. CLOSED SESSION ITEM A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 • AAA Case No. 72 199 01006 04 VMD . . JAMS Case No 1220032805 Case No. RIC 462975 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR -Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Negotiating Parties: RCT:C Executive: Director or Designee Property Owners See List. of Property Owners Item 2 APN 425-100.7003 4.25-210-002 425-210-014 425-210 )16 425-210-036 ` 425-210-037 427-2.10-035 431-220-028. 431 230-022 431-230-033 431-230-051 43.1.-230.059 431-230-060 431-230-061 431-230-062 431-230-064 431-230-065 431-230-066 431-240-025 431-240-033 43.1-240-036 Property Owner(s) Holgate/Wastal Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes .January 10, 2007 Page 12 425-210-043 425-210-044 425=220-025 425-220-026 427-200-045 427-200-046 427-200-048 427-200-049 427-200-051 427-200-052 42.7-21.0-032 427 210-036 427-21.0.-054 427-210=055 427-210-056 427-210-057 431=220-029 431-220-030 431-220-031 431-220-032 431 220-033 431-220-034 431-230-057 431-230-058 431-230-063 431=230-067 431-230-068 431-240-028 431-240-029 431_-240-034 431-250-019 43.1 250-025 4.31-240-035 431-250-026 425-210-017 425-210-021 425 2.10-022 425- 210-042 425=210-045 42.5-210-046 427-20'0-044 Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 10, 2007 Page 13 • 12. ADJOURNMENT There being .no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 12:24 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at the in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE. COUNTY . TRANSPORTATION: COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation .Commission - FROM: Executive Committee Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the .Board THROUGH:. Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT:• Ordinance No. 07-001 to Amend the Commission's Administrative Code EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Ordinance No. 07-001, "An" Ordinance Amending. the .Riverside County Transportation Commission Administrative Code", to reflect changes related to the Executive Committee and to addressing the Commission on agenda items. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Executive Committee Membership The Executive Committee was established in 1999 as a result of the reorganization of the Commission. Since that time, the regular memberthat represents the cities of Riverside, Corona, and Moreno Valley has rotated every two years between these cities. This practice was based on discussions held between the Commission, Western Riverside Council of Governments, and Coachella Valley Association of Governments staffs at that time. However, this practice has not been formalized in the Administrative Code that sets forth the manner in which the membership of. the Executive Committee is comprised. Changes made to the Commission's Administrative Code require adoption through Ordinance to reflect those changes. The recommended. amendment will formalize this ,practice. Addressing the Commission on Agenda Items In reviewing the Administrative .Code, staff believes that Article IV, Section G of the Administrative Code, "Addressing the Commission on Agenda Items', requires revision. Staff has surveyed .similar agencies and determined that three minutes is an appropriate length of time to allow a speaker to address the Commission.. Additionally, staff recommends reducing the maximum time .for public comment for Agenda Item 7A any individual item or topic from ninety (90) minutes to thirty .(30) minutes, unless extended, ` by the Chair or majority vote of the ''Board. These time allotments are within the typical range afforded to the public by similar agencies: The Executive Committee . reviewed and approved these , amendments.. at Its January 10, 2007 meeting. Attachments:. 1) Proposed Revisions to the Administrative Code . 2) Ordinance No: 07-001:: Agenda (ter 7A 2 ATTACHMENT 1 3.(a) Executive Committee. There shall be created an Executive Committee. Subject to supervision by the Commission, ;the Executive Committee shall oversee staff functions; recommend staff positions, job descriptions and salaries; appoint, contract with and determine the compensation of the; Executive Director; discipline, review and terminate the Commission's Executive Director; and oversee ,administration of the Commission's office. Decisions of the Committee shall be final .unless a member of the Commission, within five (5) days of the date of the decision, requests that the decision be .placed on the agenda of the next regular Commission meeting for reconsideration.. Meetings of the Committee shall be held at 9:30' a.m.: on the day of the Commission meeting or as otherwise required and at a place_ and ,time to be set by the . Executive Committee, unless otherwise directed by the Commission (b) The membership of the Executive .Committee shall be as follows:. (1) The Chair of the Commission. (2) The Vice Chair of the Commission. (3) The Second Vice Chair of the. Commission. (4) The Past Chair of the Commission. (5) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley.. Such regular :member shall be appointed by majority vote of the member) fepresenting rotate . each term among each of the cities referenced in the previous sentence. (6) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula: Such . member or alternative: member shall be appointed by majority vote of the members representing the cities. referenced in the previous: sentence. (7) A regular member of the Commission representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta; Palm Desert,; Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage. Such member shall .be appointed by a majority ''vote of the members representing the cities referenced in the previous sentence. (8) Three members of the Commission ..who are members of .the .,Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Such members shall be appointed by the'Board of Supervisors. (c) :. affirmatives "yes" votes. (d) The term of the Executive Committee members, other than the Chair and Vice Chair and the Second Vice Chair shall be two (2) years. At the end of their 2-year term, Executive Committee members shall stand for reappointment as set forth in Section H.3 (b). (e) A member of the. Executive Committee may be removed by majority vote of the Commission members responsible for his or her appointment. In the event of a vacancy in the Executive Committee, the vacancy shall be filled as :set forth m Section H.3.(b) above. The new member shall fill out the remainder of the ,term. (f) An alternate member of the Commission, as appointed in Article II.C:2, shall not assume' the duties of the regular member on the Executive Committee when the regular member is absent. In addition, should a member of the Actions of the Executive Committee shall require six (6) Executive Committee resign or . otherwise leave the Commission, the vacancy shall be ` filled as set forth in Section H.3(b); above. The new member shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. 4 G. ADDRESSING COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS. No person shall address the Commission at any meeting until he or she has fast been recognized by the Chair. The decision of the chair to recognize a person may be changed by vote of a majority of the members of the Commission present at the meeting. Persons wishing to address. the Commission shall fill out a speaker card and provide it to the Clerk of the Commission prior to the start of the agenda item upon which he or she wishes to be heard. The Chair may, in his or her discretion, direct the Clerk to accept speaker cards filed after the start of the agenda item. Except as set forth below, when addressing the Commission, each individual speaker will be limited to rive three continuous minutes or less of public testimony. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by a majority vote of the Commission, waive this five three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speaker cards, the Chair may, in his or her discretion, reduce. the time for each individual speaker to three two continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any . individual item or topic is ninety (9A) thirty (30) minutes, unless extended by the Chair or majority vote of the Board. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. The Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO.07-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that it is now necessary to amend :its. Administrative Code to reflect to reflect changes related to the Executive Committee and to addressing the Commission on agenda items.; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby ordains as follows: Section l Article. III, ; Section H.3.(b)(5) of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: - (5) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following' . cities: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley. Such regular member shall rotate each term among each of the cities referenced in the previous sentence. Section 2. Article IV, Section G of the Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: G. No person shall address the Commission at any meeting until he or she has first been recognized by the Chair. The decision of the chair to recognize a person may be changed by vote of a majority of the members of the Commission present at the meeting. Persons wishing to address the Commission shall fill out a speaker card and provide it to the Clerk of the Commission prior to the start of the agenda item upon which he or she wishes to be heard. The Chair may, in his or her discretion, direct the Clerk to accept speaker cards filed after the start of the agenda item. Except as .set forth below, when addressing the Commission, each individual speaker will be limited to three continuous minutes or less of public testimony. The Commission may., either at the direction of the Chair or by a majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speaker cards, the Chair may, in his or her discretion, reduce the time for each individual speaker to two continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes, unless extended by the Chair or majority vote of the Board. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. The Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Section 3. This Ordinance.: shallbe effective on February 14, 2007. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2007 ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board Ordinance No. 07-001 7 Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission AGENDA ITEM_ -713 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 1.4, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. - This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the mid -year revenue projections; 2) Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Measure A revenues of $3,000,000 and expenditures of .$1,477,000; and 3) ` Approve the budget adjustments to reflect the revised Local Transportation Fund (LTF) planning ` revenues of $371,803 and expenditures of $371,803. BACKGROUND. INFORMATION: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, staff made projections regarding the revenue received from Measure A and LTF funds for budget and apportionment purposes, respectively. Staff has tracked these revenueson a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure A and LTF receipts are about 5.3% and 3.5% higher, respectively, for the 'six months ended December 31, 2006 compared to the same period. last year. Staff noted a significant decrease in year-to-year Measure A and LTF receipts from November 2006 (15.6% for Measure A and 13.2% for LTF) to December- 2006 (5.3% for Measure A and 3.5%. for LTF): Based on the January 2007 estimates recently provided by the State Board of Equalization, the year-to-year increases for Measure A and LTF rose slightly to 5.8% and 4.2%, respectively. For FY 2005/06, Measure A and LTF receipts were about 15.4% and 14.9% higher, respectively, than the prior year of FY 2004/05. While the Inland Empire's local economy has been perceived . as strong except for the slowdown in housing, the significant changes within the current year as well as compared to the prior years seem unusual and warrant further monitoring over the next few months. Accordingly, staff has taken a cautious approach to this year's mid -year projection analysis. Based on an emphasis on the trends of sales tax receipts for the last six months and comparison to the UCLA Anderson Forecast Agenda item 7B completed in 2006, staff ..is recommending that the Commission increase the current .year revenue projections as follows:' FY 2006/07 Revenue Projections Measure A LTF Original (January 2006) $156,150,000 74,850,000 FY 2006/07 Revised for Budget Mid -Year Adjustment :. $156,150,000 $ 159,150,000 74,850,000 74,850,000 '.Increase from`. Budget $ 3,000,000 For reference purposes, audited Measure A and LTF revenues: for FY 2005/06 were $157,236,31.4 and $`74,673,605,, respectively. The FY 2006/07 ` Measure A mid -year -projections reflect an approximate 1 % increase over the FY 200.5/06 actual revenues, while the FY 2006/07 LTF mid -year projections .are comparable to the FY 2005/06 actual revenues. Additionally, the. UCLA Anderson ..Forecast projected FY 2006/07 Measure A receipts of $159,693,000. The increase in Measure A revenues has a direct effect on .the distributions to the geographic areas . and related programs, especially local streets and roads (LSR). Accordingly, in addition to .the revenue budget adjustments, Measure A °budget adjustments are required for the LSR aggregating $1,175,000 as well as regional: arterial expenditures of $302,000. The LTF audit was completed and financial statements :; were issued in November 2006. Staffhas revised the original projections to include the carryover that is now available to the local governments and transit agencies amounting to $12,39.3,440. The revised projections include a budget adjustment to Commission Planning for $371`,803. The increase for SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects of. $24.0,433 does not require 'a budget adjustment as such 'expenditures are made from the LTF, which is an .unbudgeted fund of the Commission. Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide,this'update,d information: to the necessary local governments and transit: operators. Agenda Item 7B 9 Financial Information $3,000,000 sales tax In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $1,477,000 LSR & regional arterials Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: Y Revenues: 227-71-40100 $ 890,000 Western County LSR sales tax 221-33-40100 367,000 Western County Rail sales tax 222-31-40100 856,000 Western County Highway sales tax 225-26-40100 56,000 Western County Special Transit sales tax 226-41-40100 56,000 Western County Commuter Assistance sales tax 254-71-40100 264,000 Coachella Valley LSR sales tax 252-26-401.00 75,000 Coachella Valley Special Transit sales tax 253-31-40100 113,000 Coachella Valley Highway sales tax GLA No.: 255-72-40100 302,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterial sales tax 233-71-40100 21,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR sales tax $3,000,000 Appropriations: 227-71-86104 $ 890,000 Western County LSR 254-71-86104 264,000 Coachella Valley LSR 233-71-86104 21,000 Palo Verde Valley LSR 255-72-86405 302,000 Coachella Valley Regional Arterials . $1,477,000 - Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44zifc:03/1 t Date: 1 /22/07 Financial Information In. Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2006/07 Amount: $371,803 sales tax $371,803 planning Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Ad ustment: Y GLA No.: 106-65-40101 106-65-86205 $371,803 $371,803 LTF Planning. sales tax revenues LTF Planning expenditures Fiscal Procedures Approved: \liL,itivi Date: 1 /22/07 Attachments: FY 2006/07 Mid -Year Revenue Projections for Measure A and LTF Agenda Item 7B 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTION FY 2006/2007 (Revised 1/07) FY 2006/2007 FY 2006/2007 FY 2006/2007 Revised Projection Budget Original MEASURE "A" PROJECTION $159,150,000 $156,150,000 $156,150,000 LESS: ADMINISTRATION 3,500,000 _ 3,500,000 3,500,000 TOTAL PROJECTION $ 155,650,000 $152,650,000 $152,650,000 - Local Streets Commuter Special & Roads Highway - Rail Assistance Transportatlon 40.00% 38.50% 16.50% 2.50% 2.50% WESTERN COUNTY PORTION $ 115,386,000 $ 46,154,000 $ 44,423,000 $ 19,039,000 $ 2,885,000 $ 2,885,000 BANNING -- $ 812,000 _ BEAUMONT _ - 546,000 - CALIMESA 206,000 - CANYON LAKES 272,000 - CORONA 5,401,000 - HEMET - - 2,168,000 - - LAKE ELSINORE - 1,237,000 - MORENO VALLEY 4,704,000 MURRIETA 2,637,000 NORCO 966,000 PERRIS 1,386,000 - RIVERSIDE 9,967,000 SAN JACINTO - 753,000 TEMECULA 3,813,000 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY 11,266,000 AREA TOTAL -$ 46,154,000 $ 44,423,000 $ 19,039,000 $ 2,885,000 $ 2,885,000 CITIES Local Streets Regional Special Roads - Highway - Arterial Transportation 35% 15% 40% - 10% COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION $ 39,168,000 $ 13,707,000 $ 5,874,000 $ 15,665,000 $ 3,916,000 CATHEDRAL CITY $ 1,792,000 - COACHELLA 520,000 - DESERT HOT SPRINGS 408,000 INDIAN WELLS - - 246,000 INDIO - 1,713,000 LA OUINTA PALM SPRINGS 2,007,000 PALM DESERT 2,828000 RANCHO MIRAGE 962,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY - - 1,921,000 - CVAG 1,310,000 AREA TOTAL _ $ 13,707,000 $ 5,874,000 $ 15,665,000 $ 3,916,000 • Local Streets Roads 100% PALO VERDE PORTION $ 1,102,000 $ 1,102,000 BLYTHE $ 852,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY - 250,000 AREA TOTAL _ $ 1,102,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 200612007 APPORTIONMENT (Revised 1/07) Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) Est. Receipts TOTAL Less: Auditor Less: RCTC Administration Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) Less: SCAG Planning BALANCE Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES Less: 10% Transit Reserves BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT APPORTIONMENT Wester Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley • Population Population %of Total 1,449,805 397,364 29,831 77.24% 21.17% 1.59% 1,877,000 100.00% Budget FY 2006/2007. Projection (revised) $ 12,393,440 $ 74,850,000 87,243,440 12,000 750,000. 2,617,303 123,500 83,740,637 1 674,813 82,065,824 8,206,582 $ 73,859,242 Revised Budget FY 2006/2007 Apportionment Budget FY 2006/2007 Projection (original) Increase - $ 12,393,440 74,850 000 0 74,850,000 12,393,440 12,000 ___0_ 750,000 _ 0 2,245,500 _______371,8D3. 123,500 - 0 71,719,000 _:_. 12,921,63_T 1,434,380 240,433 70,284,620 11,781,204 7,028,462 1,178,120 63,256158 $ 10,603,084 Original Budget FY 2006/2007 Apportionment Increase $ 57,049,280 $ 48,859,400 8,189,880 15,636,123 .. 13,391,433 2,244,690 1173,839 1,005,325 168,514 $ 73,859,242 _6 63,256,158 $ 10,603,084 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005) Weslem: Rail - $1,394,538 Transit: - RTA - - $4,200,960 Banning - - 136,523 Beaumont 120,002 Corona 182,836 Riverside 303,950 Subtotal Transit $4 944 271 4,944,271 Subtotal Western 6,338,809 Coachella Valley 1,737,347 -Palo Verde Valley 130,427 Total Reserves $8 206 582 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Une as of January 1, 2005, as adjusted for annexations Allocation of Reserves: FY 2004105 SRTP Funding Notations Approved July 14, 2004 Rail Transit 22% 78% $ 12,550,842 $ 44,498,438 •12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Local Transportation Fund and Measure - A Revenue. Projections BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the projections for Measure A and related allocations; and 2) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation- Fund. (LTF) apportionment for the Western Riverside .County, Coachella Valley, ry and Palo Verde Valley areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure_A The Measure A :projection consists of revenues generated from the local half -cent sales tax approved by the voters in November 1988. These Measure A funds are principally used to fund highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, local streets and roads, commuter assistance and specialized transportation projects needs in the three geographic areas of Riverside County. The Measure A projection for 'FY 2006/07 is $167,100,000 This projection will become the basis for the preparation of the FY 2007/08 budget. The budget process typically commences in January of each year following the development of the Measure A revenue'projections. Additionally, the amounts for the local streets and roads and regional arterial programs are usually provided to the "local jurisdictions for planning purposes. The attached Measure A , estimate of $167,100,000 is based on a revised projection for FY 2006/07 of $159,150,000 . plus an increase of 5 %. After the deduction for administration of $3.7 million which is approximately 2.2% of Measure A revenues, the amount available for distribution to the three geographic areas is $163,400,000, which is allocated as follows: Agenda Item 7C 13 Geographic. Area Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Amount $ 121,199,000 41;020,000 1,181,000 $ 163, 400, 000 Upon Commission approval of this item, staff will provide this information to .the necessary local jurisdictions and transitoperators for planning purposes. Local Transportation Fund The 'LTF projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the, statewide sales tax. These LTF -funds are ;principally used to fund transit requirements within the county of Riverside (County).The Transportation Development Act (TDA) legislation that created LTF requires the . County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis : for geographic apportionment and for claimant allocation through the Short Range Transit PI'an (SUP) process`, which commences in. January for the next" fiscal` year. _ "While; the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility: over: the LTF revenues, the Commission by statute is charged with administration of the. LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for the staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. `' Once. the Commission and the County have agreed :on a revenue amount, staff .prepares_ the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas' (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The .revenues are divided based on the respective populations: for each area. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission, and SCAG) and :set asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2.%). Attached is the FY 2007/08 LTF apportionment based on a revenue :, estimate o $77 840,000. The County has "reviewed the estimate . and ;,concurs with it. ' The estimate is based on a projection for FY 2006/07 of $74,850;000 plus an increase of 4%. After :the deductions ;for administration of $934,400 and set -asides of $3,826,608, the amount available for apportionment is $73,078,992.':The balance available for apportionment is as follows: Agenda Item 7C 14 Apportionment Area Amount Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total $ 56,405,177 15,537,186 1,136,629 $ 73,078;992 In accordance with the Reserve . Policy adopted by the Commission on January 12, 2005, a reserve of 10% for each apportionment area will be established and set aside for FY 2007/08 for unforeseen cost increases or other emergency. For the Western County apportionment area, a portion of the reserve will be allocated to each of the transit operators; however, an allocation of $0 is currently reflected pending completion of the FY 2004/05 transit and transportation. audits. Upon receipt of the completed audits, the Western County transit operator allocations will be adjusted. For public bus transit operators, the allocation of the reserve is based on each operator's proportionate share of FY 2005/06 LTF operating allocations. Operators may access reserve funds by amending their SRTPs through the established amendment process. Attachments: 1) Measure A Distribution Projection FY 2007/08 2) LTF FY 2007/08 Apportionment Agenda Item 7C 15 • • MEASURE "A" PROJECTION LESS: ADMINISTRATION TOTALPROJECTION CITIES WESTERN COUNTY PORTION BANNING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKES CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIO! MEASURE A DISTRIBUTION PROJECTION FY 2007/08 - FY 2007/08 Original Projection $167,100,000 3,700,000 $ 163,400,000 $ 121,199,000 COACHELLA VALLEY PORTION S 41,020,000 CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA PALM SPRINGS PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY_ CVAG AREA TOTAL PALO VERDE PORTION $ 1,181,000 BLYTHE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA TOTAL Local Streets 8. Roads Highway 40.00% 38.50% $ 48,479,000 $ 46,662,000 $ 834,000 667,000 207,000 275,000 5,641,000 2,326,000 - `( 1,345,000 4,979,000 2,897,000 1,023,000 - 1,490,000 10,108,000 829,000 3,961,000, 11,895,000 Rail 16.50% $19,998,000 Commuter Assistance 2.50% 3,030,000 Special Transportation 2.50°% $ 3,030,000 $ 48,477,000 $ 46,662,000 $19,998,000 $ 3,030,000 $ 3,030,000 Local Streets Regional Roads Highway Arterial 35%- 15% 40% .$ 14,357,000 $ 6,153,000 $16,408,000 $ 1,793,000 588,000 452,000 272,000 1,809,000 .. 2,003,000 2,861,000 1,052,000 2,069,000 1,458,000 $ 14,357,000 $ 6,153,000 $16,408,000- Local Streets Roads 100% $ 1,181,000 $ 914,000 267,000 $ 1,181,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences J92007\02 Februaryl7CJ12.1T.RCTC.Measure A Proj FY08.xls Special Transportation 10% $ 4,102,000 $ 4,102,000 1/31/20073:33 PM 16 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND FY 2007/08 APPORTIONMENT Budget FY 2007/08 Projection Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts 77,840,000 TOTAL 77,840 000 Less: Auditor 12,000 Less: RCTC Administration 800,000 Less: RCTC Planning (3% of revenues) 2,115,200 Less: SCAG Planning 122,400 BALANCE 74,570,400 Less: SB 821 (2% of balance) 1,491,408 BALANCE AVAILABLE BEFORE RESERVES 73,078,992 Less: 10% Transit Reserves 7,307,899 BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR APPORTIONMENT $65,771,093 APPORTIONMENT Budget Population FY 2007/08 Rail Transit Population % of Total Apportionment 22% 78% Western 1,507,656 77.18% $50,764,659 $11,168,225 $39,596,434 Coachella Valley 415,294 21.26% 13,983,467 Palo Verde Valley 30,381 1.56% 1,022,966 1,953,331 100.00% $65,771,093 ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT RESERVES (in accordance with Reserve Policy adopted January 12, 2005) Westem: Rail $1,240,914 Transit: RTA $3,759,285 Banning 133,356 Beaumont 0 Corona 176,733 Riverside 330,230 Subtotal Transit $4,399,604 4,399,604 Subtotal Westem 5,640,518 Coachella Valley 1,553,719 Palo Verde Valley 113,663 Total Reserves $7,307,899 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit as of January 1, 2006, as adjusted for annexations Allocation of Reserves: FY 2005/06 SRTP Funding Allocations Approved July 13, 2005 Beaumont allocation to be made upon completion of outstanding audit (FY 2004/05) 17 AGENDA ITEM 7D • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE; February 14,2,007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation . Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human. Resources Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, ,Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Budget Adjustments BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF' RECOMMENDATION: " This item is for the Commission to ap prove a $229,700 increase in FY 2046/07 expenditures for mid -year budget adjustments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff has performed a review of expenditures for the six months ended December 31 2006 and an estimate: off expenditures: for the remaining six months:. of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. As a result of the review, the following mid -year budget adjustments are proposed. Adjustment 1. - $ 55,400 The Bechtel contract for FY 2005/06 concluded with a $55,400 carryover remaining for the work effort of the 10-Year Delivery Plan for Western Riverside County Measure A highway program. The initial phase of this work was completed and presented to the Commission in the second quarter of FY' 2006/07. The carryover of $55,400 was not included in the original FY 2006/07 budget; however, it is needed to cover the Bechtel costs related to the work` effort for the plan. Adequate ` Measure A Western County highway fund' balance` exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 2 - $42,500 A recommendation made as a result of the Commission's last' triennial :performance audit was to create a transit vision for Riverside County. To assist with the transit visioning process, Transportation Management and Design; Inc. (TMD) was hired October 31, 2006 to provide GIS support services and analysis. This work was not included ,in the original FY 2006/07 budget. Adequate Local Transportation Fund (LTF) fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Agenda [tern 7D 18 Adjustment 3 - $5`2,300 The FY 2006/07 budget included- theassumption that 439` :call boxes .would be removed by. December 2006 as a result of decreased call box _ usage. :: The contractor has not completed the entire call box removal project by> December 2006 due to staff turnover. As a result, the remaining call boxes that have not been removed will continue to incur equipment, maintenance and access charges through `.June 30, 2007, which were not budgeted ` 'in FY 2006/07. Adequate, Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) fund balance exists to. accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 4 -. $56,000 The Commuter Assistance program contracted in March 2006 to promote rideshare on a billboard located on . SR-91 in Corona from July 14, 2006to November 21, 2006. The budget authority for this 'contract was included in the. FY 2005/06 budget and was inadvertently not rebu.dgeted for FY 2006/07. Staff is requesting' a budget adjustment for the FY 2006/07 rideshare media campaign. Adequate Measure A Comrnuter Assistance Special Revenue fund balance exists to accommodate this, budget adjustment. Adjustment 5 $8,000 As a result of organizational changes related to human resources, additional training and resources in human resources as well as communications with legal' counsel have been required. These additional costs for human resources training, membership dues, and legal services are estimated at $3,000. Additionally, executive management felt that specific,; management :training 'for all program managers as a, result of the effects of continuing organizational 'changes was. appropriate. The Commission contracted with the University ,of California Riverside (UC'R) to conduct a Leadership, Supervision and Management Principles and Practices program. The program, which cost $10,000, examines the challenges supervisors face in an increasingly complex organizational environment and understanding organizational change and how to effectively manage ` the change. While the FY 200.6/07 human resources budget included. $5,000.,for training, a budget adjustment of $`5,000 is needed for the additional: training cost. Adequate General Fund (GF) fund balance exists to accommodate both.. budget adjustments totaling $8,000 Agenda item 7D 19 Adjustment 6 - $8,500 The Commission will be co -sponsoring a UCR conference, regarding the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Western Riverside County Regional. Conservation Authority (RCA). Adequate GF fundbalance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Adjustment 7 - $7,000 The original FY 2006/07 budget did not include legal . services for the additional legislation needed to implement design -build contracting. Staff continues to work with legal counsel onthis matter and will need additional budget authority to continue this effort. GF fund balance exists to accommodate this budget adjustment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $229,700 Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF, SAFE, FSP Budget Ad ustment: Yes 222-31-81001 P2802 $55,400 Program Management 106-62-65520 $42,500 Professional Services 202-45-73301 $30,700 Equipment Maintenance 202-45-81.01.5 $21,600 Access Charges 226-41-73704 P2108 $56,000 Media Ads S-18-65101 P1001 01 $1,100 General Legal Services GLA No.; S-18-73113 P1001 01 $1,000 Membership Dues S-18-73601 P1001 01 $400 Seminars/Conferences S-18-73611 P1001 01 $100 Mileage Reimbursement S-18-73620 P1001 01 $300 Lodging S-18-73630 P1001 01 $100 Meals S-18-73650 P1001 01 $5,000 Training S-11-73601 P1001 02 $8,500 Seminars/Conferences S-14-65101 P1001 02 $7,000 General Legal Services Fiscal Procedures Approved: \p%€4,e44:41 Date: 01/22/07 Agenda Item 7D 20 AGENDA ITEM 7E • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia'Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive. Director SUBJECT:. Proposed Audit Scope for. Transit and Transportation Audits , BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, AUDIT AD HOC 'COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • This item is for the :' Commission ' to approve the proposed audit scope for Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its April 2003meeting, the Commission approved the selection of Caporicci and Larson (C&L) to perform_ the Measure. A recipient and TDA claimants audits for the Commission, excluding the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and city of Beaumont who have selected their own auditors that have .met the ' `Comrnission's auditor qualification criteria. These financial and .compliance audits cover the transit and transportation operations the county of Riverside, the cities in the county, and non-profit organizations receiving the Measure A and: TDA funds; however; agreed -upon procedures have been performed for certain Measure A Specialized Transit recipients based on cost-effectiveness considerations. California. Code of Regulations Section 6664 requires a fiscal and compliance audit for each claimant of TDA funds Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transportation Assistance Fund (STAF). The audit shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and the claimants' financial statements shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting" principles. Furthermore, the audit is to be directed to determine compliance or noncompliance with the TDA regulations. The TDA claimant audits that have been performed includes transit operators (municipal operators, 'SunLine Transit Agency, and Palo Verde Valley . Transit Agency) receiving Article 4 and STAF, Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian facility grant claimants, and Article 8 local street and road funds` (currently available only in Palo Verde Valley area). Agenda Item 7E 21 The 1989 Measure A requires fiscal audits of the local agencies , to ensure enforcement of the maintenance of effortrequirements The 2009 Measure A goals and objectives include a mandatory, annual financial audit of program expenditures to ensure compliance with Measure A. Additionally, the taxpayer accountability safeguards included in the 2009 Measure A describes compliance requirements. Over the past few years, the American; Institute of Certified Public. Accountants has issued new auditing standards - in response. to corporateaccounting andethics scandals, many of which, included a focus on auditors and their work. These new standards will become effective at various dates over the next two' years; they are expected to significantly change how audits are performed in the following areas: • Audit documentation; Understanding of internal control; Audit 'evidence related to risk assessment procedures. internal controls; Audit risk and materiality; Understanding the entity and its environment: and assessing: the risk� o material misstatement; and Performing audit procedures in response to evaluating audit evidence obtained. C&L has advised staff that these new auditing standards may significantly impact` future audits of the specific transit and/or transportation funds being audited . for TDA and Measure A purposes. Specifically, an extensive internal control evaluation and testing at the entity level rnay :be required in orderto develop thebasis for: the risk' assessment. ln. addition to..a potential increase in; the cost of ` the TDA and Measure A audits, the additional efforts may be repetitive for the entity. being audited since similar procedures will be performed by the entity's auditors. There are several alternatives to address the impact of ;the new auditing standards, as described below: Require the entities to engage their auditors to perform a financial and compliance audit of .the transit/transportation funds at their own cost with ;specific; compliance requirements provided by the Commission;. Same as above,. except that the Commission would .engage auditors to perform agreed -upon procedures regarding compliance at its own. cost Continue, to engage auditors to conduct financial and compliance audits for each Measure A recipient and TDA :, claimant. at the Commission's cost; Agenda item 7E 22 Engage auditors to conduct financial and compliance audits for each TDA claimant and to perform agreed -upon procedures for each Measure A recipient, both at the Commission's cost. The latter alternative may be possible if the Measure A audit requirements are interpreted liberally, as the requirements are not as specific as the TDA audit requirements. Based on a review of the 1989 Measure A and the 2009 Measure A plans, it could be argued that the accountability focus is on the expenditure of public funds and compliance with the provisions of Measure A. To some extent,.. this interpretation has been used in determining the audit scope for individual Measure . A Specialized Transit recipients, which primarily consist of nonprofit agencies. Agreed -upon procedures, .as determined by staff, have been applied to some agencies receiving only capital funds for specific projects as well as agencies receiving smaller amounts of operating funds. Since the procedures to be performed are developed by the' Commission and may be more focused, the expenditure of Measure A funds and related compliance could be more directly evaluated compared to an audit of an entity's financial statements. The difference is a report on the results of agreed -upon procedures compared to an opinion on audited financial statements as well as a report on compliance. Due to the number of entities receiving Measure A funds compared to TDA funds, significant cost savings could be realized with agreed -upon procedures for Measure .A compared to full financial statement audits. After consideration of the alternatives, staff proposes that the scope of services for the TDA claimants consist of a financial statement and compliance audit while the scope for Measure A recipients consist of agreed -upon procedures. Agenda Item 7E 23 AGENDA ITEM -71F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission . FROM Budget and. Implementation `Committee - Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: _Eric Haley, Executive. Director - SUBJECT. Amendment to Advance of Fiscal Year 2006/07 City of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road Funds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-068-01, Amendment No: 1 to Agreement No. 06-31=068-00, to advance to the city of Hemet Measure A Local Street and Road funds in FY 2007/08 rather than FY 2006/07; and 2) . Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-31-068-00 for an advance of $2,126,000, including accrued interest, to the city of Hemet (City) for its estimated Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funding for FY 2006/07. City staff had requested that disbursement of the advance be delayed from September 2006 to a later date upon construction award for a city-wide repaving project. Since the City is now in the process of soliciting construction bids, City staff is requesting that the advance be delayed until FY 2007/08 and applied against its FY 2007/08 Measure A LSR allocation. This would result in the disbursement of the advance in September 2007 with repayment due by September 30, 2008. Based on the FY 2007/08 Measure A revenue projection, it is estimated that the City's share of FY 2007/08 . Measure A LSR funding is $2,326,000. Any .amounts received over the $2,126,000 advance would be disbursed to the City upon full repayment of the advance. In the unlikely event that the FY 2007/08 Measure' A LSR allocations to the City are less than the total advance, any balance due would be deducted from the FY 2008/09 Measure A LSR allocations. Agenda item 7F 24 Staff is in the process of preparing the amendment to the advance agreement, which is subject to legal counsel review. In Fiscal Year Budget: No Financial Information Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $2,126,000 Source of. Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No 222-31-12401 Fiscal. Procedures. Approved: \141,1,414.0 Attachment: City of Hemet Public Works Correspondence Agenda !tern 7F - 25 Date: 1 /22/07 Jan 17 07 08:57a p.2 • • Fmnl /10 OM= Of PLIeLio wDRK3 January 17, 2007 510 E. FLORIDA AVENUE • HEMET. CALIFORNIA 92543 • (951)765-3879 Eric Haley Executive Director Riverside County Tra Ion Commission 4080 Lemon Street 3"Floor t Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Request for Advance of FY07/08 Measure A Allocations Dear Mr. Haley. Thank you for approving the City's request to advance Measure A funds for this fiscal year. The City of Hernetis currently solialing construction bids for its city-wide repaving project_ The project will start construction in Spring 2007. As such, the City wdl already have received much of its FY06/07 allocation before contractor invoicing wN occur. Consequently, the City requests forgoing the advance of this year's allocation and instead receiving an advance of its FY07/08 allocation. As with the original advance, we understand approval of the Commission is needed, principal and interest will be deducted from the FY07/08 allocation, and funds will not ready for disbursement until September 2007, if approved. Thank you for your cooperation and please contact me at (951) 765-3870 if you need more information. Sincerely, . Mike Cow Public Works Director/City Engineer c: City Manager Finance Director 26 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Status of Toll Program and Strategic Partnership Advisory Services Amendment PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING AND DELIVERY PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 1) Receive and file summary of Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) goals to support Riverside County 1.0-Year Delivery Plan; 2) Support the continued coordination with OCTA regarding its goals; including conceptualapproval of the Commission's fair share of OCTA's expanded travel and revenue studies; 3) Receive and file report on Status of legislative approval; 4) Receive and file report on status of Corridor A analysis; 5) Approve a $750,000 contract increase for Strategic Partnership Advisory Services and amendments, as necessary, to Agreement Nos. 06-66-026-00, 06-66-027-00 and 06-66-028-00; and 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 13, 2006 meeting, the Commission. `approved the 10-Year Delivery Plan for the: Measure A Western Riverside County highway program. Extension of the 91 Express Lanes to 1-15 and the construction of two high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in each direction on portions of 1-15 were significant projects within the -program. Implementation of these projects is contingent upon legislative approval and coordination with OCTA in addition to continuing technical and financial analysis. Agenda item 7G . 27 Coordination with OCTA OCTA Board- of Directors approved goals to support the Commission's.:10-Year Delivery Plan at its January 22, 2007 meeting. A copy of the action item is attached for reference. These goals are intended to :establish the 'basis upon which: y proposed P =. its: staff: and SR-91 Advisor Committee members evaluate the ro osed express lane extension. On February 2, 2007, the SR-91 Advisory Committee considered , the Express Lane extension. Issues of mutual concern such as legislativeapproval, organization, operations and :revenue impacts were discussed.. Legislative Approval Legislative approval is required to implement the delivery plan;. Staff, :working with its advisors, has developed a strategy to seek legislative. authority. Efforts in the next three months will concentrate on developing draft language for legislative counsel review, coordinating with OCTA, continuing dialogue with legislative members and engaging in statewide legislative discussions... Status of .Corridor: A Analysis Initial toll analysis on SR-91 included a four -lane viaductwithin:' the median:. consistent with SR-91 Advisor Committee. direction regarding `Corridor A y�. alignments as developed within the Major Investment Study..:, (MIS). Financial modeling indicated that, although there was significant demand; ;the :project , was revenue negative requiring public subsidy of the capital costs. The 'Public/Private Financing and 'Delivery Plan (PPF/DP) Ad Hoc Committee requested .further analysis of additional. Corridor A alignments. The Corridor A study, will evaluate alignments, environmental and right-of-way impacts, system integration and costs... A: final report, including the viaduct option, is scheduled for completion _ in early:. April. A , summaryof the PPF/DP Ad. Hoc Committee's findings: and :.actions to date was. included in the February 2, 2007 staff presentation to the SR-91 Advisory Committee. Implementation of Toll "Program While the toll program is years away from construction, there ,are significant efforts that must continue and/or be initiated. A formal implementation plan will be . . prepared upon establishment of key policy decisions and indications,: of legislative authorities. Staff has performed an initial assessment of short-term' issues." and actions for the remainder .of this fiscal year. Staff recommends continuing the services of its existing advisory team as it moves .into implementation. An increase in contract authorizations of $750,000 is requested to perforrn the following Agenda item 7G 28 1) SR-91 Express Lane Extension a) Update project costs assuming design/build authority, inclusion of 1-15 NB to SR-91 WB direct connector and transition lanes to 1-15. b) Update cash flow projections and schedules:. c) Update Financial Model. 2) 1-15 HOT Lanes d) Re-evaluate demand model to determine need for capacity expansion beyond HOT lanes. e) Evaluate impact of general purpose expansion on toll feasibility. f) Re-evaluate HOT lane phasing dependent upon demand results. g) Update project costs to include addition of general purpose lanes where needed. h) Update Traffic and Revenue Studies. i) Update Financial Model 3) Continue support of legislative effort. 4) Provide support for development of Toll Program Implementation Plan. The implementation plan will include the program organization structure, guiding policies and assumptions, risk management plan, program and project schedules. Results of continuing analysis and .efforts will be brought to the PPF/DP Ad Hoc Committee for review, input and direction. This contract authorization increase of ^$750,O0O brings the total cost to $2,40O,O00. Sufficient capacity in the FY 2006/07 budget is available for these contract increases. An oral report on the status of the toll program and the strategic partnership was presented to the PPF/DP Ad Hoc Committee at its January 22nd meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $750,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: A303-66-65520 P8200 8X Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ J � Date: 1 /22/07 Attachment: OCTA Board Agenda Item Agenda Item 7G 29 BOARD COMMITTEE TRANS1WITTAL January 22, 2007 To: Members of the Board of Directors tuli% From: Wendy Knowles, Clerk of the Board Subject: Riverside County Highway Plan to Extend 91 Express Lanes Regional Planning, and Highways Committee January 15, 2007 Present:- Directors Amante, Cavecche, Dixon, Glaab, Green, Mansoor, Norby, Pringle, and Rosen Absent: None Committee Vote This item was passed by all Committee Members present. Committee Recommendations (Reflects change from staff recommendation) A. Provide guidance to staff and members of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee in preparation for their meeting of February 2, 2007. B Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a cost -sharing arrangement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to advance an interim Riverside Freeway (State Route 91 ) improvement project; in an -amount not to exceed. $250000, from 91 Express Lanes funds. Approve "Revised Attachment B", which ` incorporates the Regional Planning and Highways Committee's comments. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 !Orange% California 92+863-15E 4 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) 30 . BOARD COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL` Page Tvvo Committee Comments The Committee provided the following comments with respect to work :with; Riverside County. Transportation Commission on; their 1 g-Year Delivery Plan; Agencies "should explore use of reversible lane operations, similar to lanes in use on interstate 15 in San Diego county, as part i of the next steps on 10-Year Delivery Plan. Efforts to secure the required legislative approval for extension of 91 Express Lanes should also provide flexibility on uses of toll revenues to provide for efficient connection between the two counties. The "Revised Attachment B", reflects in bold the Committee's suggestions. __ Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street /P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / Carus 92883-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282). 31 REVISED ATTACHMENT B Orange County Goals to Support Riverside County 10 Year Delivery Plan 1. Work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to ensure connection of their proposed general purpose lanes with Orange County facilities. Consider additional lanes between the county line and the Foothill Transportation Corridor (State Route 241), and coordinate with the planned eastbound auxiliary lane project between State Route 241 (SR-241) and the Corona Expressway (State Route 71). 2. Efforts to secure legislative approval to implement the RCTC plan for the proposed extension of 91 Express Lanes should provide flexibility on uses of toll revenues to provide for an efficient connection between the two counties. 3. Consider additional lanes on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County. Expedite work on direct connectors between SR-241 and the 91 Express Lanes to accommodate the demand due to proposed extension of the lanes. Coordinate with the. FoothdUEastem Transportation Corridor Agency on a capital improvement plan with funding from all agencies' toll revenues. 4. Assess the operational issues and demand implications of intermediate -access at the County line where the current lanes end. The proposed lwo-tolr system presents operational and demand opportunities to improve the overall throughput of the corridor. Financialimplications must also be quantified and considered. 5. Study opportunities for reversible 91 Express Lanes in Orange and _ Riverside counties, similar to lanes in use on Interstate 15 in San Diego County. This may reduce costs and impacts with the proposed. 91 Express Lanes extension. 6. Integrate the concepts above with the Renewed Measure M program that calls for up to four additional lanes between SR-241 and the County line. 7. Evaluate the feasibility of a combination of Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) and other Corridor A alignment options that reduce impacts to the developed portions of Corona and other cities. 8. Evaluate reversible lane configurations of Corridor A to further minimize impacts. 9. Expand the scope of the upcoming traffic and revenue forecast report (by Vollmer Associates) to include an analysis of the RCTC program of projects and the respective implementation timetable. 10.Inform the rating agencies as well as the company that insures the 2003 91 Express Lanes bonds (Ambac Assurance Corporation), and the 91 Express. Lanes bondholders on the recent proposals, planned analysis and financial impacts of the proposals, and commit to a full briefing on Vollmer Associates traffic and revenue results. 11.Conduct a legal review and analysis on the ability to assign the rights of the franchise agreement and the resulting implications to the Master Indenture of Trust for the 91 Express Lanes Toll Road Revenue Refunding Bonds. -32 To: Regional. Planning and Highways Committee From. Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer Subject: Riverside County Highway Plan to Extend 91 Express Lanes Overview The Riverside 'County Transportation Commission has adopted a 10-year highway expansion plan that needs to be integrated with planning, financial, and legislative commitments made by Orange County Transportation Authority to relieve congestion along the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) corridor. Recommendations A. Provide guidance to staff and members of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee in preparation for their meeting of February 2, M07. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to enter- into : a cost -sharing arrangement with the Riverside County Transportation Commission to advance an interim Riverside Freeway '(State 'Route 91) improvement project, in an amount not to exceed $250,000, from 91 Express Lanes funds. Background Assembly Bill 1010 (Chapter 688, Statuteof 2002) enabled Orange County Transportation Authority (Authority) to' acquire and operate the 91 Express Lanes. Since its acquisition in 2003, the Authority has implemented policies and projects to . reduce overall congestion along the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91). In addition, the Authority in conjunction with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) and the Foothill/Eastern . Transportation Corridor Agency (FIE TCA) has developed a comprehensive plan for long -teen transportation solutions to ease the commute of residents between the counties. More recently, .RCTC has adopted a 10�-year (2009-2019). delivery plan focused on implementing improvements- along State :Route 91 (SR-91) including an Orange County .Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O. Box 14184 / Orange/ California 92863-15841(714) 560-AUTHOR(TY(6282) 33 Riverside County Highway Plan to Extend 91 Express Lanes Page 2. extension of the 91 Express Lanes to the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15). A = more extensive discussion of the above was presented . to the Board of Directors on January.8, 2007 (Attachment A). Discussion Staff has reviewed the RCTC 10-year delivery plan and identified the .following* discussion issues with respect to planning, financial, and institutional: coordination. • The RCTC plan offers significant mobility improvements for the SR-91 corridor. The .-plan; calls for new general purpose lanes,: interchange improvements, and an extension of the current 91 Express" Lanes to Interstate. 15 (I-.15). T,h , ese projects need to be iritegrated with' Orange County plans. 'in addition, the plan evaluated but does not recommend an elevated, tolled viaduct, similar t& the SR-91 Major: Investment Study Corridor concept, in the median of SR-91 from the Foothill Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) tattle'I-15 With respect to financial considerations, the Authority has $18.3,510,000 outstanding in 91- Express Lanes bonds that are secured solely by: the toll road's net revenues. The bonds were sold based. upon a :traffic and revenue report prepared by Vollmer Associates in 2003.. Vollmer Associates is currently updating their report, Which. is due early 2007' An analysis of the RCTC delivery plan will be 'thoroughly evaluated by Vollmer Associates to determine the financial impacts .to;.the 91 ,Express Lanes. ■ Lastly, franchise rights purchased by: the Authority include an exclusive, irrevocable right to develop and operate toll lanes in an area bounded by two imaginary tines running a distance of 1.5. miles on either side of SR-91 from 1-15 in Riverside County westward to ,the Orange County boundary with Los Angeles County. Staff' has prepared suggested Authority goals for:: discussion with RCTC to advancethe proposed 1 0-year delivery plan (Attachment B): Following review and action by theRegionalPlanning and Highways Committee, these goals will be presented to the Authority Board of Directors on January 22, 2007, prior to the next SR-91 Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for February 2, 2007. 34 Riverside County. Higliway'Plan to Extend 91 Express Lanes Page 3 Other Matters The RCTC and the California Department of Transportation (Cal cans) are advancing near -term interim solutions along SR-91. An immediate project to relieve a bottleneck on SR 91 in the City of Corona is relocating the median barriers and re -striping lanes. This project has been funded by Ca!trans at $1 million and is ready to proceed. During the development of the project scope it was determined that drainage improvements were needed to prevent flooding ,in the median. Given the costs for the drainage improvements and the rising cost of - construction materials, the engineer's estimate has increased from $1 million to $1.5 million. As a result, Caltrans is on the verge of delaying the project. This project status was discussed at the last SR-91 Advisory Committee meeting with a request for assistance. Accordingly, Authority and RCTC staff are proposing to jointly fund the cost increase and keep the project on schedule. The Authority share could be funded from 91 Express Lanes proceeds. It is understood that upon opening of the construction bids,_ Cal ins funds will be applied first, and RCTC and the Authority will equally fund any overage up to a maximum of $250,000 each. Summary The Riverside County 10-year delivery plan will be presented at the next SR-91 Advisory Committee meeting. The Riverside County proposal adds needed capacity to this corridor, and the proposed improvements will be integrated with: Orange County plans and priorities. At the same time,. the Authority must analyze the financial and operational issues and discuss specific operations agreements with RCTC in conjunction with discussion regarding assignment of the Authority's franchise agreement: 35 Riverside County Highway Plan to Extend 91 Express Lanes Page 4. Attachments Riverside County Highway Plan to Extend 91 Report, dated January 8, 2007 Orange County Goals to Support Riverside : County 10-Year Delivery Plan Kia Mortazavi Director , Strategic. Planning (714) 560-5741 36 Paul C. Tayl Executive Director, Development (71 4) 560-5431 AGENDAATEM. 7.H. REVISED AGENDA ITEM 7H Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by Str-iket#fee§# RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Programming of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve programming $24.5 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the North Main Corona Metrolink parking structure and proceed with an AB 3090 Agreement with the California Transportation Commission to reprogram State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The North Main Corona Metrolink parking structure was approved in 2002 for $11 million of STIP/IIP funds. To date, $1.5 million has been allocated for environmental and design work. The remaining $9.5 million is programmed for construction. The design phase included the development of plans for three different parking structure configurations. At its September 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved building parking structure C at the North Main Corona station as it yielded the most number of spaces at 1,443 (1,098 structure + 345 east lot) to meet the demand indicated in the ridership forecast. Future plans for building parking structures A and B will be brought back to the Commission at a later time. The design phase is near completion and construction costs for parking structure C are estimated at $29,592 million. Additional funds have been committed to cover construction costs including Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, State Transit Assistance (STA), and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds. However, $15 million is still needed to fully fund the project. In addition, the $9.5 million of STIP-IIP funds are currently programmed in FY 2008/09. The Governor's budget proposes to redirect these funds to other programs, which could prohibit the Commission's ability to advance these funds. Agenda Item 7H Staff is proposing to program CMAQ funds to cover the funding gap and the IIP funds in order to meet the current schedule for advertising this summer. The project meets CMAQ eligibility requirements and is an excellent candidate for these funds. The programming of the North Main Corona parking structure is proposed as follows: Fund Source Amount (000's) STIP IIP 4-97600 FTA 5307 1,000 STA 3,524 LTF 568 CMAQ 24,500 a-I}-A00 Total $ 29, 592 There are sufficient CMAQ funds from Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEALU) to cover this project. The Commission did not commit all of the SAFETEALU funds in order to cover project cost increases and/or projects that were delayed due to the state budget crisis. Therefore, the programming of CMAQ funds for the North Main Corona parking structure is consistent with the Commission's direction. CMAQ funds are required to be locally matched at 11.47%. The local funding identified in the table above covers the match requirement. Upon approval by the Commission, staff will proceed with requesting an AB 3090 Agreement with the California Transportation Commission /CTC) to secure the STIP funds and reprogram them onto another project to be determined later. Staff will also amend the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) to reflect the updated funding. Construction of parking structure C is anticipated to begin in Winter 2008. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $24,500,000 $15,000,000 Source of Funds: Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 221-33-41403 P 3808 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \A„1"4":itilue Date: 2/13/07 1 /22/07 Agenda Item 7H RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM:. Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT• • Programming of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the North Main Corona Metrolink Parking Structure BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve programming $15 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the North Main Corona Metrolink parking structure. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The North Main Corona Metrolink parking structure was approved in 2002 for $11 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds. To date, , $ 1.5 . million has been allocated for environmental and design work. The remaining $9.5 million is programmed for construction. The design phase included the development of plans for three different parking structure configurations. At its September 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved building parking structure C at the North Main Corona station as it yielded the most number of spaces at 1,443 (1,098 structure + 345 east lot) to meet the demand indicated in the ridership forecast. Future plans for building parking structures A and B will be brought back to the Commission at a later time. The design phase is near completion and construction costs for parking structure C are estimated at $29.592 million. Additional funds have been committed to cover construction costs including Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, State Transit Assistance (STA), and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds. However, $ 15 million is still needed to fully fund the project. Staff is proposing to program CMAQ funds to cover the fundinggap since the project meets eligibility requirements and , is an excellent candidate for CMAQ funds. Agenda Item 7H 37 The programming of the North Main Corona parking structure is proposed as follows: Fund Source Amount (000`s) STIP IIP $ 9,500 FTA 5307 1,000 STA 3,524 LTF 568 CMAQ 15,000 Total $ 29,592 There are sufficient CMAQ funds from Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEALU) to cover this project. The Commission: did not commit all of the SAFETEALU funds in order to cover project cost increases and/or 7.projects that were delayed due to the state budget crisis. Therefore, the programming of . CMAQ funds for the North .Main Corona parking structure is consistent with the Commission's direction. Upon approval by the Commission, staff will amend the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) to reflect the updated funding. Construction of parking structure C:is anticipated to begin in Winter 2008.. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $15,000,000` Source of Funds: Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.:: 221-3.3-41403 P 380,8 Fiscal Procedures. Approved: \litm,Aii.' 1,04 Date: 1 /22/07 Agenda Item 7H 38 AGENDA ITEM 71 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Norco STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Norco as submitted. 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 orderto receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the county of Riverside (representing the unincorporated area of the Coachella Valley) must be participating in Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) 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 Norco was approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2006 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The city of Norco is requesting to amend its FY 2007 Measure A plan to add one widening project, Second Street, 1-15 to Corona, in the amount of $442,000 in order to utilize available 19976 bond proceeds that were set aside for the Yuma interchange project area. Attachment: Letter from the City of Norco with Revised FY 2007 Schedule Agenda Item 71 39 CITY of NORCO 79170 Org. to TT CITY HALL • 2870 CLAM( AVENUE • NORCO CA 92860 •, )951) 735-3900 • FAX (951) 270.5622 1 January 11, 2007 Theresia Trevino Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 ECEUV ( RPo�JAN 177 ZN0ii0YY7 �J 'TRA►ISPOR1ATIONC0 AISSION Dear Ms. Trevino: Pursuant to our conversation this morning, I am sending you a revised copy of the City of Norco Five -Year Capital Improvement Program Measure "A" Fund. Also attached is the City's original request for reimbursement Please submit your remittance to the City of Norco, 2870 Clark Avenue, Norco, CA 92860. If you prefer, a wire may be submitted as per previous instructions. . If a wire is being sent, please notify myself or Olivia Hoyt at (951) 270-5652 upon completion of the requested payment. Sincerely, Andy • oto Director of Fiscal and Su • port Servies ljk-63980 Enclosures: Revised Five -Year CIP Measure "A" Fund Original request dated October 26, 2006 c: Bill Thompson X.29.13 CITY COUNCIL • HARVEYSULLIVAN FRANK HALL - KATHYAZEYEDO HALCLARK HERE HIGGINS Mayor Maya Pro Tom 'Council Mortar Council Member Cowl Monte 40 • City of Norco, Californb f7ve-Year Capital improvement Program Measure 'A' Projects Fund 137 Fiscal Years 2007through 2011,,. REVISED Sources of Funds: Beginning Fund Balance July 1 Measure "A" Revenues investment Earnings total Sources of Funds Uses of Funds: Overlay: Valley View Avenue - First to Sierra and Sixth to River Dr. Sierra Avenue - Fffth to Sixth Streets Tally -Ho Lane - Corona to End of Cul-de-sac Smokewood Dr. - Sierra to West end Seventh St. - Woodward Avenue to Sierra Ave Pedley Avenue - Seventh St. to Eighth St. - Hillside - Sixth St. to River Dr. Rocky View Misc. Pavement Overlays Rehab and Overlay . WS River Road East of Bluff St Bluff St -River Rd to Vine WIS Hillside Ave blw 2nd and 3rd Street Paces Peak - Sbdtr to Mt Shasta River Dr. Temescal io Eighth Canaria Ave. - First to Second Reservoir -Corona to Temescal Hillside - Second To Third Golden Gate Circle Normnian Dr. Fihh St. to Norco Dr. Pertcridge - Second to'Kips Kramer Riding Ring, Western, Caballeros, Indian Horse, Roan Ct Western Ave - Fifth St to South End 3rd St -Valley Vw to Corona;3rd St -Hillside to End; Raquel Widen Streets: I Hamner Ave. @ Second Street 4923-5 100.000 FY 2006/2007 FY 2007/2008 FY 2008/2003 FY 2009/2010 FY 2010/201f $ 2.840..108 936,261 85,203 532.570 969,030 15,977 454,577 72,081 1,002,946 1,038.049 14,537 2,162 182,272 1,074,381 5,468 $ 3,801.570 1,517,577 1,502,061 1.112,272 1,262,121 FY 2006/2007 FY 2007/2008 . FY 2008/2009 FY 2009/2010 FY 2010/2011 350,000 150.000 75.000 35.000 35.000 75,000 228.000 128.01)0 100,000 250.000250,000 250,000 4922 23 - 250,000 4922-24 150,000 4922-8 - 4922-25. 60,000 - 4922-18 275,000 4922-5 176,000 - 4922-17 - - • 400,000 4922-11 - 25.000: 4922-26 200.000 4922-12 128.000 - 4922-27 150.000 4922-28 70,000 4922-29 350,000 4921-6 492141 4921.6 4921-8 4921-8 4921-6 4921-8 4921-6 4921-6 127 41 180,000 City Morro, California FIve-Year Capital Improvement Program Measure "A" Projects Fund 137' F7sosl Years 2007 through 2011 REVISED FY 200612007 . FY 2007/2008 FY 2009 2009 - FY2009/2010 FY 20102011 Hamner Ave. .Hidden Valley 4923-6 50.000 ascend Street -1-15 to Corona (Memo only for Bond Reimbursement) 442,000 Street Reconstruction: . : Sierra Ave. Fourth to Third Street Crestview Ave. North to Sbdh St. 1 Misc. Reconatruction Projects i -TUMF Projects Match -Hidden Valley l River Drive - Center to Hillside $Iulf Street = Vine to River Road Traffic Signal Improvements: Traffic Signal Improvements 4920-3 50.000 50,000 Fifth St. SignalImprovements 4920-4 50000 50,000 Sierra Ave. it Sixth St Street 4920-5 50.000 Street, Striping 4928-1 30.000 30,000 Miscellaneous Seal Coats 4924-1 50.000 50,000 Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs 4925-1 70,000 50,000 , Total Uses of Funds ; Ending Fund Balance June 30 4928 2 3.35 000 - 4928-3 554000 4928-5 200,000 4928-B - 4928-7 45000 4928-8 64.000 128 42 3.329,000 1.033,000 25,000 50.000 - 50.000 50.000 50;000 ` 30,000 30.000. 30,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000.. '50.000 50,000 1,430,000' 930,000 810,000 532.570 484,577 72.061. 182.272 452,121 AGENDA ITEM 7J RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRAI USPOR TA TION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February.14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Extension for Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with BRE Properties for Joint Development at the La Sierra Metrolink Station BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for Jhe Commission to: 1) Approve a six-month extension for the exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with BRE Properties for joint development at the La Sierra Metrolink station; 2) Direct staff to enter into discussions with BRE Properties regarding an increase in the good faith deposit up to an additional $25,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to. Legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 2006 meeting, the Commission awarded ENA No. 07-67-004-00, for joint development at the La Sierra_ Metrolink station to BRE Properties for an . 180-day period. The ENA allows for the Commission to negotiate exclusively with BRE Properties. Upon execution of the ENA, BRE Properties provided the required $25,000 good faith deposit. The ENA expires on February 19, 2007. Representatives from the Commission, BRE Properties, Best Best & Krieger, the city of Riverside Planning and Redevelopment and Keyser. Marston Associates (real estate financial advisory) have had several meetings to discuss various matters regarding the . proposed project; however, critical issues related to the legal framework and structure of the deaf to allow development of' both the public parking and private development components of the project remain unresolved due to the complexity. Commission staff and BRE Properties are requesting a six-month extension of the ENA to provide additional time . to continue to resolve these issues. Agenda Item 7J ;Section 2a of the ENA. provides for an increase in the deposit up to an additional: $25.,000' :upon agreernent between the Cornmission and the developer to "cover' costs: and, expenses that: may exceed the initial good faith deposit.. Upon .extension of the ENA, staff will enter into discussions with. increase in the deposit. Financial Information In Fiscal .Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount:. N/A Source of Funds:'.` N/A Budget' Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved Agenda Item 7J 44 Date: 01 /22/07 AGENDA ITEM 7K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 . TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, . Executive Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update. STAFF, RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission .to receive and file the Commuter Rail program Update asan information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County ('1E0C) Weekend Service Daily passenger trips on, ;the new year --round IE'O.0 Metrolink weekend service have remained consistent since December. This expanded service provides both an extension to ourexisting services for transit dependent riders and . existing commuter passengers as well as a viable alternative to driving into Orange. County, introducing entirely new users to the Metrolink .system. Cumulative Passenger Trips IEOC, Weekend Service . First week of school 35,000 30,000 S. . 25,000 F 20000 c 15,000 4 10,000 5,000 0- i\tO To date, the IEOC weekend service has provided 30,565 passenger trips since commencing July 15, 2006. This constitutes 11,633 additional trips resulting from year-round service compared to last year's 18,932 Summerlink seasonal trips. Growth of . the service reflects ongoing marketing efforts coordinated among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG): Agenda Item 7K 45 Riverside Line 5,400 5,000 4,600 T4200 c 3,800 3,400 3,000 2,600 UP Track Work Passenger Trips Riverside Line o`° Off, �rk< ' Fti<1 crP o`O o0 00 0`� � ; o� vs? �a� �J� PO4 cool, \40J Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside line for the month of December averaged 4,280, a decrease of 740, 15 % less than the month of - November. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily - increase of 32 passenger trips, nearly .`:1 % more than ayea'r ago', Dece.rnb`er 2005: 100 am 95 a� 90 85 as 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) UP Track Work Riverside Line n�0 OHO ot. A�o rO I 6 ro A A�O RI �`� �o�' �o` PJ�d° �� of Dec,• Month December on -time performance averaged 86% inbound (-4% from November) and 90% outbound (-1 % from November). There were 29 delays greater' than five minutes during the month of December. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7K 46 IEOCLine 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line GAh .Q0 ‘i:t . w- fpp pp ,prO p6 P�o pro C Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 1E0C line for the month of December averaged . 4,204, a decrease of :522 trips, 1 1 % less than the month of November. The Line has increased by 552 daily trips or 15% from a year ago December 2005. 100 95 90 a) 85 d 80. a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line �G�� A6 �a`" T pro _ pp Aro Epp pro ,p6 pro Aro Pit `Sad�J� 0G� ,,,64 4000 Month December on -time performance averaged 96'% southbound (-4% from November) and 94% northbound (+7% from November). There were 36 delays greater than five minutes during the month of December. The following are primary causes: ...�`:fz..��.. Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations �f�'Y �. �$ •! � k' 4 5 0 7 �.�`��.�f�:v�'.,vfi32 25%' 31 % 0% 44% TOTAL g•#�' -, s"y �l.� , . r, ' s jsz ,c� �k�1x , z�'w 3•�i�'y/r �'� � C.".�'� � x� Agenda Item 7K 47 91 Line 2,800 2,600 u, 2,400 a. 2,200 c 2,000 u 1,800 1,600 1,400 Passenger Trips 91 Line 0 p`O. ,o`O ,06 00 o`O bo o`O Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Metrolink's 91 line for the .month of December averaged 1,883, a -:decrease.; of- 209 trips, 10% less than the :month of November. The Line has increased by 82 daily trips or 5 % from a year ago December 2005. ' 100 a> 95 a>. 90 .:3 co 80 a. 75 70 h On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line o� , a�oo t-oo �o�o moo J\o�o Month December: on -time: performance averaged 98 % inbound (+ 5 % , from November) and 95 % outbound (+ 2 % : from November) . There were 13 delays greater than; five minutes during the month of December.. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching, Mechanical Operations Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metroiink Schedule Adherence: Summary - Weekday Service Agenda Item 7K 48 ydeJO pull ijeiIInW Pus Mel stsPIN ehy %Z %9 %9 L %'L %Z %Z- % L' %8 90 30a sn 94 39C -96ue4o % %0 %01- o/° L L- %L L- %14- %6- off9- 90 noN 9A g0 asp °Bugg J % % %0 "AZ %L^ %0 %Z- %tr %£ L- .%0 - %6 Yo L- Zt79`LE 99l'Ztr 089'Z$P 15£'Z'b 06£` 44' 906` 1b 060 Ztr 1791'Zt7 9614t, 9£6`6£ 99e017 £V£`0SP L96`9£ £98` L Z60`Z .` 917Z Z 91b' Z tZt7`Z £9tr'Z Z9£`Z 9Zb` Z 6LZ'Z 6L L' Z E9trZ 466` 6 WW1, bOZ' 1r 9Z1`b 9E9%7 999'tr 969'b .179V - 179E`tr Lev'tr 86£'b b9E'ta 9L9'tr 6$Z'tr Z99`£ 119'9 Z/9'9 1.99`9 9 L1b`9 86£'9 9/9'9 EE9`9 09.9`9 98£'9 96 L `9 88Z'9 L81 `9 009 S • 08Z'tr. OZO'9 09617 901`b LOS`ti 9L17`b SZ9`b 99L `b 6L5`tr L88'£. 81.9`b BrZ1' 9/9 /179 014 Z99 ZZ9 L£9 959 E99 Ltr9 L99 0179 £b9 £99 9/6'01. L90`Z L L6Z`ZL 90Z`ZL £99' L L 199411 9S6'LL 9Z£'Z1 999' L L Ltr6`LL £69' Z 6 9L8` L b £L6'LL tr89`9 BIM /91.`/ ZL L' L 81Z'L 69Z'L Z6Z'L 89Z'L 917011 Z£8'9 96L'9 9tr6'9 ZL9'9. ZZ9`£ 996'E 010`V L£0`b 0176'£ 000`b Z9 6'tr bLZ'b 966`£ LS8`£ 08L'£ Z06`£ 917VE 90 oea 90 AoN 90 PO 901nf 90 unr 90 JEW 90 WA 90 uer, 50 oea a31Snf Ob AvanoH - MOamm H1NOW N33.1?211H1 _Sh111.12i3ON3SSVd AVCDI33M_30"sqI3AV MNI1011131N • %t►6 %WI % 76 %E6 :' %96 W %SS %b6 %96 .. °%96' °%86 • °/%86 t%96: %Pe %96 •uogelnpieo eurp-uo 94 uI popnlousiou e?e sule4 p8hnuubLL ••uolteuguel go iulod ae.euug-uQ evane Aein 11 lO p�eplsuoo eue suite peieuiuua •sAegep algenallal Jot epees useq eneq stuemen(pe oN %S6°%06, .. %,16. . %g9 '1086 m. %96 %t+8 %96 %P6 " %06 ' %-06 °%98 /°L6.._ . %96 emu pempaps eelnum S umm °%96 °%L6 %t+6 °%S6 . %S6 °%L6 supi ._ if) Oa 90 oel7 %l6 %16 %06 . %£6 %£6 %L9 %Z6 %68 %99 516 °%06 %96 - : %86'. . '/o1.6 %.16 ;< %Z6 - %16 %69 %98 90 nON. %96 %96 %L6 %96 %b6 °%56 %Se %96 %SB %66 %L6 %86 %001 ' %t6 %96 %tr6 %96 %96 %001 %S6 %V6 %56 %S6 %96 . %98 %88 %96 %Z6. %96 %86 %Z6 %66. %t►6 %S6 %g6 %96 %86 °%96 90 lo0. 90 des %b6 %S6 %V6 %S6 %Z6 %Z6 ToZ6 %96 %16 %96 °%56 %S6 %66: %96 %t6 %£6' /°£6 %96 % /.6. 90 Bny . %Se %SB %t6 %Z6 %tP6 °%tr6 %06 °%LB %96 %96 %96 %P6 %96 %tr6 %b6 %96 %86 90 In %£6 %£6 %b6 %L8 %88 %LB %t►8 %69 %tr6 %FS %SS % 16 %86 • %86 %96 %Se °%L6 %£6 946 90 un f. %96 %S6 %96 %96 %£6 %£6 %96 °%Le %h6 %o 16 %t6 %S6 %S6 °%St %96 %96 %L6 °%S6 %86 90 AeW °%b6 %£6 %96 %68 %06 %98 %96 °%b6 %06 ' %Z6 %86 %66 %001 %Se %66 °% 16 °%t6 °%56 °%86; 90 �dV %£6 %£6 %£6 °/oZ6 %g9 °%LB ' %98' °%56 %19 %2L %98 %001 %001 °%96 %Le %£6 %g6 %L6 . %£6 90 JEW %£6 °%Z6 %Se °/(26 %t+6.. %69 %06 %l6 %S6 °/oL9 %£8 %L6 %66 %L6 %96. °%£6 °%96 %96 %66 . 90 9ed %Z6 %16 %£6 %O6 %06 %98 °/oZ6 %68 %£6. %9L %9L %Le %86 %96 °%66 °% 16 %Z6 %Z6 • %96 90 uer °%V6 %t6 %S6 %69 %L9 %06. °%06-- °%92 %16 %176 %L6 SH1N011 S1101V1 auwj1 pelnpeyoS;o septum 9 WON Buin»ni suM1 jo aDquaoaed 3011/1213S AVa>133M - Awnou s 39N3213HCV 3111031.19S MNI1ON13'IAI %66 %00 t' %tr6 %L6 %S6 %96.` %96 %L6 SO a • AGENDA ITEM 7L • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love; 'Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 1) Approve Agreement No. 07-62-096-00 with A-M-M-A for the development of a Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan for Riverside County; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf, of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 12, 2006 meeting, ,,staff was directed to release a request for proposal (RFP) to develop a Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan. The plan is required as a result of two new funding sources made possible through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEALU): 1) Jobs Access. Reverse Commute (Section 5316) provides formula' funding for the development and maintenance of job access projects to transport ,welfare recipients and low-income individuals to and from work during non -peak -hours as well as supply reverse commute options for workers in suburban cores; and 2) New Freedoms (Section 5317) provides formula funding. for new public transportation services and alternatives for people with disabilities beyond what is required by the Americans' with Disabilities Act (ADA). ' Previously, FTA made funding available for the Jobs Access Reverse Commute program through a discretionary process. Agenda Item 7L 51 The RFP was; distributed to approximately 66 firms. A total of four proposals were received as a result. Consultant interviews were conducted on January 9, 2007:: The evaluation committee consisted of Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Agency, Lorna Foster, Caltrans District 8, John Mason,Caltrans - (Sacramento) and Tanya Love. The evaluation committee utilized the following criteria to evaluate the proposals: 1) Qualification and experience of the firm; 2) Staffing and project organization; 3) Work plan; 4) Cost and price; and 5) Completeness of response. The following table provides a listing of each firm-, the proposed costs (labor _ and expenses) together with the evaluation committee's ranking: FIRM A-M-M-A Moore & Associates PROPOSED COSTS (LABOR & EXPENSES) $99,974 $88,305 2 IBI Group $99,150 Wilbur Smith .Associates $ 119, 788 4 The evaluation committee recommends A-M-M-A be retained to develop the Public . . Transit -Human Services Transportation Coordination, Plan for Riverside County due to its experience in developing plans as well as the 'firm's familiarity . with the. Commission's Specialized Transit program. A-M-M-A recently completed the coordinated plans for San Luis Obispo, Ventura and ;San Diego and , is under contract with Los Angeles to complete its plan requirements. _ Financial Information In Fiscal Year ,Budget: Y ._ Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $99,974 Source of Funds: Measure A Specialized Transit Western County (50%) Local Transportation Funds -Planning (50%) Budget Adjustment:. • N • GLA No.: 106-65-81501 $50,000 225-26-81501 $50,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ' `10/ Date: 1 /22/07 , Agenda Item 7L 52 AGENDA ITEM 7M REVISED AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Control Measure Replacement Projects for the SR-60 Part-time High Occupancy Vehicle Conversion Demonstration Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the recommended Transportation Control Measure (TCM) replacement projects necessary to provide mitigation for the SR 60 Part-time High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Conversion Lane Demonstration Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SCAG's Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) recently released for public review Caltrans' proposal to convert the HOV lane on SR-60 (between Day Street and Redlands Blvd.) to operate as a mixed flow lane during off peak hours. This is a demonstration project over a three year timeframe. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Transportation Conformity Rule requires federal projects that have been included as Transportation Control Measure (TCM) in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) to undergo a substitution process in the event projects are not implemented. Given that the emissions reductions for the SR-60 HOV project has been accounted for in the regional transportation conformity analysis, EPA is requiring that Caltrans follow the TCM substitution process to address the increase in vehicular emissions resulting from the SR-60 HOV conversion from a full-time to part-time operation. Caltrans has asked the Commission for assistance in identifying substitution projects. The primary requirement for these projects is that they are not currently identified as TCM's in the FTIP, fill the gap in the emissions levels caused by converting the HOV lane from full-time to part-time, and would be implemented during the same time frame of the conversion project. Agenda Item 7M Commission staff determined that a new FSP beat and expansion beat, currently in the pipeline, could achieve the emissions needed. We contacted our on -call air quality consultant, Ray Gorski, to conduct the air quality analysis for the TCM substitution projects. His analysis was also part of the substitution report submitted to SCAG and the results are noted below: SR-60 Part-time HOV Facility Criteria Pollutant Shortfalls Criteria Pollutant Emissions Shortfall FSP Beats Oxides of Nitrogen (NO.) Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 0.04 ton/day 0.01 ton/day 0.08 ton/day 0.38 ton/day A summary of the FSP beats are noted below: 1. FSP beat: Beat No. 7 Freeway: SR-60 Boundaries: Main Street to Milliken Street # of Trucks: 2 One-way length: 11.72 miles Start date: March 5, 2007 2. FSP beat: Beat No. 19 Freeway: 1-215 Boundaries: Alessandro Boulevard to SR-74 # of Trucks: 2 One-way length: 10 Start date: July 2, 2007 NEXT STEPS: SCAG recently posted the substitute projects in conjunction with the announcement of the HOV Demonstration Project for a 30-day comment period. On March 1, 2007, SCAG will ask the Regional Council to approve the TCM substitution projects in support of the HOV conversion project. The TCM substitution projects will be identified in the next FTIP Amendment put forth by SCAG, which is anticipated to be federally approved by June 1, 2007. Pending no other actions or comments by the federal agencies, the SR 60 HOV conversion is scheduled to occur by June 30, 2007. Agenda Item 7M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS/OIU DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH; Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 60 Mixed Flow h .. Occupancy g p y Vehicle Lane Hi Mitigation Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the recommended list of replacement transportation control measure (TCM) projects necessary to provide mitigation for the SR-60 mixed flow high occupancy vehicle (NOV) lane demonstration project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Energy and Environment Committee (EEC) recently released for public review, the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) proposal for the HOV lane on SR-60 between Day Street and Redlands Boulevard to operate as a mixed flow lane during off peak hours. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has since expressed a . concern about the increase in vehicular emissions . that may occurdue to this conversion. In order to alleviate this concern, Commission staff working in conjunction with SCAG and Caltrans staff, have been coordinating on the selection of replacement projects to act as mitigation. The primary 'requirement for these projects is that they must be projects that are not currently identified as TCM's in the: Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). `Selecting projects that meet this requirement will allow the Commission and its partners to assign them to the SR-60 mixed flow HOV demonstration project as it continues to move through the public review and approval process. DISCUSSION: SCAG modeling of the SR=60 mixed flow HOV demonstration project indicates an increase of 380 pounds ofadditional carbon monoxide (CO) per day and 80 pounds of additional oxides of nitrogen (NOx) per day, resulting from the mixed .flow operation of the HOV during off peak hours. After analysis and review of the SCAG impacts and the list of potential projects, the following toolbox of projects is Agenda Item 7NI recommended_ by staff to be used in order to offset the above referenced impacts as follows: North Main Corona Parking Structure: Advancing this project for this use and consideration of its 830 parking spaces ,would result in the reduction of 310 lbs/day of CO and 32.4 lbs/day .of NOx.. Perris Park and Ride Facility: This project plans for the construction o 140 park and ride spaces and will be operated as a transit center in= conjunction with Riverside Transit. Agency (RTA) bus activities. Standard modeling practices indicate that it will provide_ a reduction of 39.8 -lbs/day of CO and 4.1 Ibslday pf NOx. This station isexpected to be funded by RTA as well as in part from Commuter Assistance Measure A reserves and the Commissions Rail Department. It will continue to serve as a park and ride lot upon full build of, the station for the anticipated. Perris Valley Line (PVL) Metrolink. ; Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 'Beat Expansion: Two new 'FSP beats that are planned for implementation and. ,will! serve to provide a reduction of 70 lbstday of CO and 14. Ibs/day of :NOx. These beats; are as follows: FSP Beat No. 7. Freeway: SR-60 Boundaries: Main St. to Milliken St. No. of Trucks: 2 One-way length: 11.72 miles Start date:. March 5, 2007 FSP Beat No. 19 Freeway: 1-215 Boundaries: Alessandro Blvd. to SR-74 No of Trucks: 2 One-way length: 10 Start date: July 2, 2007 Intersection Signalization: This project intends that the implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Calle' . Aurora and Vista Conejo Drive/Krameria Avenue in the city of, Moreno Valley and the concurrent elimination of the existing, stop signs will result in the reduction of 76 lbs/day of CO and 27 Ibsklay of NOx.; Agenda Item 7M 54 • NEXT STEPS: SCAG will post these projects in conjunction with the announcement of the HOV demonstration project. There will be a 30-day comment period. On March 1, 2007, SCAG will ask the Regional Council to approve the TCM replacement projects as put forth by the Commission .and its partners and forward them to appropriate federal agencies for approval.. Upon approval by the Regional Council, the TCM replacement projects will be identified in the next .FTIP amendment put forth by SCAG, which is anticipated to occur on April 25, 2007. This is contingent upon no ' major comments being received during the public comment or federal review process. SCAG staff expects approval of the FTIP amendment to be made by June 1, 2007, which at that point, the TCM replacement project list approval becomes effective. Lastly, both the North Main Corona parking structure and the two FSP beats have been approved by previous Commission actions. The Moreno Valley intersection will be funded by the city of Moreno Valley. The Perris park and ride facility will be forwarded to the Commission at a future date for further action. Agenda Item 7M 55 AGENDA ITEM 71W • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Robert Yates; ProgramManager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley. Air Quality Enhancement Grant STAFF ` RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1)` Accept the Coachella Valley Air Quality Enhancement Grant funds; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize a budget amendment to create additional- spending authority to accommodate the contract. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On September 29, 2006, the Commission's Commuter Assistance .program (CAP) responded to a call for projects put forth by the county of Riverside Executive Office for Coachella Valley Air Quality Enhancement Project proposals. The CAP response to the call consisted of a proposal and work plan designed to implernent the $2/day Advantage. Rideshare incentive program into the Coachella Valley region. On January 10, 2007, the Commission was notified by the Executive Office that it was successful with its proposal to provide the incentive along with a request to enter into a grant agreement to accept the funds. DISCUSS/ON: The Commission's CAP was implemented in Western Riverside County as a specific requirement under Measure A to address congestion mitigation. Through the use of incentives (both for beginning and maintaining a rideshare arrangement), the CAP seeks to influence driver behavior by making a rideshare decision attractive to commuters. While ridesharing does have a beneficial impact on mobility, it also has quantifiable and demonstrated positive affects on air quality. Through the reduction in vehicle trips obtained through ridesharing, an associated reduction in pounds of pollutants` emitted is also realized. This aspect . of theincentive program was the premise behind the staff proposal to Riverside County for the grant. Agenda Item 7N 56 While the Commission does makean effort to work with , Coachella Valley employers; due to differences' in Measure A funding streams, the Commission is not able to offer its $2/day Advantage Rideshare incentive program outside of: Western 'Riverside: County. This leaves the CAP without a valuable toot in its quest to foster ridesharingarrangements and reduce solo vehicle commuting habits in. the Coachella Valley area. With this grant and in coordination with Coachella Valley Association o Governments ICVAG) and SunLine Transit Agency, staff intends to construct a two-year demonstration project to develop a new employer marketing prograrn, offering the $2/day 'Advantage Rideshare incentive to employees commuting in the Coachella Valley. It is anticipated that with this effort, it will motivate 50 . new Coachella Valley employers to work with the CAP. From this, it is expected that it will gain approximately 400 new incentive program participants . (employee commuters) who .are willing to rideshare in the Coachella Valley. The following benefits are projected to be received as a result of this demonstration: 329 Vehicles Reduced 35,554 One-way Vehicle Trips Reduced 1,031,054 Vehicle Miles Saved 18,782 Pounds of Emissions Reduced Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $75 000 Source,. of Funds: Riverside ,County ` Budget Adjustment: ° ' Yes. 226 41 81001 P2184 $37,500 Program IVlanagement GLA No. 226 41 81030 P2184 $37,500 Certificates/Vouchers "and `Subsidies 226 41 41203 P2184` $75,000 Local/Other Reimbursements Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/Date: 1/25./07 Agenda Item 7N 57 AGENDA ITEM 70 i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding No. 07-31-097-00 for the Funding and Joint Development of State Highway 111 Improvements from Washington Street to West City Limits within the City of La Quinta BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve memorandum of understanding (MOU) No. 07-31-097-00 for the funding reimbursement of state highway improvements within the city of La Quinta; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved $12 million for the Coachella Valley Measure A state highway program of projects and cash flow. As a result, nine projects were programmed for funding under the Measure A Tier II SR-86 and Highway 111 projects. The city of La Quinta has submitted its request for funding of the fifth of the nine projects, which is from Washington Street to the west city limits. Staff recommends approval of the MOU with the city of La Quinta, consistent with the approved list of Tier II SR-86 and Highway111 project improvements. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $321,255 Source of Funds: Measure A CVAG Highways Budget Ad ustment: N GLA No.: 253— 31-81301 P3415 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ /teuez:Nit ULn Date: 1/22/07 • Attachment: MOU with City of La Quinta Agenda Item 70 58 • Agreement No. 07-31-097-00 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE FUNDING AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT OF STATE HIGHWAY 111 IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 1 Parties and Date. 1.1 This Agreement is .executed and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("RCTC") and THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ("CITY"). 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 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1 /2%) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.3 The Plan allocates 20 million dollars for the construction .of improvements . along Route 111 from Ramon . to Indio Boulevard in the Coachella Valley (the "Highway 111 Funds"). 2.4 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 24000 et seq., RCTC is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.5 The City, RCTC and Caltrans are planning certain improvements along State Highway 111 with the City of La Quinta. 2.6 RCTC has determined that the improvements referenced in Section 2.5 above and described more fully herein qualify for Highway 111 Funds: 2.7 RCTC intends, by this Agreement, to provide Highway 111l Funds for the construction of these intersection improvements, subject to the conditions provided herein, and to participate in the joint development of the Project, as defined herein. RVPUB\HSHANE\724416.3 59 Terms. 3.1 Description of Improvements. This- Agreement is intended to provide Highway i l l Funds for design, construction and other services for authorized portions'of the Route 111 improvements currently being planned on Highway 111, from Washington Street to the West City Limits, within the City of La Quinta (the "Project"). The Project is more, fully`described in Exhibit "A attached hereto and, pursuant to Section 3.3 below; -,is subject to modification as requested .by the City and approved by RCTC which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. It is understood and agreed that the City shall expend Highway 111 Funds only as set forth in this Agreement and onlyfor the Project. To this end, any use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreementshall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.2 Funding Amount. RCTC hereby agrees to provide to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, the maximum sum of Three Hundred Twenty -One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty -Five Dollars ($321,255.00) for project development,, right of way acquisition, and construction costs for the Project ("Total Funding Amount"). It is understood and agreed that 100% of the proposed improvements will be installed within the existing State Tight -of -way. The Total Funding Amount represents one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated Project Costs, as defined in Sections 3.14.1 below, and the maximum amount of funding to beprovidedby RCTC for the Project. 3.3 Responsibilities of Parties/Project Description. The responsibilities of the City and RCTC with respect to this Agreement and the successful completion of the Project are described in Exhibit `B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Changes to the characteristics of the Project and any responsibilities of the City or RCTC may be requested in writing by the City and are subject to the approval of RCTC's Representative, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 3.4 Term/Notice of Completion. The term of this. Agreement shall be from the date first herein above written until the date the City provides a written Notice of Completion to RCTC, until termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section3.9 or until June 30, 2009, whichever occurs first. All applicable : indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following .the termination of this Agreement. 3.5: RCTC's Representative. RCTC's Executive Director, or his or her designee, shall ° serve as RCTC's Representative and shall have the authority to act on .behalf of RCTC for all purposes under this Agreement. RCTC's Representative shall also review and give: approval;, as needed, to the details of the City's work as it progresses. 3.6 The City's Representative. The City hereby designates, Tom, P. Genovese, City Manager, or his designee as the City's Representative to RCTC. The City's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement and shall RVPUB\H S HANE\724416.3 2 60 • coordinate all phases of the Project under the City's responsibility. The City shall work closely and cooperate fully with RCTC's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or an interest in the Project. 3.7 Standard of Care; Licenses.. The City and RCTC represent and maintain that they shall implement the Project in a skillful and competent manner and shall only involve in the. Project persons or entities skilled in the calling(s) necessary to perform all services, duties and obligations required to fully and adequately complete the Project. 3.8 . Review of Services: The City and RCTC shall allow RCTC's Representative and City's Representative, respectively, to inspect or review the progress of the Project at any reasonable time in order to determine whether the terms of this Agreement are being met. 3.9 Termination. 3.9.1 Notice. Either RCTC or City may, by written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement for cause in whole or in part at any time, by giving written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon receipt of a written notice of termination, RCTC or the: City, respectively, shall cease expenditure of funds which are expected to be reimbursed with Highway 111 Funds pursuant to this Agreement. 3.9.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination by RCTC or the City, RCTC shall provide Highway 111 Funds towards the Project improvements satisfactorily completed through the date of termination. The City shall provide documentation deemed adequate by RCTC's Representative to show the Project Costs incurred and Project improvements actually completed, prior to the date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate seven (7) days following receipt by the City of the written notice of termination. t 3.9.3 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in ,addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.10 Prevailing Wages. The City and RCTC and any other person or entity hired to perform services on the Project are alerted to the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq., which would require the payment of prevailing wages were the services or any portion thereof determined to be a public work, as defined therein. The City or RCTC, as applicable, shall ensure compliance with these .prevailing wage requirements by any person or entity hired to perform services on the Project. The City shall defend, indemnify; and hold hamiless RCTC, its officers, employees, consultants, and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys, fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, consultants; and agents from any claim or liability, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising from its failure or alleged failure to comply with California Labor Code RVPUBIHSHANE1724416.3 61 _Sections 1770 et seq.. 3.11 Copies of Materials. Each party shall have the right to inspect and to obtain for its record copies of all records and materials which may be prepared by the other party under this Agreement. Indemnification. 3.12.1 City Responsibilities. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RCTC,. its officers, agents; consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costsor liabilityarising from or connected with all activities governed b this Agreement including all � g g y g :g design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City or its sub -consultants. The City will reimburse RCTC for any expenditure, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by RCTC, in defending against claims ultimately determined to be dueto negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of the City. 3.12.2 RCTC Responsibilities. RCTC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless ; the City, its officers, agents, consultants, and employees from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability arising from or connected with, all activities governed by this Agreement including all design and construction activities, due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC or its sub -consultants. RCTC will reimburse the City for any expenditure, ,including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the City, in defending against, claims ultimately de_ termMed to be due to negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct of RCTC. 3.12.3 Effect of Acceptance. The City and RCTC shall be responsible for the professional quality, .technical accuracy and the coordination of any services provided ,to complete the Project. One party's review, acceptance or funding of any services performed by other party or any other person or entity under this agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights the other party hereto may hold under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out such :persons, or entities, performance. Further, the City shall be and remain liable to RCTC, .in accordance with applicable law, for all damages to RCTC caused by the City's negligent' performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project ,.In addition, RCTC shall be and remain liable to the City, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages..to the City caused by RCTC's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any services provided to complete the Project. RV PUB1H SHANE17244 16.3 62 • 3.13 Insurance. The City and RCTC shall require all persons or entities hired to perform services on the Project to obtain, and require their sub -consultants to obtain, insurancer of the. types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to RCTC and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until. completion of the Project, . whichever occurs last. 3.13.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Occurrence version commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to the Project or be no less than two times the occurrence limit. Such insurance shall- 3.13.1.1 Name RCTC and City, their officials, officers, employees,agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the services on the Project and shall contain no special limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; 3.13.1.2 Be primary with respect to any insurance or self insurance programs covering RCTC or City, their officials, officers; employees, agents, and consultants; and 3.13.1.3 Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.13.2 Business . Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned automobiles. 3..13.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 Professional liability insurance shall only be required of design or engineering professionals. 3.13.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. . 3.14 Payment of Total Funding Amount. 3.14.1 Reimbursable Project Costs. Reimbursable Project costs (" Project Costs") include the following items: (1) funds expended in preparation of preliminary engineering study; (2) funds expended for preparation ofenvironmental review documentation for the Project; (3) costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, including right-of-wayengineering, appraisal,. acquisition, legal costs for condemnation procedures if authorized by the City, and costs, of RVPUB\H SHANE\7244 t 6.3 63 reviewing appraisals and offers for property acquisition; (4) costs reasonably incurred if condemnation proceeds; (5) costs incurred in the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates' .. by consultants or staff; (6) staff costs associated with bidding, advertising and awarding of the. Project construction contract; (7) construction costs, including change orders to construction contract approved by the City and ROTC; and (8) construction management, field' inspection and material testing costs. It is understood and agreed that these costs include costs already incurred by the City towards completion of the Project. Project Costs are further described in Exhibit "C' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.14.2 Excluded Project Costs. Project Costs shall not include the following items which shall'be borne solely by the City without reimbursement: (1) City Project coordination costs; (3) City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and payments; (4) any City fees attributed to the processing of the Project. 3.14.3 CoSt/Funding Allocation PercentageDetermination. [Not applicable to this Agreement:] 3.14.4 Payment. RCTC shall pay for Project Costs as they are incurred and invoiced for design work, right-of-way services and any other services under its responsibilities, which payments shall serve as a credit towards the Total Funding Amount: The City shall pay for all Project contract costs and consultant and other costs for services under its responsibilities as they are incurred and invoiced. 3.14.5 SB 300 Reimbursements. [Not applicable:] 3.14.6 Progress Reports. Either party may request the other party to inform it of delays in the Project and provide it with any requested progress reports. 3.14.7 Reimbursement for Expenses. The City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC's Representative. 3:15 Change Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by RCTC and, City. 3.16 Conflict of Interest: For the .term of this Agreement; no member, officer or employee of the City or ROTC, during the term of his or her service with the City or ROTC, as the case may be, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement; or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3,17 'Limited.Scope of Duties. RCTC's and the City's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein. RCTC has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project Site unless it knows or should know of a dangerous condition or activity and fails to report such condition or activity to the responsible party or otherwise make reasonable R VPUB\H SHANE\724416.3 64 • corrective efforts. In addition, RCTC shall not be liable for any action of City or its consultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction of the Project._ 3.18 Books and Records. Each party shall maintain complete, accurate, and clearly identifiable records with respect to costs incurred for the Project or under this Agreement. They shall make available for examination by the other party, its authorized agents, officers .or employees any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled cheeks, and other records or . documents evidencing or related to the expenditures and disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this disbursements charged to the other party pursuant to this Agreement. Further, .each party shall furnish to the other party, its agents or employees such other evidence or information as they may require with respect to any such expense or disbursement .charged by them. All. such information shall be retained by the parties for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement, and they shall have access to such information during the three-year period for the purposes of examination or audit. 3.19 Equal Opportunity Employment. The City and RCTC represent that they are equal opportunity employers and they shall not discriminate against any employee or; applicant of reemployment 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. 3.20 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by construed with the laws of the State of California. 3.21 Attorneys' ,Fees. If either partycommences an action against the other party arising out of or in. connection with this Agreement,the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. 3.22 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. . 3.23 Headings. Article and Section Headings,_ paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.24 Notification. All notices hereunder and communications regarding interpretation of the terms of theAgreementor changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postageprepaid and addressed as follows: City of La. Quinta RCTC P.O. Box 1504 Riverside County Transportation Commission R V PU B\H S H AN E\7 24416. 3 65 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253=1504 ATTN: City Manager 4080 Lemon, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 ATTN: Executive Director Any notice >'so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual`notice occurred regardless of the method of service. 3.25 Conflicting Provisions: In the event that provisions of . any attached appendicesor exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions ;set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerningthe performance of the Services. 3.26 Contract Amendment. In the event that the parties determine.that the provisions of this Agreement should be altered, the parties may execute a contract amendment to add any provision to this Agreement, or delete or amend any provision of this Agreement. All such contract: amendments must be in the form of a written instrument signed by the original signatories to this Agreement, or their successors or designees.' 3.27 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the °-subjectmatter hereof and supersedes any previous agreements or understandings. 3.28 Validity of Agreement. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 3.29 Independent Contractors. Any person or entities retained by the City or any Consultant shall be retained on an; independent contractor basis and shall not be employees of ROTC. Any personnel: performing services on the Project, shall at all times be under the exclusive direction and control of the City or consultant, whichever is applicable. The City or consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services on. the Project and as required by law. The City or consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes,' income tax withholding, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance. RVPUBJH SHANE\?24416.3 Signatures on Following Page 66 SIGNATURE PAGE TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LA QUINTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By By: Terry Henderson, Chair Don Adolph, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission R VPl113111SHANE1724416.3 By: Katherine Jenson, City Attomey 67 EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The proposed improvements include the construction of curb, gutter, and connecting pavement on the north side of Highway 111 from Point Happy Entrance to West City Limits; the construction of a median island with landscape and irrigation system; and the installation of rock fall stabilization measures. The following services will be provided, as necessary, to complete the improvements: 1. Completion of Project Development Activities in accordance with Caltrans Standards and Project Development Guidelines. 2. Preparation of any needed environmental documentation in accordance with Caltrans procedures and State and Federal statutes. 3. All needed right-of-way services and acquisition of property needed for improvements. 4. Construction of improvements as shown in attached Exhibit "D". RVPUB\H SHANE1724416.3 A-1 68 EXHIBIT "B" RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES RCTC SHALL: Reimburse City for Project Costs up to the Total Funding Amount, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the Agreement. . Arrive at appropriatefunding for overall Project, up to the Total Funding Amount, in conjunction with City La Quinta prior to award of construction contract by the City. CITY OF LA QUINTA SHALL: Be responsible for design, environmental clearance, right of way acquisition, obtaining all permits required by impacted agencies prior to start of construction. Be responsible for the bidding, awarding, and administration of the construction contract. Be responsible for all construction activities including inspection, survey and material testing. Arrive at appropriate funding for overall Project in conjunction with RCTC prior to award of construction contract by the. City. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES The specific responsibilities of RCTC and the City as defined in this exhibit may be changed pursuant to the terms of Section 3.3 of the Agreement. R V PU BU-1 SHANS7244I 6.3 B-1 69 EXHIBIT "C" IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY FOR COST SHARING Highway 111 Costs - Measure "A" Share Measure "A" funds provided by RCTC pursuant to this Agreement may be used to fund any of the permissible Project Costs, as more specifically set forth below, up to Total Funding Amount. Measure "A" Highway funds may be used to pay for any and all improvements that occur as a result of the widening of Route 111 for the Project. Those improvements might include, but not be limited to, additional through lanes, acceleration tapers, deceleration lanes, bus turnouts, utility relocations, street lighting, necessary landscaping to Caltrans Standards, traffic signal installations and modifications, and necessary right-of-way acquisition and services. Right-of-way may be paid for by the appropriate funds dependent upon area of the take, as described below. The intersections between Highway 111 and the cross street may also be funded with Measure "A" Highway funds. The dividing line between Highway 111 and the cross street is defined as the projection of the Highway 111 right-of-way line across the cross street. In the event of an unclear definition of right-of-way points, a line connecting the cross street beginning and end of curbs will be drawn. If the parties disagree on a right-of-way projection the curb return limit will be used. The lines will be used as a guide for the design engineer preparing the estimate to calculate appropriate Highway 111 quantities and costs, and appropriate cross street quantities and costs. Costs for the traffic signals that control Highway 111 and cross street may be paid entirely with Measure "A" Highway funds regardless of pole locations in the Highway 111 or cross street defined boundaries. Signalization, for other locations such as entrances to businesses on Highway 111 may also be funded by Measure "A" Highway funds if warranted and agreed to by RCTC. Cross Street Costs City Share. The City will be responsible for funding any and all cross street improvements. The cross street improvements would include any element of the project that is not included in the Highway 111 costs as defined above. Landscaping Landscaping will be in accordance with State and City standards and may be included in the cost sharing in the appropriate Route 111 or cross street areas. Excessive landscaping will not be paid for with the Measure "A" Highway funds. Excessive landscaping is a subjective measure, but the intent is not to use Measure "A" Highway funds to pay for landscaping in excess of what is appropriate for a typical highway project in the Coachella Valley using Caltrans landscaping design standards. RVPUBWHANE17244163 C-1 70 EXHIBIT "D" CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS In general the Project is envisioned to consist of the construction of slope stabilization measures and rock fall protection devices, curb, gutter, median island, landscaping, and irrigation system, hauling off of excess material, the installation of A.C. pavement, and signing and striping. The following Project budget is anticipated: Project. Activity Estimated Cost Construction: $373,027.00 Engineering: $63,720.00 Construction Engineering (Inspection/Testing/Survey): $41,153.00 Sub -Total: $477,900.00 Contingency: $53,100.00 Total Estimated Cost: $531,000.00 RVPUB\H SHANE17244163 D-1 71 AGENDA ITEM 7P RIVERSIDE COUIV TY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2007 State and Federal Legislative Platforms and Programs BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the 2007 Legislative Platforms and Programs; 2) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report; and 3) Approve the following bill positions: a) SB 53 (Ducheny, D-San Diego) Support in Concept b) SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) Support BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Annually, the Commission adopts its legislative platform for the state and federal level. The platform is an opportunity for the Commission to voice its priorities and concerns to decision makers in Washington, DC and Sacramento and is the basis for the Commission's advocacy plans to enhance. mobility for the residents of Riverside County. This item contains staff's recommended legislative platforms for the state and federal levels. This year's platforms build on previous Cornmission priorities, reflecting the new environment in _ Sacramento following the passage of Propositions 1 A and 1 B and also the Commission's adoption of the 10-Year Measure A Delivery Plan and toll road proposal on December 13, 2006. The Commission's forefront messages to legislators will relate to the Commission's ability to deliver highway capacity above and beyond what is promised in Measure A via publicly -owned toll facilities on SR-91 and 1-15, funding and delivery of the Perris Valley Line . (PVL) Metrolink extension, and increased funding to goods` movement projects with an emphasis on grade separations. Agenda Item 7P To deliver these and other high -priority messages to decision makers. in the. state and nation's capitals, staff has developed legislative programs that illustrate the transportationneeds of Riverside -County. Draft 2007 RCTC State and Federal Legislative: Platforms State Legislative Platform I. Support enhancements of transportation project delivery. Receive 'legislative authority for the Commission to 'Own and Operate toll facilities on the state highway system. Receive legislative authority for design -build procurement for :the _PVL Metrolink extension. Receive legislative authority for the Commission and other regional transportation agencies to use design -build contracting' for highway projects. Support measures by the state to streamline the environrnental approval- process for transportation projects.` II.: Support accountability and commitment to California voters. Support transparency and accountability in the administration of Proposition 1 B funding. Support . allocation of Proposition 1 B based on objective criteria focused. on congestion relief, benefits to the public, : and cost : vs. benefit analysis oppose the earmarking of Proposition 1 B funding. Meet the voters' expectations by fully funding Proposition 42 and adhering; to the provisions of Proposition 1 A. Support legislation to amend California eminent domain , law to more fairly set awards in eminent domain lawsuits and .protect the ability to acquire needed right-of-way for transportation projects. III. Reduce congestion and harmful >emissions by supporting .funding' for alternate transportation modes and air quality programs. Support measures that assure a fair - share of , state revenues - to intercity and commuter rail (provided by Amtrak, : Metrolink : or other operators) in Southern California and Riverside County. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the:. South' Coast Air Basin to local jurisdictions and the '.Mobile Source Air Pollution . Reduction Committee (MSRC); support . MSRC's role as " an independent decision -making body. Agenda Item 7P 73 • Support incentives, : to employers that enhance or create transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs. Support incentives for taxpayers who utilize .alternative fuels. IV. Support the California : economy and _ the Inland Empire's quality of life through increased funding for goods movement projects. • 4. Support the Business,, Transportation & Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) in the implementation of the State: Goods Movement Action Plan in concert with the Southern, California, Multi -County Goods Movement Action ' Plan. • Support Proposition 16 funding allocations to trade corridors and projects based on congestion, air quality, health, and safety data. Support permanent increases in statee funding levels available for grade separations and, goods movement mitigation projects. V. Support policies that recognize and reward local governmentsforcommitting local dollars to transportation projects. Federal Legislative Program I. Protect and enhance current funding levels for.. transportation programs. • • Support efforts to bringtransportation appropriations .to authorized levels. Seek a fair share for Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. Seek a fair share and equitable rate of return for the state of California. of federal transportation funding. While California will likely remain a "donor" state, every effort must be made to raise the current percentage of return in federal tax revenues that are generated in the state. Support continued federal commitment of funds to support public transit. and to assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the North East Corridor. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national .. significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in Riverside County. Agenda Item 7P 74 Seek a New Starts or Small Starts full funding grant agreement for the PVL Metrolink extension via the Commission -owned San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL).; Support local agencies seeking federal transportation funding in a coordinated manner in order to maximize project funding from federal legislation: Protectand enhanceflexibility in use of transportation revenue.: Support funding allocations for the New Starts and Small Starts category within the :new highway authorization bill for projects` seeking less than $ 100 million to enhance the opportunities for funding of the PVL extension project. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel .programs to promote the. use of alternate modes of transportation. Support . increased federal funding for Alameda: Corridor East (ACE) improvements with a special emphasis on ensuring funding for Riverside County rail grade separations. Support legislation: that ensures coordination = -of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments '' of. Aging, Rehabilitation,'and Welfare). Support legislative or administrative policies thatpromote a regional approach to airport development and usage of March Air Reserve Base, Southern California Logistics, Palm Springs International, San Bernardino International, and Ontario International airports. . III: Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements.: • Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency among .the federal.: and the states. congestion :management program; requirements: Monitor market -based:. congestion pricing ->measures regarding their ... effectiveness to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality .and/or fund :transportation alternatives. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms, to enhance highway project delivery, such as simultaneous environmental impact :report . (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out. of appropriate activities to the private sector. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearanceprocesses for ' transportation construction projects. Agenda Item 7P 75 • Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring . requirements to ensure efficiency and usefulness of : data collected and eliminate unnecessary and/or duplicative requirements. State Update Anne Mayer, _ Deputy Executive Director, testified to the Senate Committee on Transportation and . Housing on January 17, 2007, regarding" the future of transportation .finance in California, including public -private partnerships and toll facilities. Her., testimony provided a helpful backdrop to the Legislature in discussing: the Commission's need for high occupancy toll lane legislation as, well as opportunities .fora other counties to use innovative financing to deliver additional highway capacity. Other Commission staff and the . Commission's legislative advocate, ;Mark Watts, accompanied Anne Mayer on this trip to meet individually with members of Riverside County's legislative leadership and key staff. SB 53 (Ducheny,- D-San Diego) State Highways: Performance Measures Riverside County's Senator Denise Ducheny has authored _a bill that requires Ca!trans to establish performance measures .that will allow the department to issue an annual rating .of the overall quality of the •state highway system. Ca!trans would be required to report to the Legislature on how resource, staffing, and programming decisions impactthe overall condition of the state highway system in terms , of distressed lane miles, :bridge conditions, and Life :cycle costs. SB 53 would require Ca!trans to consult with agencies such as the Commission in developing its performance measures.. Staff recommends the Commission support this bill in conceptas it moves through Legislature. Staff believes that calling attention to the consequences of resource, staffing, and programming decisions on the performance of California's highways is a positive step for Caltrans accountability and transportation funding as a statewide priority. SB 56 (Runner, R-Antelope Valley) - Highway Construction Contracts: Design -Build Demonstration Program: Transportation Entities. This bill creates a 10-year pilot program, authorizing the California Transportation Commission (CTC). to select a to -be -determined number of transportation agencies to employ design -build -contracting on a to -be -determined number of highway, bridge, or tunnel projects. SB 56 sets forth specific requirements for the process that transportation agencies must undertake to utilize design -build. The bill gives the CTC discretion on whether contracts are awarded according to. "best value" .or low bid. A peer review committee is established to monitor the procurement process of design -build projects .authorized by this bill, and each transportation Agenda Item 7P 76 agency ,is required to submit annual reports and analysis to the CTC :regardingits experiences using: design -build. Transportation_ _ agencies are also . required to implementa labor compliance program. The intent of the legislation ::is to,. examine . the benefits and challenges of using design -build procurement, particularly relating to the possibility of reduced project costs, expedited project delivery, ,or design features that would not be achievable through design -bid -build procurement. SB`56 provides a significant opportunity for transportation agencies in California to , apply design -build widely enough to demonstrate =Nits : potential 'benefits and , weaknesses as a tool for enhanced project delivery. The stringent process outlined in the bill provides transparency and also begins to address labor concerns :raised by opponents of design -build. While it is yet unknown how the transportation industry willreact to SB 56, in light :of its potential to provide the Commission with,. greaterflexibility to pursue the most efficient and cost effective project "delivery mechanisms, staff recommends the Commission adopt a Support position .on SB `56. Federal Update The Commission . will co -host :a reception in honor- of the new Speaker of the House; Representative Nancy Pelosi, at the annual Legislative Conference of . the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) on Tuesday, :. March 13, 2007, in Washington, DC. This event is being co -sponsored by' several California transportation agencies, with the Bay Area's Metropolitan, Transportation; Commission (MTC) playing a lead role. Commissioners attending the APTA Legislative Conference . are encouraged to attend this reception for an opportunity to build relationships with California's congressional delegation and discuss the Commission's federal priorities. Attachments: 1) Legislative Matrix 2) State Legislative Program Brochure 3) Federal Legislative Program;Bruchure Agenda Item 7P 77 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION STATE LEGISLATION SB 9 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing a process for the selection of transportation projects to be funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) of Proposition 1 B. The TCIF is a $2 billion fund. Introduced 12/04/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 19 (Lowenthal) This bill will be a vehicle for establishing conditions and criteria for projects. to be funded under the $1 billion account created by Proposition 1 B dedicated to reducing emissions related to goods movement. Introduced 12/04/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 45 (Perata) This bill will establish the application process for allocations from the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response ,:Account from Proposition 1 B. Introduced 12/22/06 Monitor 01/10/07 SB 47 (Perata) This bill will establish the eligibility, matching fund requirements, and application process for. Proposition 1 B funds under the $1 billion State -Local Partnership Program. The State -Local Partnership Program is to be administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Introduced 12/22/06. Monitor 01/10/07 SB 53 (Ducheny) This bill requires Caltrans to establish performance measures 'that will allow the department to issue an annual rating of the. overall 'quality of the state highway system. Caltrans would be required to report to the Legislature on how resource, staffing, .and programming decisions impact the overall condition of the state highway system (in, terms of distressed lane miles, bridge conditions, and life cycle costs). SB 53 would require Caltrans to consult with agencies such as RCTC in developing its performance measures. Introduced 01/10/07 SUPPORT IN CONCEPT Pending Commission Approval SB 56 (Runner) This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Introduced 01/10/07 SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval F :\users\preprint\j s\legmat.doc 78 L4/0L/L0 ao1iuoW •penssl s aodaa mugs pue esnoH -•uoisuaa.x3 Nu!onah! Gun Mellen sided eL.p. uorillw 0•6$ 6umntoul 'sloefoad uopel odsuen Aluno0 eplsaanw aoj. uo!!!!w, g•g$ peumwoo a uieluoo i!q sly. uo Keues`pue esnoH.ayl •eigwnloo j.o �dl� slCl a pue Aaem n a �. �u y ,p :p y awdolanap pue 6ursnoH '�anseaal 'uopeliodsueal swewlaedaa suopepdoadde ayp.'si si41 MAI -� '61equellou>1 •dal) 9Lgg'1:11H N0I1 V7S1J37 7VY3O3.d AGENDA ITEM 8 REVISED AGENDA ITEM 8 Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 with Kleinfelder to Provide Supplemental Geotechnical Field Exploration, Testing Services and Technical Evaluations for the Proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project based on the attached project scope, schedule and cost for a total not to exceed amount of $6,158, 608. 2) Staff is currently negotiating the final scope of work and it is anticipatod that the final prefect scope, schodulc and cost will be February 11, 2007. 31 Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 41 Authorize the Executive Director or his designee to approve optional tasks as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to develop and manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. The purpose of the agreement is to jointly exercise the common powers of its parties as the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA). The Commission is charged with administering the cooperative agreement and is responsible for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds to accomplish the geotechnical studies. Agenda Item 8 This project was named in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) as a high priority project and received earmarks totaling $ 15.8 million to "study and construct highway alternatives between Orange and Riverside Counties, directed by the ROCA working with local government agencies, local transportation authorities, and guided by the current Major Investment Study." The first two years of available funding has been obligated totaling $5,426,502; the balance will be available over the next couple of years. On November 27, 2006, the Commission released a request for proposal (RFP) to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway. The purpose of the project is to further define and evaluate site conditions that affect the feasibility of transportation tunnel construction beneath the Cleveland National Forest and geotechnical and hydrogeologic constraints affecting tunneling methods, groundwater controls, impacts to groundwater resources, and construction costs. The scope of the project is to drill five deep coreholes. All coreholes will be drilled to a depth of about 100 feet below the invert of the Irvine -Corona tunnel profile. The corehole depths will range between approximately 800 feet and 1300 feet deep with one corehole going to a depth of 2370 feet. The total depth of corehole drilling is estimated to be approximately 6,856 feet. All of the necessary geophysical logging and sampling will be conducted at each corehole location in order to obtain the information that is required to determine the tunnel feasibility beneath the Cleveland National Forest. Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Bidders Information Meeting (not mandatory) Proposals were Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 p.m. Short Listed Firms were Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms Staff Recommendation to Commission Selection Process November 27, 2006 December 11, 2006 January 11, 2007 January 29, 2007 February 5, 2007 February 14, 2007 A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from the Commission, OCTA, the U.S. Forest Service (Cleveland National Forest), Rahimian Management and Consulting (RMC) and Bechtel. Staff received proposals from four firms. The selection panel reviewed the four proposals and due to the quality of the proposals it was decided to short list three firms. Agenda Item 8 REVISED AGENDA ITEM 8 Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by Str-ikethr-eugh RIVERSIDE COUNTY :TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County. Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator. THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 with Kleinfelder to Provide Supplemental Geotechnical Field Exploration, Testing Services and TechnicalEvaluations for the Proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process ' and award Agreement No 07-65-105-00 to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services and technical evaluations for the proposed. Irvine to Corona Expressway project based on the attached project scope, schedule and cost for. a total not to exceed amount of $6,158, 608. 2) Staff is curFcFtly ncgotiating the final %mope of work and it is ariticipated that the final yfetect scope, schedule, and cost will 'bc prescntcd fer Commission ap-pfaval at its meeting on Wcdnesday, Fcbruary 14,2007. 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legalcounsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and, 4) Authorize the Executive Director or his designeeto approve optional tasks as may be required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative: agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (T.CA) to develop and manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. The purpose of the agreement is to jointly exercise the common _ powers of its parties as the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA). The Commission is charged with administering the cooperative agreement and is responsible for the receipt and expenditure of federal and state funds to accomplish the geotechnical studies. Agenda Item 8 This project was named in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA.-LU) as a high priority project and received earmarks totaling $_ 15.8 million .to "study- .and construct highway alternatives between Orange and RiversideCounties, directed by the ROCA working with local, government agencies, local transportation authorities, and guided by the current Major Investment Study.- The first two years of available funding , has been obligated totaling $5,426,502; the balance will be available over the next couple of years. On .November 27, 2006, the Commission released a request :for proposal (RFP) to provide supplernental geotechnical field exploration, testing services;- and technical' evaluations for the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway.:; The purpose of the project is to further define and evaluate site conditions .. that affect the feasibility of transportation tunnel construction beneath the Cleveland National Forest and geotechnical and hydrogeologic constraints affecting tunneling methods, groundwater controls, impacts to groundwater resources, and construction costs. The scope of the project is to drill five deep coreholes. All coreholes will be drilled to a depth of about 100 feet below the invert of the Irvine -Corona tunnel profile. The corehole depths will range' between approximately 800 feet and 1300 feet deep with one corehole going to a depth of 2370 feet. The total depth of corehole drilling is estimated to be approximately 6,856 feet. All of the necessary geophysical logging and sampling will be -conducted at each corehole location in order to obtain the information that is required to determine the tunnel feasibility beneath the Cleveland National Forest. Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Bidders -Information Meeting (not mandatory) Proposals were Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 p.m. Short Listed Firms were Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms Staff Recommendation to Commission Selection Process Novernber 27, 2006 December, 11, 2006 January 1 1, 2007 January 29, 2007. February .5, 2007 February 14, 2007 A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from the Commission, OCTA, the U.S. Forest Service (Cleveland ' National Forest), Rahimian Management and Consulting (RMC) and Bechtel. Staff received' proposals from four firms. The selection panel reviewed the four proposals and dueto the quality of the proposals it was decided to short list three ,firms. :. Agenda Item 8 The three firms each demonstrated capability of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Kleinfelder Second URS Third CH2M Hill After Kleinfelder, located in Diamond Bar, CA was selected as the top ranked firm, its cost proposal was opened and used as a starting point in further negotiations. Staff has been working with Kleinfelder and has come to an agreement with the attached scope and schedule of services and respective costs. Based on the results of the selection committee, staff recommends that Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 be awarded to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project based on Staff is currently negotiating tho final the attached project scope, schedule and cost will-, , f sent el fcr Ce Ami ion It k6 m +,... , . in, a d... February 14, 2007, for a total not to exceed amount of $6,158,608 to perform the activities related to developing the geotechnical investigation. A budget adjustment is required for this project. The Commission's local match may be from a variety of sources such as Measure A and Local Transportation Fund aTF) funds and will be determined during the project's duration. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY2006/07 Amount: $6,158,608 Source of Funds: SAFETEA-LU @80% RCTC/OCTA @20 /o (Split 50/50) Budget Adjustment: Y 106-65-41203 P2310 $4,926,886 - federal revenue (other) GLA No.: 106-65-41409 P2310 $ 615,861 - local agency revenue 106-65-81501 P2310 $6,158,608 - special studies expenditure Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Abudavi {- Date: 2/13/2007 Attachments: 1) Scope of Work 2) Cost Proposal 3) Proposed Schedule Agenda Item 8 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 with Kleinfelder to Provide Supplemental Geotechnical Field Exploration, Testing Services and Technical Evaluations for the Proposed Irvine. to Corona Expressway Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 07-65-105-00 to Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services and technical evaluations for the proposed Irvine to Corona Expressway project. 2) Staff is currently negotiating the final scope of work and it is anticipated that the final project scope, schedule and cost will be presented for Commission approval at its meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 2007. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission executed a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the Foothill/Eastern. Transportation Corridor. Agency (TCA) to develop and .manage geotechnical feasibility studies for a potential transportation and utility corridor linking Riverside and Orange Counties. The purpose of the agreement is to jointly exercise the . common powers of its parties as the Riverside Orange Corridor Authority (ROCA). The Commission is charged with administering .;the cooperative agreement and is responsible for the receipt and expenditure of federal and .state funds to accomplish the geotechnical studies. On November 27, 2006, the Commission released a request .for proposal (RFP) to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services, and technical evaluations for. the proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway. Agenda Item 8 80 Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Bidders Information Meeting °(not mandatory) Proposals: were Delivered to RCTC prior to 2 p.m. Short . Listed Firms .were Notified Interviews of Short: Listed Firms Staff Recommendation to Commission Selection Process November 27, 2006 December 11, 2006 January 11, 2007 January 29, 2007 February 5, 2007 February 14, 2007. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives .from the Commission, OCTA, the U.S. Forest Service (Cleveland National Forest),. Rahimian Management and Consulting (RMC) and Bechtel Staff received proposals from four :.firms. The selection panel reviewed the four proposals- and due tothe quality of the proposals it was decided to short list three firms. The three firms each demonstrated capability of completing the proposed scope of work. After careful evaluation of the personnel of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Kleinfelder Second URS Third CH2M Hill Based on the results of .the selection committee, staff recommends that Agreement. No. 07-65-105-00 be awardedto Kleinfelder to provide supplemental geotechnical field exploration, testing services and technical evaluations for .the proposed . Irvine to Corona Expressway project. Staff is currently negotiating the final scope of work ;and it is anticipated that the final project scope, scheduleand cost will be presented for Commission approval at its meeting on :. Wednesday, February 14, 2007, to perform the activities related to developing the geotechnical investigation. Agenda Item 8 81 ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION, TESTING SERVICES AND TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED IRVINE-CORONA EXPRESSWAY PROJECT 1.0 ` ADMINISTRATION AND PROJECT.MANAGEMENT 1.1 PROJECT STAFFING Mr. Paul Guptill will be the Kleinfelder Team's Project Manager and RCTC's single - point -of -contact and will commit the. majority of his time to the management of .the project on a.monthly basis from Notice to Proceed to the completion of the project. Key members of the Team, including our field staff, drillers, and subconsultants are also committed to timely completion of their efforts on this project. Mr. Guptil'I will be responsible for providing the project with qualified and experienced field and professional staff, and coordinating the services of the Team members: . 1.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL This task includes preparation of a focused Project Management Plan (PMP) and coordination and administration of the project. The PMP will include a detailed project budget and schedule to include all of the tasks described in the Scope of Work: The PMP will be a working document, and each of our key team members will be required to be familiar with its contents. The PMP components will be supplemented with features that Kleinfelder believes add value to the management function and enhance project control. These additional features will include: •. Creation of a list of tasks and subtasks, each of which will be assigned a unique work breakdown structure (WBS) number. • Inclusion of each _ identified WBS activity in a schedule with appropriate durations to all other activities. • Preparation, of a brief description of the work included within each WBS activity. . • Preparation of a communication plan that indicates consultant and subconsultant input requirements and .anticipated dates. The schedule will include all of the activities,. start dates, activity durations, product submittal dates, relationships among work tasks and float time. The project schedule will be updated quarterly, or more frequently as required; and submitted to RCTC. Kleinfelder will also provide the necessary project controls to. ensure proper financial tracking and monitoring of the project. Budgets for each task within the WBS will be set up and monitored using Kl'einfelder's Oracle real-time management software. Page 1 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Kleinfelder's Project Manager will exercise the following project controls. with the assistance of a project controls coordinator: Monthly summary, worksheets will be prepared to compare anticipated to actual costs, total earned value to date, and anticipated cost at completion.: Where significant trends in work effort show "deviation from planned cost, schedule, or earned value, Mr. Guptill will prepare a; mitigation plan to adjust shortfalls or to accommodate better than anticipated success. Similar: worksheets will be prepared to track the, percentage of project fees paid to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DI3E) firms. This task also includes:. submittal of monthly invoices to the RCTC Project Manager. Prior to commencement of our work, Mr. Guptill and our project controls coordinator will meet with: designated RCTC staff to discuss specific billing:; and 'reporting formats. Invoices, accompanied by monthly :progress reports will be transmitted on the agreed -to schedule. Progress reports will contain a description of schedule , or cost .mitigation: measures that may be needed to maintain milestone schedule and budget. - Assumptions: The scope of services covers the period March'16, 2007 through March 15, 2009.. Level of Project; Manager participation includes approximately 50 percent during the first six months, 100 percent during the investigation and evaluation effort for twelve months and approximately 50 percent during the last six months of .the project. Level of Project Controls Coordinator is 10 percent for the first six months, 25 percent during the next;12 months, and 15 percent for the final six months. Deliverables: Draft and 'final Project Management `Plan (one reproducible and seven copies); monthly progress reports. 1.3 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PROJECT MEETINGS 1.3.1. Agency Coordination We anticipate that Kleinfelder will participate in informal ' meetings and coordinate with other agencies including Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Project Meetings Kleinfelder will participate in a number of formal meetings throughout the duration of the project. AS required in the RF:P Kleinfelder will prepare.; agendas and presentation materials as required for the meetings. Minutes of each meeting will be prepared and submitted to the RCTC Project Manager within five working days of each meeting.; The meetings planned are as specified below: Page 2 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project 1.3.2 Project Coordination Meetings Kleinfelder'sProject Manager will- attend coordination meetings throughout the 24- month duration of the project. As discussed with RCTC Kleinfelder will attend monthly meetings from Notice to Proceed through acquisition of the Special Use Permit (6 meetings), bi-weekly coordination meetings for 12 months (24 meetings), and monthly meetings from then through completion of the contract (6 meetings). Our Project Manager will attend each of these meetings with a project assistant to record meeting notes for preparation of. Meeting Minutes: 1.3.3 ROCA Committee Meetings Kleinfelder's Project Manager will participate in 6 ROCA` meetings throughout the duration of the project. 1.3.4 Meetings with Local, State and Federal Agencies Kleinfelder's Project Manager will participate in 10 meetings with local, state, and federal agencies throughout the duration of the. project. Kleinfelder will provide a project assistant torecord meeting notes for preparation of Meeting Minutes. Assumptions: The scope of services covers the period March 16, 2007 through March 15, 2009. Informal agency coordination is anticipated to be conducted via telephone. Formal project meetings are anticipated to be held at RCTC's offices and last 4 hours, inclusive of travel time. Deliverables: Meeting agendas, presentation materials and graphics, meeting minutes. 1.4 DOCUMENT CONTROL AND WEB -BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Document control can be accomplished using either a Kleinfelder file -transfer -protocol (ftp) site or a project -specific Web -Based Management (VVBM) system. 14.1 Document Control The Kleinfelder ftp site will .be established with assistance from ACT. The document control system can be used to, store and catalogproject process documentation, associated data, and new information developed during this project. ACT will update and add project information and data throughout the project duration. 1.4.2 Web -Based Management (WBM) system. Our Team member ACT specializes in the development and application of WBM utilizing the e2020 system. The e2020 database management module can be used to store, catalog, and link project process documentation, background documentation, Page 3 of 21 Proposed_ Irvine -Corona Expressway Project reference documents, associated data, and new information developed: during this study. The e2020 system also contains a map module compatible with ESRI GIS to ` enhance the presentation, retrieval and reporting of information. Aerial photographs can be superimposed on the corridor map displaying alignment, boring locations, geologic formations, environmental constraints, and other project data.. Through linking . the map information to their respective databases, data can easily be . retrieved by clicking on the location marked on the map. The system can also be used to store and monitor project calendars, :progress, schedule, submittals, reports, review comments, p y _ p registered s m . and responses. The system wil l provide notifications to re � istered users to alert the to the availability of new and updated information within the system. ` The Team document` control administrator will maintain assignments of security,; and access ;rights to various users. All authorized users can access, view, and download ,the >latest project information through the website utilizing an internet connection at any location; Assumptions: The scope of services covers the period March 16,.;2007 through March 15,. 2009. Kleinfelder personnel will coordinate with and provide reference materials and .project documents (agendas, memos, reports, meeting minutes, . data etc._) to ACT for uploading to the ftp site or project web page. Deliverables: ftp site or WBM system project website and ongoing updates of project information. 2.0 SPECIAL PERMIT ASSISTANCE The objective of this task is to provide the necessary information and support for RCTC to expeditiously obtain a Special Use Permit from the . USFS for ;the geotechnical field investigation and groundwater assessment within the Cleveland National Forest. Two main activities will need to be covered under this permit: 1') access to and drilling of the exploratory boreholes, and 2) access to all water resource sites (up to. 50) for irnplementation of the Groundwater Monitoring Program , Kleinfelder will assist RCTC and PMC to obtain a Special Use Permit from the USFS. The first step will beto: assess the constraints and opportunities for implementing :the geotechnical and groundwater resource assessments: We will 'utilize theconstraints mapping and environmental information developed in the RC-OC MIS along with any additional studies to identify the best locations for drilling 'sites and° lay -down areas in the 'vicinity of the proposed corehole locations. Possible ``,routes to,: the proposed coreholes and groundwater resource' sites will be analyzed and the best opportunities selected. This information for both corehole drilling, and groundwater .assessment will be included in .the proposed Operating Plan being prepared by RCTC and the PMC vvith support from the Kleinfelder Team. This plan will include any requirements for monitoring devices to be installed at groundwater- sources ` and . utilities and other requirements associated with the field exploration. The Operating, Plan; will also .include Page 4 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project descriptions of water resource sites, locations and assumed access methods for up to 50 locations. The second step is for RCTC and the PMC to meet with the USFS to gain consensus for the Operating Plan, including the locations of the boreholes, sources for groundwater monitoring, and routes to those sources. Kleinfelder's Project Manager will. attend and support these meetings, and :if necessary, conduct field reconnaissance to support the plan or USFS requests, including support for environmental assessment conducted by, others. During the development of the Operating Plan and ingaining consensus, the Team will be available to meet with the USFS or other stakeholders in one-on-one meetings to facilitate the Permit process. Our suggested approach is for RCTC to .meet early and often with the USES in order to identify their priorities and concerns and respond with adjustments to the Operating Plan, where needed. In the event groundwater resource sites are located outside_ the boundaries of the Cleveland National Forest, the RCTC and PMC will need to follow a similar approach, providing an operating plan and supporting documentation to property owners to gain access. This effort should be conducted in parallel with activities in pursuit of the Special Use Permit from the USES, so that required changes are reflected consistently in the development of the Special Use Permit. Kleinfelder's Project Manager will support RCTC and PMC in these activities. Assumptions: The scope of services covers the period March 16, 2007 through October 1, 2007, the assumed date of Special Use Permit approval by the USFS. We assume that the environmental habitat surveys of all corehole and groundwater resource sites required prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit will be performed by others. Documents required for issuance of the Special Use Permit (to be prepared by others) include: • Special Use Permit Application, • Environmental Surveys • Action Plan (Operating Plan) • Fire Plan • Collection Agreement between USFS and RCTC • Mitigation and Site Restoration • And others as required by USFS Deliverables: Supporting materials (graphics, preferred boring locationsand lay -down areas, preferred boring and groundwater resource access routes, field operations and activities descriptions, meeting handouts, etc.) to obtain: Special Use Permit: Page 5of21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING SERVICES 3.1 EXISTING DATA SUMMARY REPORT The Kleinfelder Team will identify and compile existing relevant ge'otechnical and groundwater data and documents in support of the project.Existing data include `reports and, documents prepared, for the RC-OC Major Investment Study, Metropolitan's Central Pool Augmentation Project, and Tri-Tunnel Express Project. Other' data ',to be researched and reviewed' will include recent and historical aerial photographs of the project area, and other documents yet to be identified. The Kleinfelder team will review the collected data and prepare a, Data ;and Information Summary Report. Deliverables: 1 electronic copy (CD/DVD) of existing relevant documents; Data and Information Summary Report, 1 bound and 1 unbound camera-ready version and 1' CD/DVD version. 3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance Access . to the corehole sites will be evaluated during several days of , field reconnaissance prior to permit submittal. Each site will be visited: on the ground .and, locations confirmed by global position satellite coordinates. All access issues will be reviewed: and summarized during the field reconnaissance. Final locations will be prioritized for submittal to the USFS and other governing bodies based on topography, density of brush, known habitat significance, required delivery and storage methods for. water, space for the drilling equipment, and helicopter access. This effort will also require, planning and coordination with the drilling subcontractors to make critical planning decisions on water delivery and daily drill crew access;. Due to the remote .and often pristine sites (no fire break access), meetings ;with the USFS will be included for coordination and modifications to the field mobilization and staging :plans. The corehole sites. planned for the investigation are located in rugged: terrain, and for safety and access requirements, the site reconnaissance will be: performed by a:three people: VVe anticipate that each site, will likely need to be visited 4 times during,: the planning stage to` select: an appropriate site, coordinate with the drilling subcontractors. and field- personnel, and meet with the USFS and RCTC personnel', Based' on the difficult` access; we expect that three days will be required to visit the five corehole -sites. Helicopter support will also .be provided if needed. Assumptions: Three people for three days to visit five sites; four site visits per corehole' site. Two meeting with USFS for planning of equipment mobilization. Page 6 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Deliverables; Input to Field Exploration and Operations Plan 3.2.2 Field Exploration Plan/Technical Memorandum A Field Exploration Plan/Technical Memorandum will be prepared to document all of the proposed field activities, methods to be used, and the planned drilllocations and depths. Information contained in this document will be used to assist RCTC and the PMC with preparation of the Operations Plan for submittal with the USFS Special Use Permit application. The plan will be submitted to RCTC for review and approval prior to coring activities. Items that will be discussed in the Field Exploration Plan/Technical Memorandum for each potential drill site include. • Site Access • Site Preparation • Core Logging • Core Retrieval and Handling • Core Storage Core Photography • Erosion Control • Site Equipment • Security • Drilling Procedures • Drilling Fluid Additives • Water Supply • Restrictions Related to 'USFS Rules • Cuttings and Drill Fluids Handling • Plans for Completion of Each Corehole • Observation Well Installation • In -Situ Testing • Field and Laboratory Testing • Drill Site Restoration Plans As part of this task, Kleinfelder will prepare a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for its employees and subcontractor personnel. The HASP will conform to the regulations, requirements and restrictions of the USFS as well as contain considerations and evacuation plans for rain (electrical storms), dense fog, snow, Santa Ana winds, high fire hazards and other transient weather conditions that may affect drilling safety and efficiency. An addendum to the Special Use Permit will be a Fire Plan that outlines specific restrictions of activities and requirements for equipment operations 'during the project. In particularthis will require daily updates from the USFS Dispatch Center. for Project Activity Levels (PAL) on a daily basis.. The Fire Plan will require one or more 'full time Page 7 of'21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Fire Monitors to observe field activities and monitor compliance with the Fire- Plan requirements: The requirements of the Fire Plan developed by the USFS specifically for this project: will be incorporated in the Field Exploration Plan. Kleinfelder can provide the Fire Monitors under optional task 3.2.9. Assumptions:Field Exploration Plan/Technical Memorandum can not be finalized until. after the conditions of the Special Use Permit are known. Deliverables: Field Exploration PIanlTechnical Memorandum (one reproducible master and 20 copies); Health and Safety Plan. 3.2.3 Corehole Drilling, Sampling and Logging. Coreholes. five coreholes are planned for the project: The proposed coreholes are identified as M1S-1, .MIS-2, MIS-3,: Alternate-3 and Alternate-4. All coreholes ,will be drilled to a depth of about 100 feet below the invert of the Irvine -Corona .tunnel profile: . except for Alternate- 4, which will be drilled to a depth of about 10,0' feet below the approximate invert of the proposed CPA tunnel invert. Access to Coreholes MIS-1, MIS-2 and M1S-3 will be by helicopter for all equipment and: daily personnel access. The depth of these coreholes will be approximately 1,205, 1,191 and 1,260 feet, respectively, below the ground surface (bgs): The open areas along the Main Divide Road- will be used for staging of equipment and water for delivery to these remote sites. Where possible, a temporary water line will be constructed to each of the drill .sites for a steady water supply from a .tank(s) placed at a higher: elevation along the ridges. Additional water storage tanks dedicated to fire suppression will also be established at each of the drill sites to meet USFS permit requirements for fire suppression. Corehole Alternate-3 is proposed east of the Main Divide Road, on a .;ridge intersected by thetunnel: alignment: This corehole will be about 830 feet deep: Access.. to Alternate-3 will be by helicopter,' with the staging area. along Main: Divide Road. Corehole Alternate-4 . is proposed along the Main Divide Road where it intersects the tunnel alignment at the drainage divide. This corehole will . be about 2,370 feet deep. Access to Alternate-4 is by truck on Bedford Road` and. the .Main Divide Road: Field equipment; supplies and water will be driven from Temescai Canyon to the. site along the Main Divide Road. Daily personnel access will be. provided by helicopter.. Water truck access and other drive -up access will be by Bedford; Road and Main Divide. Road. The total: depth of coreholes is estimated to be approximately.6,856 feet: All coreholes will be cored using a Diamond Core: Drill Rig' equipped with HQ3 drill rods and core barrel: An HQ3 triple tube coring systern..will be used on both ,drill rigs HWT casing will be used to over case the upper part of each borehole for 'stability: Corehole Page 8 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway. Project conditioning to retain drill fluid circulation or stabilize the borehole may require running casing, drill additives, .or grouting problem areas and re -drilling. For the air-lift sites; equipment will be moved with a medium-lifthelicopter;. an A -Star or Loma helicopter will move cuttings, miscellaneous_ items and people. Drilling fluids and cuttings will be collected as coring advances, then removed and disposed at a licensed disposal: facility after being tested for potential contaminants, as necessary. Corehole Sampling. The coreholes will becored continuouslyusing appropriate methods and coring equipment to obtain maximum core' recovery for .logging. Recovered core will be measured and logged' initially in the split core barrel ;lining or core tray to observe and record initial spacing and condition of discontinuities for rock mass characterization. Each core run will be photographed prior to transfer to wooden core ° boxes for transport and storage, and each run depth interval will be numbered by placing a labeled wooden or foam spacer at the top of each run. Core will be placed in the core boxes with interlocking pieces of core fit together to restore the recovered core length. If core is not recovered' due to poor quality or drilling conditions, the lost {core location will be identified by spacers labeled "core loss. Core that is broken during placement in the core boxes' will be marked. After each core box is filled and' labeled, the core will again be photographed in natural light to document the condition of the core and general appearance. The core boxes will be labeled with project' name, corehole number, and depth interval contained in each box.` Core Logging. Field logs will be prepared as the core is recovered, cleaned, and placed in core boxes. Physical characteristics of the rock composition and discontinuities for each core run will be recorded on core logs in accordance with the International Society. of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Rock Classification System. The log sheet will record data according to ISRM Suggested Methods for Description of Discontinuities in. Rock Masses. Discontinuity descriptions will include small scale joint roughness measurements for each joint surface available for measurement and will be assigned a Joint Roughness Coefficient (JRC) value representing the degree of roughness. The JRC values will be assigned in `accordance with ISRM guidelines and summarized in table format. Thee field logs will include: driller and coring information such as depth and duration of core run, drill fluid gains or losses, drilling conditions, length of core runs, and rock quality designation :(RQD); descriptions of lithology, mineral content, texture, and weathering/alteration; descriptions of discontinuities including natural joints, foliation; shears and fracturing, orientation with respect to core axis, frequency per foot, roughness, shape, and infilling; and other observations made by the field geologist. Assumptions: Drilling operations will be on a 10-day on, 4=day off schedule. Public access to USFS Lands is available along . Bedford Road, a privately owned and maintained road. Core boxes will be removed by -helicopter to a suitable loading area. on an as needed basis determined by the field geologist. Site security will be provided at each drill operation with one shift of night-time security during working days and 24- Page 9 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project hour security during off, days. For safety reasons the security will include a two -person crew per shift. 3.2.4 Core Evaluation / Core Photography Core .boxes will be air -lifted to a staging area in Temescal Valley, because transport along Bedford Road and Main Divide Road is too rough and will damage the ;core. Long-term core storage will. be in a secure indoor location with . power supply, Convenient.. to the. field program and agreed upon > with RCTC. The Core storage facility` will. be approximately 5,000 square feet and will be leased :for.1`2 months. The core will be transferred to RCTC at project completion. The core- will be laid Out in long continuous rows at, the .core storage facility facility and. evaluated in detail by senior professionals experienced in core: evaluation. The core will be photographed in the core boxes in artificial light at the core storage facility. The corehole field logs will be checked against the core for: quality control -purposes. ';Core samples will be selected for point load testing at the core storage, facility. The core will be, available for review by RCTC; USES. personnel, and the various. stakeholders: Assumptions:Core storage is planned for one year at an: approximate. 5-,000- square foot:. facility to be located nearby. After one year, RCTC will retain ownership of the core, and will need to coordinate transfer of core to a long-term storage :facility. Deliverables: Core photographs for 6,850 feet of core (approximately 450 photographs) will be uploaded to the ftp site or WBM site. 3.2.5 Corehole Video/Geophysical Surveys Corehole Video Log/Acoustic ,Televiewer. Following completion of coring activities, we .will perform a down -hole OTV' Survey. The main purpose ;of the survey is to obtain in -situ orientations of rock discontinuities (joints, shears, bedding) and .observe aperture and _filling of discontinuities in situ. Features such as lithologic,changes, joint systems, bedding or other features can , also be viewed in situ :and correlated to "the core.': While the OTV log is being run, a permanent continuous optical record is created that is ; oriented with reference to North These digital logs will be :analyzed for, classifying rock mass discontinuities, determining the strike and dip of the noted discontinuities and compiling data,summaries of the digital optical logs. The OTV "video camera operates both above and below water .under, artificial. light to record. a 360-degree digital image of the borehole wall.. To prepare,the'corehole for use of the OTV, clear water will be circulated through the open corehole to remove as many cuttings as possible to . leave clear fluid so that there ,is minimal reflection off ` of suspended particles*. If the water does not clearr up in ,part.,:of the corehole, we will use an acoustic televiewer system (ATV), which provides similar data (image of borehole wall), but the image: is collected as an acoustic reflection off of the sideof the corehole. Page 10 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project The ATV system must be run below water and . can "see". through cloudy waterand detect density differences (openings such as discontinuities, bedding differences, clay seams) in the corehole wall. The image is not as clear as the optical method, but the same structural data can be derived for discontinuity interpretation. The data presentation and analyses are virtually the same as the OTV. The permanent OTV and/or ATV record of the borehole wall will be provided digitally, and will be displayed in hard copy as if the borehole were opened and laid flat. Kleinfeider's geologist will review the OTV records to select discontinuities for measuring strikes and dips. A computer program compatible with the OTV digital image will be used to. pick "peaks and valleys" of the sinusoidal image.on the oriented OTV records and convert the "image picks" to strike and dip of each discontinuity. We will plot the orientations of the discontinuities on stereonets using the computer program ROCKPACK III by C.F. Watts (2001). Stereonets provide a two-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional discontinuity data. These stereonets can be used for analyses related to tunnel crown stability and structural reinforcement needs and for display on geologic plates summarizing the data. The OTV survey will be conducted prior to performing other down -hole surveys. This will allow selection of zones that should be tested for hydraulic conductivity based on openness, evidence of water inflow, and general rock , mass character (fracture spacing). It also allows us to select Zones that will. not damage the packers used for hydraulic conductivity measurements due to sidewall roughness or voids. Performing the OTV survey before the packer testing will also prevent altering the discontinuity apertures of fillings by the packer test and will provide guidance with respect to selecting zones for hydraulic testing: Geophysical Surveys. Kleinfelder plans several geophysical surveys in each Borehole to characterize the hydrogeologic regime along the tunnel alignment and analyze differing hydraulic conditions at greater depths. In particular, recognition of separation between upper and lower groundwater regimes: is critically important, because of the large potential hydraulic head over the tunnel if the groundwater is one interconnected system. We plan to run a suite of tests with down -hole geophysical tools to identify entry points of formation groundwater and flow directions within the borehole (vertical gradients). The geophysical tools proposed are Fluid Temperature, Fluid Conductivity, and E-Log Gamma. The Fluid Temperature and Fluid Conductivity, especially when. plotted together, can highlight anomalies in temperature or conductivity that result from water entering the corehole through fractures. Such zones can be identified and viewed with OTV. All of these data, when used together, provide corroborative evidence for understanding the groundwater regime within the rock mass that the tunnel will penetrate. Assumptions: Corehole video log and geophysical activities includes approximately 2 weeks of time for field and senior geologists to collect the data in the field at five sites (two days per site for set up, logging and break down). It also includes one week per Page 11 of 21 Proposed .Irvine -Corona Expressway Project hole for interpretation of the log and compilation of discontinuity data for use in statistical analyses. We will also review the 4TV records to identify zones for hydraulic conductivity testing. The logs will also be compared to the core contained in the core storage area. Deliverables: Video core log will be uploaded to the ftp site and WBM site. 3.2.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Hydraulic conductivity testing will be conducted using both single and dual packer systems to isolate and straddle selected test sections, both during, and upon completion of drilling as may be appropriate based on field conditions. The test' sections ;will be selected during drillingbased on the general character of the 'core recovered (or lack of core depending on ,degree of fracturing) and drilling characteristics such as lossof drilling fluid or increase of drilling fluid (groundwater 'inflow, indicating increased hydraulic conductivity or a vertical hydraulic gradient). Typically, single packers will be used to test the bottom of the corehole below the packer between .core runs. In most cases, test sections for dual packers will be selected after the completion of the; corehole. Post -completion test sections will be selected based on the results of single packer tests, the core log, and results of the video and geophysical logging. Tabulated test results for packer .testing will include: elapsed time; gauge, and transducer pressure;: meter, reading; water quality; and flow rate. The tabulated data will be used to calculate. an"effective coefficient of permeability" of the rock mass at the test interval. The packer` system will ,be lowered to the desiredtest., section and secured in place using the inflatable packers. The effective length of the test section will vary depending on ` the desired section for testing. For single packers, the test section can include several hundred feet or be as short as five feet (e.g. during, drilling of CPA Borehole 13=1, test sections ranged from 4.5 feet to 480 feet in length). For. the dual -packer test apparatus, the test section can be no longer than the spacing between packers (typicaliy 10 to 24 feet). ; After testing is completed, the packer(s) .will be deflated and the assembly: will be moved:to the next test section or removed from the hole. Results of the packer I permeability`"testing :(size of interval, time, amount of - flow,: pressure) will be tabulated in individual summary sheets.' The data will be input;,into spreadsheets for use in computing hydraulic conductivity for each test interval. The results of the packer testing will be reported on the corehole log sheetsin terns of hydraulic conductivity. Assumptions:: Approximately 140 inflations are planned for all ' coreholes at approximately 4 ;inflations per day. Deliverables: Hydraulic conductivity for each :packer testing interval will be added to . the corehole logs. Page 12 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project 3.2.7 Transducer and Well Installations Kleinfelder has assumed a depth to groundwater of approximately 750 feet bgs. We plan to install a total of 9 pressure transducers (vibrating wire) at 250-foot intervals beginning at the bottom of each corehole, except for Alternate-4, which will have transducers installed at 500-foot intervals. An open -screened monitoring well casing will also beinstalled in a separate borehole drilled adjacent to each corehole. These wells will be constructed in accordance with Water Well Standards; State of California Bulletin 74-81 and Supplemental Bulletin 74-90, and all appropriate monitoring well, installation permits will be obtained. The shallowest groundwater interval will be measured in the open monitoring well casing instead of in the completed corehole. The option of installing a multiple transducer string with two or more transducers was evaluated but not preferred due to the small diameter of .the completed corehole and expected difficulty of securing theentire string in one operation.. Instead, the drilling subcontractor will install two or three separate pressure transducers, each with its dedicated cable connection to the surface, in each completed borehole. Cables: will be Kevlar supported to withstand the weight of the cable (in excess of 1,000-foot length). An additional pressure transducer will be installed in each of the open monitoring wells. This will result in`a total of 14 pressure transducers. Assumptions: Pressure transducers are anticipated to remain in -place after termination of our contract. Demolition of these wellsicoreholes is not included in our scope. Deliverables: Well construction details will be included- in the Geotechnical Data Report. 3.2.8 Laboratory Testing We will conduct.a laboratory -testing program designed to define the general rock mass engineering properties throughout the depth of each corehole. Kleinfelder staff will review the corehole logs and select core intervals for off -site laboratory testing. Samples collected for testing will include both high- and low -strength samples to represent the range of strengths encountered. Specialized testing may be required for lower strength materials including clay gouge, sheared rock or weak rock. This diversity of sample depths should represent a range of rock conditions roughly equivalent to the conditions expected during .tunneling from a weathered rock portal to the heart of the mountain. The depth interval of the core taken for testing will be 'recordedon log sheets. Vacant spaces in core boxes caused by core removal for testing will be filled with spacers labeled "lab test" at that depth. After testing, the core remains will be placed back into the core boxes corresponding to the correct spacers. Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Our proposed testing program will include the following: Field Unit: Weight/Moisture Content (100.tests) Unconfined Compression (UC) (40 tests) Confined Compression (CC, Hoek triaxial cells) (18 tests) Direct Shear (18 tests) Cerchar Abrasion Test (18 tests) Brazilian Tensile Strength (18 tests) Punch Test (18 tests) Petrographic Analysis (18 tests) Point Load Test (300 tests) Rock samples :designated for testing will be shipped to Geo Test Unlimited (GTU) and SubTerra Engineering, Inc., for specialized testing and rock thin sections. Kleinfelder Team personnel will operate point load testing equipment at the core storagefacility so: that; point load tests can be conducted on rock core shortly after recovery, prior to sample moisture changes and sample degradation. Assumptions Our assumed number of tests are presented. above. Deliverables: Laboratory test results will be includedin the GDR. 32.9 Fire Monitor (Optional Task) The U.S. Forest Service requires full time fire monitors on site during all field activities. The fire monitors may be from RCTC or from the Consultant team: As an optional task, Kleinfeld`er will provide full-time fire monitors during the field investigation. The fire monitors will be responsible for monitoring daily weather and field conditions as they pertain to the risk of fire hazard. We expect that two full=time, monitors' will be needed due to the great spacing between sites. ASSUMPTIONS:: USFS WILL REQUIRE NO MORE THAN TWO FULL-TIME FIRE MONITORS. 3.3 GEOTECHNICAL.DATA AND ASSESSMENT REPORTS 3.3 1: Geotechnical Data Analysis Detailed analysis of the .collected data will be performed 'throughout and following completion of thefield exploration program. The resulting data will be used to evaluate key geotechnical conditions that affect the feasibility of the ,MIS tunnel alignment design and construction. The analysis will include an assessrnent of i the rock 'mass characteristics; including lithology, discontinuity conditions and orientations,; rock strength; and groundwater conditions. The rock mass will be described in terms of Rock Mass Ratings. The data analysis will support the Geotechnical Data and Geotechnical Assessment Reports. Page 14 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Assumptions: Analysis of .:corehole video/geophysical surveys and hydraulic conductivity data is included in the scope of Subtasks 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, respectively. 3.3.2 Draft. Geotechnical Data Report A draft Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) will be prepared summarizing the field investigations, laboratory testing, methods utilized, and data collected for the project. The draft GDR will include the following: 1) a discussion of exploration and . testing methods, including conditions and difficulties encountered in the field or Laboratory that affect results; 2) maps and figures as aids in documenting field exploration and testing; 3) presentation of all field data and laboratory test ` results data; 4) core logs; and 5) summary tables and figures of laboratory and field test results. Summary tables and figures in the GDR will include: • Plots of fracture density, aperture size, hydraulic[ conductivity, JRC, point load strength, and other key parameters versus depth of corehole; • Stereonet plots of discontinuity poles for primary and secondary. joint/foliation systems; • Correlation plots of geophysical data, hydraulic conductivity;- strength data, aperture size, and fracture density; M • Summary plots of strength test data, including tensile strength, unconfined compressionstrength versus depth and confined compressive strength versus depth; • Histograms of permeability, fracture density and orientation, strength data, and other key parameters; and • Summary tables of strength, permeability and discontinuity data, including discontinuity characteristics (roughness, surface shape, orientation, spacing aperture, filling etc.). Assumptions: We assume that review comments on the Draft :GDR will be available within 3 weeks of the submittal date. Deliverables: Draft Geotechnical Data Report (one reproducible master and 20 copies). 3.3.3 Final Geotechnical Data Report Comments from the draft GDR will be reviewed, and the document will be modified to incorporate responses to the comments, as appropriate. The final GDR will be signed and stamped by a.California Registered Civil or Geotechnical Engineer and a California Certified Engineering Geologist. Assumptions: We assume that addressing the review comments will not require any additional field exploration activities. Final GDR will be submitted within 4 weeks of obtaining RCTCs review comments on the Draft GDR. Page 15 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Deliverables: Final GeotechnicalDataReport (20 bound final report copies, 1 unbound camera-ready version and 1 CD/DVD of the final report). 3.3.4 Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report The information .contained in the GDR will be used toevaluate; the 'likely impacts. that the rock mass and' groundwater 'conditions (perched, confined, artesian.:; conditions) may have on the feasibility of the proposed tunnel line and grade: and .to assess the potential effects- of 'tunnel construction, onthe groundwater and surface water regimes adjacent to. the ' "project A draft Geotechnical Assessment ;Report (GAR) . will be prepared characterizing the distribution of . rock and groundwater conditions. with 'respect t0 the project: elements: Additionally, the GAR will discuss geologic hazards with respect to the selected alignment in its entirety from the east portal to the west portal Further, the feasibility of the proposed tunnel alignment and conceptualevaluation of the major,. design features will be discussed. The feasibility evaluation will .rely heavily on the expertise of our. tunneling experts, who will be involved throughout the project from data collection through feasibility evaluation. The tunneling feasibility evaluation team will review the project findings andproposed design concepts and develop a list of key issues with recommendations for design consideration to be presented in the GAR. Assumptions we assurne .that review comments on the Draft. GAR will be available within 4 weeks ofthe submittal date. Deliverables: Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report (one reproducible master and 20 copies). 3.3.5 Final Geotechnical Assessment Report Kleinfelder will review RCTC's comments on the Draft GAR, and Schedule a meeting, as necessary, : to discuss the comments and achieve resolution"' The -Draft GAR` will be revised, asappropriate, to address RCTC's review. comments. The Final GAR will be signed and stamped' by a California Registered Civil or Geotechnical ° Engineer and a California Certified Engineering Geologist. Assumptions: Final GDR will be submitted within 4 weeks of obtaining. RCTC's review comments on the Draft GDR.' Deliverables: = Final Geotechnical Assessment Report (20 bound final report copies, 1 unbound camera-ready version and 1 CD/DVD of the final report): Page 16 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project 3.3.6 Technical Advisory Panel (Optional Task) As an optional task Kleinfelder will convene a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) of tunnel engineering experts to identify, assess, quantify, and develop a response to risks associated with tunneling within the proposed alignment. Following the general guidance of the Caltrans Project Risk Management Handbook, the TAP will develop a "Risk Registry" in which they will 1) identify project risks prior to embarking on the 'project, 2) reevaluate these risks after the field and laboratory studies have been performed, 3) categorize the risks according to the likelihood of occurrence, and 4) evaluatethe potential consequences for each risk if it were to occur. Additionally, the TAP will use the information from the Risk Registry to assist in the preparation of a discussion of the various construction methods, their.advantages and disadvantages to the project, and the potential impacts that need to be considered or further evaluated. If requested by RCTC, the TAP will also address the RCTC, O-CTA and the ROCA Board at meetings to brief decision makers about findings and respond to questions of feasibility and project risk. Assumptions: The TAP will consist of three members; each of which will make two trips; one to visit the site and review the core at the core storage facility, and the second to meet with the Kleinfelder Team to discuss their findings. Deliverables: Technical Memorandum (one reproducible'master and 20 copies) 3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN AND REPORT 3.4.1 Develop Plan A Groundwater Monitoring Plan will be prepared to document the location of the groundwater resource sites to be monitored, the proposed access to the sites,` and the activities that will occur as part of the monitoring program: Tasks, associated with development of the Plan include: • Review of the locations of the resources previously cataloged during the CPA and MIS studies; • Review of aerial photographsand search of public records for additional resources relevant to the current alignment; • Selection of the candidate sites to be monitored; • Review of current access to those sites and their potential monitoring setups during an aerial helicopter reconnaissance; • Establish approximate coordinates of each resourcesite based on the aerial photographic analyses, and past records of information gathering; and • Discussion of the proposed monitoring activities atthe sites. Page 17 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Assumption: The groundwater resource locations are not coordinate located and; need to be cataloged;,, accordingly prior to field verification site visits. Deliverables: Groundwater Monitoring Plan (one reproducible master and 20 copies): , 3.4.2 Set Up & Initial Month Monitoring The, candidate resource sites identified in Subtask 3.4.1-..will beyisited and evaluated for monitoring suitability. For estimating purposes, 5.0 resource .=sites the 5 : new; core borings, 11 private wells and 34:spring resources) have been assumed for monitoring, but the actual number and type of resources monitored will be dependent on the results . of this subtask. Those resources identified for long-term monitoring will be set up and. the initial monthly water level or flow measurements obtained. ; Initial field water quality measurements (including temperature, electrical conductivity, pH, Eh and dissolved ; oxygen) will be completed at the spring sites. The 5 new core < borings will .be set-up. with automated water level monitoring equipment (data loggers) with telemetered access. The assumed 11 private wells will be set-up with automated water; level. monitoring systems that will be downloaded during monthly site visits:' The initial flow and field water quality measurement at the 34 spring resources will be takenby hand. Water quality samples from six selected resource sites will be :collected and sent for laboratory testing, as a means to better understandthe mountain's hydrologic system. Each of the six collected samples will be tested in the laboratory for generalminerals, trace metals, and stable isotopes of water (i.e., Deuterium and Oxygen-18). The water characteristics from the six tested sites will be used to assess sources of recharge for groundwater and its movement through the mountain. The locations of each resource to be monitored will be determined utilizing Land Surveyor grade global positioning -units (GPS) tied to existing control (if available). If the survey control is not available, the approximate locations of springs and stream, flow . monitoring points will be recorded with a hand-held GPS unit: , Digitalphotographs will be taken at each monitoring site, and a brief site characterization will be recorded. . Assumptions: Groundwater .resource sites will be limited to ,50 Minimal - site enhancements will be required at spring sites to allow measurements of flow by hand The timing of the surveyor visits to the sites will likely .follow the set up and initial month . monitoring so that the sites and access to each has been verified in .the: field before the survey crew mobilizes with the groundwater monitor crew for the second month of . monitoring. Deliverables: The results` of the initial water quality testing ;will be . presented in the Groundwater Technical Memorandum. Page 18 of 21 3.4.3 Progressive Monthly Monitoring After the initial set-up and measurement, the water level data automatically recorded in each of the 5 new core borings will be downloaded via phone weekly for the remaining year. Each month :after the initial measurement, for the remaining year, the automated water level measurements recorded in the monitored private wells will be will be downloaded during site visits_ Each of the monitored spring or stream sites will be visited via vehicle, helicopter and/or foot access once a month for the remaining year, and field measurements of flow rates and water quality (including temperature, electrical conductivity, pH, Eh, and dissolved oxygen) will be completed. Digital photographs will be taken each month at each spring monitoring site, and a brief site characterization will be recorded. Assumptions: Due to the extreme difficulty for physical access to some .of the spring sites, it is assumed that hiking to some of the sites may take a half day. Thus, for some days of monitoring, only two or three sites may be. reached in . a single field day. Implementation of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan will be performed by staff working in pairs to enhance field safety and efficiency. Deliverables: The results of the groundwater resource_ monitoring will be presented in the Groundwater Technical Memorandum. 3.4.4 Groundwater Technical. Memorandum The results of the current Groundwater Monitoring Program together with the results of the previous effort performed by GeoPentech personnel in the Fate 1980s will be summarized in a Groundwater Technical Memorandum (Report). The data collected from the monitoring program will be used to develop a groundwater contour reap with resource locations, illustrating groundwater elevations and potential flow directions within the study area for both the wet and dry periods of the study. The report will include a brief introduction and project description, discussion of field and laboratory methods and results, and conclusions and recommendations. Field data sheets and individual site photographs will be included as appendices to the document. ' Field water quality and flow measurements will be summarized in spreadsheet format. Not all of the five monitoring wells with vibrating Wire Piezometers will be constructed twelve months in advance of the project completion date (March 15, 2009). Monthly monitoring events for these wells will extend approximately three months beyond the. project completiondate. Data from these later -events will be presented in a follow-up memorandum or addendum to the Groundwater Technical Memorandum. Assumptions: An addendum to the Groundwater Technical Memorandum will be required to report the groundwater data collected after our contract completion date. Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Deliverables: Groundwater Technical Memorandum (Report) (20 :bound finalreport . copies, 1 unbound camera-ready version and 1 CD/DVD of the report). 3.5 GROUNDWATER MODELING A numerical . groundwater model will be developed: using available geologic :and groundwater data to evaluate tunnel groundwater inflow .potential and the potential> effect; that, alternative tunneling means and methods might haveon surrounding groundwater resources. and tunnel progress. These :evaluations iprovide information to make decisions regarding the feasibility of more efficient ` design and construction approaches toward handling water inflow to the proposed tunnels, and thus minimizing: or: avoiding groundwater resource impacts. Based on the rock mass characteristics of the site, a commercially -available numerical code such as FRAC 3DVS may be utilized to model the .site -specific groundwater conditions. The FRAC "3DVS code has been used successfully for the Inland Feeder Tunnels project. The results of the groundwater modeling will be incorporated in the Geotechnical Assessment Report. Assumptions: , Modeling will evaluate one or two construction methods and various pre --excavation grouting conditions. Deliverables: Groundwater model and various model run results will be incorporated into the GAR. 3.6 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (OPTIONAL TASK) Biologists . have previously conducted initial biological Surveys of the :: springs and streams _associated with the groundwater resources in the study area for MWD's CPA tunnel alignment. ` Should RCTC need to address the biological : aspects of the groundwater monitoring program for this project, Kleinfelder's biologists can: be called upon to update and expand the existing catalog of . the, biological :elements at the groundwater resource sites. These elements include descriptions of the dominant plant species in both the overstory and the, understory according to general plant communities classifications as described by two ,, references published :by the California Department of Fish' and Game and accepted by other regulatory, agencies: (1) the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolff 1995) and (2) the Preliminary Descriptions .of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland:: 1986). The analysiswill also address, both vertebrate and invertebrate animal species. Page 20 of 21 Proposed Irvine -Corona Expressway Project Aquatic biologists will visit each site twice during the contract period (in late Spring). For each site we will: • Provide photo documentation; • Conduct a survey of three sites across the wetland area and record extent of open water, submergent, emergent, riparian and/or upland vegetation. We will also list any wildlife species noted during the visit. • Provide a list of major plant species for each of the vegetation types above. • Prepare a sketch of the extent of vegetation type at each site. • Sample open water to identify invertebrate populations • Prepare a technical memorandum documenting each wetland area including photographs, vegetation maps, species list, transect results and a list of invertebrates found at the site. Assumptions: Biological Assessment will be performed at 34 spring resources by two staff for safety purposes. Each resource site will be visited twice during the contract period. Deliverables: Biological Assessment Technical Memorandum (20 bound final report copies, 1 unbound camera-ready version and 1 CD/DVD of the Technical Memorandum). 4.0 QA/QC Kleinfelder will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project. QA/QC provisions, procedures, and protocols, consistent with our corporate quality procedures and standards will be identified and documented in a QA/QC Plan. All documentsprepared for submission to RCTC (inclusive of boring logs, figures, calculations, etc) will be subject to QA/QC procedures that will be detailed in the QA/QC Plan. Quality assurance audits will be conducted on a regular basis to assure compliance with the QA/QC Plan and Project Management Plan. Deliverables: Draft and Final QA/QC Plan (included as part of the PMP). Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT 2 Irvine -Corona Expressway Cost Breakdown - Task No. and Task Title Labor Hours Labor Cost ($) Other Direct Cost (5) Subtotal ($) Subtotal 23,015 S4.489,990.33 S1,312489.25 $5,1305.079.15 Task Descriptions din, ;tSaiManagament '4`. z� s- 1.1 1.2 Project Staffing - $229,829.88 Project Management and Control 1,556 $229,829.88 Project Management Plan - Coordination and Administration of the Project - 1.3 Coordination with Other Agencies 80 $15,391.20 $2,522.00 $17,913.20 Project Meetings - Bi-Weekly Coordination Meetings with RCTC (36) 288 $38,026.08 $38,026.08 ROCA Committee Meetings (6) 24 $4,617.36 $4,617.36 Meetings with Local, Stale, federal Agencies (10) 40 $7,695.60 $7,695.60 1.4 'Document Control and Web Based Management System - 1.4.1 Document Control 488 $50,035.20 $50,035.20 $f0$0006-i -. 1.4.2-- Web -based Management Sy stem OPTIONAL TAs $108,000.00 2.0 S,ecial Use Permit Assistance 160 $24,359.20 $485.00 $24,844.20 Xaskt37e 3.1 ,ec-hntcal'iefidiit{iii'ati'aii:' dTe"sEir�iSeN es " - Existing Data Summary Data Report 160 $19,441.72 $1,250.00 $20,691.72 3.2 Field Exploration Program - 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 312 $55,451.18 $5,975.00 $61,426.18 3.2.2 Exploration Plan 364 $48,293.48 $400.00 $48,693.48 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging - $1,203,206.60 $839,820.00 $2,043,026.60 Personnel Mobilization and Setup 200 $30,303.60 $30,303.60 Coreholes MIS-1, MIS-2. MIS-3, ALT. 3 2,970 $402,374.70 $402,374.70 Corehole Alternate 4 to 2,370 feet 1,196 $108,681.94 $108,681.94 3.2.4 Core Evaluation/ Core Photography 768 $115,067.76 $67,500.00 $182,567.76 3.2.5 Corehole Video! Geophysical Survey: 276 $85,841.64 $15,110.00 $100,951.64 3.2.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing - 656 $133,589.84 $100.00 $133,689.84 3.2.7 Transducer and Wells Installations 244 $60,756.72 $49,758.00 $110,514.72 3.2.8 Laboratory Testing 120 $62,221.64 - $62,221.64 ,3.2.9- Fire Monitor(OPTIONALTASK) - • ----!a - r: :„ 3,380 `;$443,30000-- _$12,000.00 `- $455,300.00- 3.3 Geotechnical Data and Assessment Reports - 13.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 560 $71,586.60 $71,586.60 3.3.2 Draft Geotechnical Data Report 540 $80,782.40 $4,000.00 $84,782.40 ,3.3.3 Final Geotechnical Data Report 346 $51,161.44 $4,000.00 $55,161.44 3.3.4 Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report 640 $110,614.00 $6,544.00 $117,158.00 3.3.5 Final Geotechnical Assessment Report 330 $59,656.32 $4,000.00 $63,656.32 3,3,6. Technical Advisory Panel :(OPTIONAL TASK) -. - > �• ' -:' , ' -. ' '600 ` I' $165,044.00 _ $2,544.00 _ $167,588.00: 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report - 3,4,1 Develop Plan 246 $27,833.42 $7,121.25 $34,954.67 3.4.2 Setup & Initial Month Monitoring 1,227 $147,980.53 $114,357.50 $262,338.03 3.4.3 Progressive Monthly Monitoring 1,896 $149,837.52 $51,500.00 $201,337.52 3.4.4 Groundwater Technical Memo 280 $38,572.88 $2,533.50 $41,106.38 3.5 Groundwater Modeling 620 $108,729.96 $8,000.00 $116,729.96 3.6 Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL TASK) ; ± ,.;; - •' - 554 i$110,337.36 , ',$2,425.00 :' $11$762.36 . 540 $119,031.20 $2,544.00 $121,575.20 Administrative Fee on Subconsuhant Labor (5%) $111,582.82 Administrative Fee on Laboratory Testing (3%) $1,354.11 Total Cost Without Options, No Escalation 54,961,429 Cost for Options (Tasks 1,4.2, 3.2:9, 3.3.6, and 3.6) No Escalation .'.. ''- 5843,650'... Total Cost With Options, No Escalation $5,805,079 Total Cost Without Options With Escalation (3%effective 4-1-07;3%for 2008) - $5,263,580 Total Cost With Options With Escalation (3%:effective 4-1-07;, 3%for 2008) 56,158,608 aro]1ap1eµ19 St 610.509'5S (u0114l9oe3 Ino416a) gad 1VL01 It 699 LS -Trit-E-Wheal AO)e409811m a9d 9e0enc1c11.11pV Z9Z09'LL LS NS) 10991.9911u90O9u000us uo aed ozgocewuptl e0e99drd 1e1019ns 69'699'ZO1'ZS LI'89969S 90'091b5Y 09'696'6CS WOO, 99L$ 00009'tact no Dos tint 00'D09'But on CesIBLS OB LSO'92S seLIi 969$ CO"609'99S 00'S09'I91 nano loryznoso19n9 96194 III Oa 999 00ZZ OBLL 0091. 090Z ZPSL 091 9LSZ 002 00C u011ee91e9910 lq mnnH 10101009 . OulloP9W 19994•090910 !sued xslnea loNulmel LI o fdp o v0v luul_ -- UPSLE 00PM.'ZS ' OB'4L81044 OOS 09 -"'-' - .._. SE'LES PLC 60L 09 9E 11•• a -�... 00'006'LLS 001 001 919Ale0V oleo 00.005ZBS DSC OSL RPM 099 Dasz9'zY ff4- r, -= -Y::::1N5YllYN011d0}1900,99.91Y;1090Y410,109'9s 00 000 BCZLZ'901f \99' LSO Zf 91 81 Bupl Dory lmemPup s'f ZS 09"6Lill•90 L£E 96 9 LE unpuelowaluois19a9l1mempunol0 I'YC p 9 00009ZS OOLSE 09 L9C'LS 6'L9L'ZS 91 91 9 9 EPE 6w0110069W01119091 01S OS'LSCbtLS ISIZLV2613 192L251Lf L9L'ZS HI _ B 9 S 6uymluow uµow leyul8dNaS 21E V ORBS SZ'Lit '1 OFS90'S25 Z'L9L'ZS 91 e e cold 0o119180 1 P C Code?! Due umd 6Wm11011LmaVPunm0 9'E 00'69E'St LS 00'6PS'ZS 00 099'66S DOZ OOZ 1;04144 x- (MSY1.lVN00,1014euad/+ompyi90lu9001000 .. '9:9E'E 1lodaa 111eu9e899V Leo1c9oaWe0 loulf 9EC a_, HMCO'99S 00'000'PS 9'CZ9'9i$ PIZ 00 PZ 01 OE 09 06 00'9LL B$S 00 OPS'9$ Ott ZSS 000 COL 09 DK 06 oB oe 1mdca 1.w1ma0e6V P21.041000%MO 0'C'C 09'996'ILI 00'000'PS 'SOUKS 0E9 09 Ot 09 CB 09 09 tludOa 010O1000,990100D leuld C'C'C 09'969 OLE 00'000Of 990E09S DOS COL 08 DO L 09 09 O9 1.100921 9100 1901049010e00910 LC'C 09'90S'LLS 095 OE OB DO OB C9l 00L 09 9101109V 0110100!99omoo0 L'E'E s110m8191009e8991/ Due me0 loOlu94e19o0 E'C 00000Z1S DD'OOCCO0$ 000C COE1 080E N9ffi1VN011d0 01100rvatldlillkO,RB$"B'116Z0: �Ir 00 "LE L'Set 09'PBO'LLS Oil. O9 9Z 9t Buncol/ummo99l 9ZE 00'9GL'SOS 99 SLO'CES 99DM/ZS 60Z 09 OB - OI 6L S9o11e11ns011140M our loonosuul L'Z'E 00'COLS 6E"Z9L'L9Y 09'L29'99$ OZs D9 091 OBL 09 0e 6u999111M1UnPu00 ollnewAN 9'Z'E 00'OL 1'91$ 00'BE 1'19$ 09'COL 'PCS 06Z 09 09 09 CO 9.40919 19019KeI F9PA 9096100 S'Z'C 96'99S'Z LS 00'00S L9S 09'92.6'LOLS OZL 091 00Z OZZ _ OZ1 - lydµ6el09d 9100 N49901w39400 0'Z'E 00"LEL'991 09'09993 00Z 09 OE OL OZ 0P 09 001E01e1.1V elocµn0 OZ"SZ6'LE DS'BOO '6BES OCB'Z 06 OB OP 099 0S9 00L o6C C"11V C-SIR Z-9111 L-991991099190 09'COCOC$ DO 1 09 oe 09 acos Duo uopex0190w I9uuouod 00'199'0E3 09"90i COE'lS 00"691'6LLS 6u6601'6011dwe5'60111p0'94.1090,00 E'Z'E 9L'999'SS CO'000$ LCLICZK OPC 09 11 06 Ob 09 oe 9C 091duoncoorb3 EZ'f 96'LSO 'LLS 00916SS- OZ'666'LOS OPE 00 OB 09 94419se1euuo4941PlNd wuBmduoAenps3 PRA Z'6 000SZ'IS ZL'l01'6L5 09l PZ 91 09 09 OL Poch% oleo botoLns ele06u0as3 L'f - _._. J 00"980$ OL 69E'PZS 091 OP 01 09 00u0t0itsV lluu9d ern to 0'Z �D� P u•nvunZ.."t0'1 00'000'DOLS NSY/1V401/JO 199199uwaueW eM' orseD'os 1001uotun1 ' u9gslgµm091reDwcam ace P9u]u9wooa YL 9' OP OD OL9aPmb/Iµa19919441Lm 9C"LLB '14 9Z (9)sOu909rv90111011640V0tl HO"BZO'DLE 0Z 9L bl (9E) ]I]8V96usooRuo6ulµ000LwerM19 rDuAeo" 1dl 00"EZ9'LY OL"t6C'SLY OB OB ain uop1oopo y0,x u0peulµ000 f'4 ' us0016V1e100 Uafud ow Jo u0Ae9uold ' totl a/nion 10l0o] - cold lueuwoluo0 99'6Z96EZ$ 95S'L 910 096 oe Loot IVAUD]We µ9watl0uvS t0olmd Z'L ' 599P19199(µd lvnlold l 1 ,0e,,.n lloPtl.1 tl l , LPpea , _ ^ '3 9 l soon eueANDe9O6n1 CL �9a ' 6eDUad no PM9µAs3 ..,. ... Y 4A e.ry... E _ I'll 4'^e.' �C�F"rcA ... 1 P F^ g7'r'„., 07;1 012.1 %'ILS �4�p�i����� � 1. LiMtS m mULi f+.v,.^. rlrc 06011f e si m9219 .rw%,:• 1 �11� 005949 { 'w.f', L'^✓ SI m'0419 �i'AYB,r' Oa'Wb .+Nl ¢'SLIS R.9 dl L EE'61f �'I lax., LIYR! y H �r�1a�IA 9LBOLI„w .l,l099.t 9LB6L! 1ls'Z aatl Y fiye','1 56 f n,},h'.' +.i ''£u.� `a7"` Pa6'� S'{r�i•li `. ..*'� a9M0ZBIL .'�w" t•±19!1•0J .attic, %OO L91 M'OL.W9tl aa,{ saMADDV 9 P991yanp S Cm .S 0 s� 9 4r g3 nu ° E ^�' $Q =g x �f 3c $ c Fpp Ig cg z! .m Da 8€ s8 ^yo oa ma 03 a v ° 2 p I v 6 t 2 4g a rff �r sY A: �R F 1�°•id 3i^ iE�' 9i � "-x' is i41 Eg g_ va 3 8� R }a$ A ^ g IeS0dOJd ISO° ABPASsaJdx3 euOJOD-auinJI Kieinfelder Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity_ . Unit Unit rate Total Quantity Unit Unit rate Total 3.2.7 Transducer and Wells Installations Subtotal Task 3.2.7 3.2.8 'Laboratory Testing Subtotal Task 3.2.8 3.2.9 Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) I I I I 8 .. I Month j $1,500.00 1 $12,000.00 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 Draft Geotechnical Data Report Reproduction Fees (estimate) 20 Report . $200.00 $4,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.2 $4,000.00 3.3.3 Final Geotechnical Data Report Reproduction Fees (estimate) 20 Report $200.00 $4,000.00 dot.dat inc pint logs and graphics Subtotal Task 3.3.3 $4,000.00 3.3.4 Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report Reproduction Fees (estimate) 20 Report . $200.00 $4,000.00 Air Fare 3 — Costs $500.00 $1,500.00 Per diem 6 Costs $174.00 $1,044.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.4 , '$6,544.00 3.3.5 Final Geotechnical Assessment Report Reproduction Fees (estimate) 20 Report $200.00 $4,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.5 $4,000.00 3.3.6 Technical. Advisory Panet(OPTIONAL) Air Fare 3 Costs $500.00 $1,500.00 Per diem 6 Costs , $174.00 $1,044.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.6 $2,544.00 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan Helicopter Mileage Aerial Photos Subtotal Task 3.4.1 3.4.2 Setup & Initial Month Monitoring Private Well Equipment (datalogger) Datalogger, modem, antenna, software, etc. _ _ __ Helicopter Field and Office Supplies Cell Phone and Dedicated Phone Line Water Quality Testing Mileage Subtotal Task 3.4.2 3.4.3 Progressive Monthly Monitoring Helicopter Field and Office Supplies . Cell Phone and Dedicated Phone Line — ----- ---__.--------------------------------- Mileage--._—.�—--------- ------ Subtotal Task 3.4.3 3.4.4 Technical Memo 8 Meetings Report Reproduction Supplies Mileage for Meetings Subtotal Task 3.4.4 • 3_5 Groundwater Modeling Kleinfelder Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity 1 Unit 1 Unit rate 'Total Quantity Unit Unit rate 1Totai Task 1- Administration and Project Management 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1Project Staffing 1 I 1 1 { ` ., 1.2 Project Management and Control ( 1 1.3 Coordination with Other Agencies Si -Weekly Coordination Meetings 3600 miles $0.49 $1,746.00 ROCA Committee Meetings 600 miles $0.49 ' $291_00 Meetings with Local, State, Federal Agencies .: _ 1000 miles. $0.49 $485.00 Subtotal Task 1`.3 -- -- — - $2,522.00 1.4 Web -based System (OPTIONAL) 1 1 Task 2 ----------1-- - Special Use Permit Assistance .- - — _- _ -- 1000 miles --- _ $0.49--- — $485.00 Mileage Subtotal Task 2.0 _ , $485.00 Task 3 - Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing 1 3.1 Data Collection Mileage 200 ' miles $0.49 . Reproduction Fees 1 Lump Sum $250.00 $250.00 Aerial Photographs 1 Lump Sum $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.1 $1,250.00 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1. Field Reconnaissance Mileage --- -- - ----------- 1200 _ 1 1 _miles Dap+ _ Estimate.. $0.49_ $4393.00 $1,000.06 _$582.00 _ _$4,393.00 $1,000.00 _-- ---- Helicopter Video Subtotal Task 3.2.1 - $5,975.00 3.2.2 Exploration Plan -- ------ Reproduction Fees - --- p — -- -- _._ .--- -------- ---- dot,dat.inc log form - --- _ --- - _. -- -- - --- — ---- — 20^ _. Each _---------- $20.00 _ -----$400 _00 Subtotal Task 3.2.2 $400.00 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Loggiqg _ KA Moblization Mileage 1000 miles $0.49 ;" $485.00 Coreholes MIS-1, MIS-2', MIS-3, ALT. 3 —------- ---, mileage 48000 '. miles $0.49 $23,280.00 4x4 Vehicle Rental and maintenance (2) 8 Month $3,000.00 $24,000.00 Field Cameras (3) 8 Month $150.00 $1,200.00 _____________ _� Kleinfelderper diemj2 people @$174/dy 173 1 d dam__ Lump Sum Month _$348.00 $4,-60.0- $300.00 $60,20.4.00 $4,000.00 $3,600.00 _ _ misc field supplies Satellite Radios (2) 12 Forest Service Required Equipment i Year : $2,400.00 $2;400.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.3 $119,169.00 3.2.4 Core Evaluation! Core Photography Digital Photography and digital prints 1 Lump Sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Core Storage Facility rental 12 Months $5,000.00 $60,000.00 Miscellaneous Costs 1 Lump Sum .$2,500.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.4 $67,500.00 3.2.5 (Corehole Video/ Geophysical Surveys Subtotal Task 3.2.5 3.2.6 itlydraulic Conductivity Testing --- - - - - — - Subtotal Task 3.2.6 ---------- -- Kleinfelder Expenses Irvine -Corona. Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Task 3.5 Quantity Unit Unit rate Total Quantity Unit Unit rate Total Subtotal 3.6 (Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL) _ +I Mileage (50 site visits) 5000 miles $0.49 $2,425.00 Subtotal Task 3.6 $2,425.00 4.0 lamx Airfare TAP 3 cost - $500.00 $1,500.00 Per diem TAP 6 day $174.00 $1,044.00 Subtotal Task 4.0 $2,544.00 _ ________ _— Crux Labor.& Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity { Unit { Unit rate {Total Quantity { Unit { Unit rate 'Total Task 1 - Administration and Project Management 1J { J J J 1.1 - 'Project Staffing I J J { J J { J 1.2 'Project Management and Control I { 1.3 'Coordination with Other Agencies ) J J J 1.4 IWeb-based System (OPTIONAL) J J ( T J J Task 2- Special Use Permit Assistance J J J J J J J J Task 3- Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing J J J [ J J J 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 jExploration Plan 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging Crux Drill -Mob" 1 Lum• Sum $71,586.00 $71,586.00 Crux Drill Demob 1 Lump Sum $18,100.00 $18,100.00 Drilling 0 - 250 feet 1000 Feet $42.10 $42,100.00 Drilling 251- 500 feet 1000 Feet $44.80 $44,800.00 Drilligg_501 _750 feet — -- — _ Drilling 751 -1000 feet 1000 Feet $48.00 $51.70 $48,000_00 $42,911.00 830 Feet Drilling 1000 -1250 feet 646 Feet $56.10 $36,240.60 Drilling 1250 -1500 feet 10 Feet $61.40 $614.00 Drill Standpipe Borehole : $76,000.00 Setup/ Tear Dow_n/MoveslWater System Hole Conditionin. - -- - 140 • 0 Hours$33,600.00 . 0 0 0 -----$21,600.00 --------------------- --------_--------- Travel Time (2 crews) 150 Crew / Days ` 0 0 o .00 Extra men (4) 300 Days i Crux Project Manager Crux Subsistence t8 me -- -- - Water Truck (2) 75 Days • i r r r $45,000.00 i 150 _Man ! Da r�s$90.00s y $250.00 _ Grout Plant 75 $150.00 Helicopter 75 Days $4,393.00 Road Access Development 1 Lump Sum $5,000.00 Water System _ Cuttings Disposal 1 Lum_p_Sum $16,000.00 $16,000 00 1 Lump Sum $1,200.00R Drill Muds/ Grout 1 Lump Sum $8,000.00 u g„s> Security (on days 2 people/1 shift/day) 130 Days '$1,000.00 $130,000.00 � Security (off days 2 people/3 shifts/day) 52 Days $2 00000.,' $104,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.3$_R i $446,425.00 3.2.4 Core Evaluation/ Core Photography Di ital Phot• • ra • h and di. ital . tints 1 Lum . Sum $5 000.00 $5,000.00. Core Storage Facility rental 12 Months $5,000.00 $60,000.00 Subtotal Miscellaneous Costs Task 3.2.4 -------- ----- ------ ---- 1 ---- _ --- Lum Sum $2,500.00 $2,500.00 —_-_--------- $67,500.00 3.2.5 Corehole Video/ Geo•h sical Surve s Crux.Surpport of Geophysics 40 Hours $240.00 $9,600.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.5 a ,:: 0 3.2.6 H draulic Conductivi Testin• Crux Subsurface Packer Test Hours150 Hours $240.00 $36,000.00 - Packer Inflations --_ --Packer Rental (2 sets) ---- ---- ---- r r r r $7,500.00$50.00 - ------$100.0 . Ruen Drilling Packer Test Hours Subtotal Packer Inflations • Task 3.2.6 $100.00 $51,000.00 3.2.7 Transducer and Wells Installations — Crux Labor & Direct Costs . Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs ' Quantity Unit Unit rate Total Quantity Unit Unit rate Total Cruz Sub Crux Subsurface VW Transducer/OB Well installation 120 Hours $240.00 $28,800.00 Standpipe OB Well Materials 4 Borings $3,500.00 $14,000.00 VW Transducer Materials . ' 1 lump Sum $18,450.00 $18,450.00 Subtotal Task 3.2J _ $28,800.00 $32,450.00 3.2.8 !Laboratory Testing I I I I I.' 3.2.9 , !Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK). I I I F I I_ I 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 ` 'Draft Geotechnical. Data Report T r I } I + ' . 3.3.3 1Final Geotechnical Data Report T I I ( I ' I ' 3.3.4 .1Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report T I I I I 3.3.6 'Final: Geotechnical Assessment Report I j 1 I 3.3.6 (Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) 1 I I 1' I 1- 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan 3.4.2 'Setup & Initial Month, Monitoring I I I I 3.4.3 'IProgressive Monthly Monitoring 1 I: ' : I I I. 3.4.4 (Technical Memo &,Meetings I Ii 3.5 1Groundwater Modeling .' ( ( I j 3.6 jBiological Assessment (OPTIONAL) 1 I I i:. I 4.0 'QAIQG Ruen Labor and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit I Unit rate +Total Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ITotal Task 1- Administration and Project Management 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 PProject Staffing I 1 I 1 i I I . 1 1.2 'Project Management and Control 1 L ( 1 1 I 1 I 1.3 'Coordination with Other Agencies 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1.4 'Web -based System (OPTIONAL) 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 Task 2- Special Use PermitAssistance 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 Task 3- Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 3.1 'Data Collection I 1 1 1 I 1 1 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 _ Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 'Exploration Plan 1 ' 1 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging Corehole Alternate 4 Drill Rigs Mob/ Demob 1 Lump Sum $5,900.00 $5,900.00 Drill 0-1470 feet . 1470 Feet $67.50 $99,225.00 Drill 1470 - 2370 900' Feet $67.50 . $60,750.00 Setup! Tear Down, Conditioning 220 Hours $210.00 $46,200.00 Water Tank 69 Days $65.00' Light Tower Shift $90.00 -- _ Grout Plant 69 Shift $90.00 Supply Pump 69 Shift $90.00 e' helicopter support $4 hours $1,800.00 Wooden Core boxes, incidentals 1 Lump Sum :$1 M5 00 ,. r Water truck 69 . Shift $260.00 >gar. -- - -- ----- - Water truck mileage _.----- -- -- -------- ---- ------ --- ------ ------ Mile_ Per man- $1.85 -- $95.00 . ------ Per diem (3 men) _2750 220 . � �s r Extra Labor 690 per man $57.00 $39,330.00�� Cuttings Disposal 1 Lump Sum' $33,840.00 Extra Hole for 500 ft well 500 Feet $67.50 $33,750.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.3 „ „ $258,006.00 3.2.4 'Core Evaluation/ Core Photography 1 1 3.2.5 . Corehole Video! Geophysical Surveys Ruen Standby 40 Hours $185.00 $7,400.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.5} 3.2.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Ruen Drilling Packer Test Hours _ — 40 H Hours - Inflations $210.00 _ $3,600.00 —---- -- ---- -- ---------- -- --- - -- -- Packer Inflations ----- $90.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.6 $3,600.00 3.2.7 Transducer and Wells Installations Ruen Dril Ruen Drilling _ ,-- --_ - -- VW TransducerlOB Well Installation Vibration Wire.Piezometers hours $210.00 1 Lump Sum $17,308:00 $17,308.00 Standpipe OB Well Materials Subtotal Task 3.2.7 $17,308.00 3.2.8 'Laboratory Testing 1 1 3.2.9 'Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) t 1 I I 1 1 I 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis Ruen tabor and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity . Unit Unit rate Total Quantity , Unit Unit rate Total 3.3.2 Draft Geotechnical Data Report Reproduction Fees (estimate). dot.dat inc gint logs and graphics Subtotal Task 3.3.2 3.3.3 (Final Geotechnical Data Report 3.3.4 'Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report 1 j j (- , . 3.3.5 'Final Geotechnical Assessment Report 1 1 ( ] ' , 3.3.6 (Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) -I- I ( ( .. 1 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan 3.4.2 'Setup & Initial Month Monitorinuc - ( ( I ( (. ( 3.4.3 'Progressive Monthly Monitoring L ( ( (. 3.4.4 'Technical Memo &Meetings 1 I I I I- J j:. 3.5 'Groundwater Modeling 1 j ' 1 ( ' . ' . 1 _ 3.6 ' !Biological Assessment OPTIONAL s (OPTIONAL) 1 I I f 1 I j" . 4.0 'jQA/QC T Norcal Labor and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity [ Unit I Unit rate [Total Quantity I Unit I Unit rate 'Total Task 1- Administration and Project Management I I I I 1 I I I 1.1 ]Project Staffing I I I I I I- l 1.2 !Project Management and Control I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1.3 'Coordination with Other Agencies ] 1 1 I I I 1 I 1.4 1Web-based System (OPTIONAL) (, ' 1 I 1 1 I Task 2- Special Use Permit Assistance I I I [ J I I I Task 3- Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing I I 1 I I I 3.1 )Data Collection I I I ' I 1 ' I 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 'Exploration Plan 1 I I I I I I I 3.2.3 ICoreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging I I I I I 1 I I 3.2.4 Core Evaluation/ Core Photography I I 3.2.5 Corehole Video/ Geophysical Surveys Video/Geophysics Mobilization 5 Each $1,850.00 $9,250.00 Geophysicist and Equipment 10 Days $1,575.00 $15,750.00 per diem 15 Days $174.00 $2,610.00 Temperature/fluid conductivity _ 5 Hole $500.00 $2,500.00 E-1o9 probe 5 Hole $500.00 $2,500A0 Heat Pulse flow meter probe Hole $600.00 Optivcal or Acoustic televiewer 5 Hole $1,500.00 $7,500.00 -- --- Norcal Data Analysis 1 Luml Sum_ $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ------------- -------------- ---------------___--------------- -- -- - Crux Support of GeqphOcs--- -- RuenStandby Subtotal Task 3.2.5i $15,110.00 3.2.6 !Hydraulic Conductivity Testing I 3.2.7 . 'Transducer and Wells Installations I I 1 I I I I I 3.2.8 !Laboratory Testing I I I 1 1 1 I I 3.2.9 !Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) 1 I I I I I I I 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 !Draft Geotechnical Data Report I I { . I 1 ( I I 3.3.3 !Final Geotechnical Data Report I ] 1 I 1 I 1 1 3.3.4 !Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report I ( 1 I 1 I 3.3.5 !Final Geotechnical Assessment Report I I I T 1 I I 1 3.3.6 !Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) I ' ' I I I I 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan 3.4.2 !Setup & Initial Month Monitoring I 1 { I 1 I I I 3.4.3 !Progressive Monthly Monitoring I I [ I 1 I 3.4.4 !Technical Memo & Meetings I I I Norcal Labor and Direct Costs rvine-Corona Expressway_ Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ITotal Quantity I Unit ` Unit rate (Total 3.5 Groundwater Modeling Subtotal Task 3.5 . 3.6 'Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL) Subtotal Task 3.6 4.0 IQA/QG Dot.Data Labor. and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ]Total Quantity Unit j Unit rate {Total Task 1 - Administration and Project Management I I ] ] ] _ I 1.1 {Project Staffing 1 T I .: ] 1 ] ] I ' 1.2 {Project Management and Control 1 1 ] -1 I I ] I 1.3 !Coordination with Other Agencies . ] I I 1 ] I 1.4 {Web -based System (OPTIONAL) 1 I I ] ] ] Task 2 - Special Use Permit'Assistance } ] ] 1 ] ] ] Task 3 - Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing 1 I ] ] J ] ] ] 3.1 {Data Collection I I 1 I+ ] 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 Ex_pioration Plan dot,dat.inc log form 12 Hours $60.00 $720.00 Subtotal Task 3.2:2 '. @•i 3.2.3 ICoreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging 1 3.2.4 !Core Evaluation! Core Photography 1 ] ] ] I ] ] ] 3.2.5 !Corehole Video/ Geophysical "Surveys 1 ] ] ] 1 ] ] ] 3.2.6 !Hydraulic Conductivity Testing [ ) j 1 I I I 3.2.7 !Transducer and Wells Installations Subtotal Task 3.2.7 3.2.8 !Laboratory Testing 1 ] ] ] 1 I ] ] 3.29 !Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) 1 ] j ] 1 ] ] I 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 Draft Geotechnical Data Report dot.dat inc gint logs and graphics 200 hrs $60.00 $12,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.2 $12,000.00 3.3.3 Final Geotechnical Data Report . dot.dat inc gint logs and graphics 100 hrs $60.00 $6,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.3 $6,000.00 3.3:4 Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report dot.dat inc gint logs and graphics 100 hrs $60.00 $6,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.3.4 $6,000.00 ". 3.3.5 Final Geotechnical Assessment Report dot.dat inc dint logs and graphics. - _ - Subtotal Task 3.3.5 _-- 40 -- -- hrs -- --- $60_00 $ $2,400.00 $2,400.00 -- ---- - -- ---- -- -- - - ---------- —> 3.3.6 !Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) 1 I 1 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan 3.4.2 'Setup &.Initial Month Monitoring 1 I " ] 1 ] I I 3.4.3 !Progressive Monthly Monitoring 1 ! I I 1 I I I 3.4.4 {Technical, Memo & Meetings 1 l ] I 1 1. i Dot.Data Labor and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs: Quantity { Unit { Unit rate {Total Quantity �: Unit { Unit rate {Total 3.5 (Groundwater Modeling { { { 3.6 )Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL) r { { a.o 1QA,QC T� Laboratory :Labor and Direct Costs. Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor_ Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit" ] Unit rate (Total Quantity I Unit I Unit rate •1Total Task 1- Administration and Project Management T 1 I I 1 ( 1 1.1 . !Project Staffing I I 1 1 I I I L 1.2 'Project Management and Control I 1 -1 I 1 I 1 1.3 !Coordination with Other Agencies 1 1 1. 1 I 1 I I 1.4 !Web -based System (OPTIONAL) I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I Task 2- Special Use Permit Assistance I I I 1 I 1 1 I Task 3- Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing j 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 3.1 'Data collection ( 1 1 1 I I 1 1 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 'Exploration Plan I I I 1 T 1 I 1 3.2.3 ICoreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging I f I 1 1 I 3.2.4Core Evaluation/ Core Photography I 1 { I I I I 3.2.5 'Corehole Video/ Geophysical Surveys j ' 1 1 1. , I 1 I 3.2.6 'Hydraulic Conductivity. Testing I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 3.2.7 'Transducer and Wells Installations j j I 3.2.8 Laboratory Testing Field Unit Weight/Moisture Content 100 each . $43.25 $4,325-00 " — — _— Unconfined Compression (UC) __ -- 40 18 each each $225.00 $376.00 $9,000.00 $6,768.00 - Triaxial Compression Strength Direct Shear ' 18 each $388.00 " $6,984.00 Cerchar Abrasion 18 each $154.00 $2,772.00 Brazilian Tensile Strength 18 each $90.00 $1,620.00 Punch Test Point load 18 300 each each $201.00 $3,618 00 $6,000.00 $20.00 Petrographic Analysis 18 each $225.00 $4,050.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.8 $45,137.00 3.2.9 'Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) I 1 T 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 'Draft Geotechnical Data Report 1. I I I I 1 I 1 3.3.3 'Final Geotechnical Data Report I" I 1 1" I I 1 I -I 3.3.4 (Draft Geotechnical Assessment "Report I 1 1 I 1 I 1 3.3.5 'Final Geotechnical Assessment Report j 1 1 1 I I I 1 3.3.6 'Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 Develop Plan 3.4.2 'Setup & Initial Month Monitoring I 1 1 1 I. 1 I 1 3.4.3 IProgressive Monthly Monitoring I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.4.4 !Technical Memo & Meetings 1 1 ( I 1 I 1 I Laboratory Labor and Direct Costs Irvine -Corona Expressway Task. Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity 3.5 !Groundwater Modeling Unit Unit rate Total Quantity Unit Unit rate Total 3.6 !Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL) 1 4.0 jQA/QC I I l 91.189'9915 = 33d',unions 4a.149d0.0 SE'LtL'telS 68'/SiDLit 19191 XL Bonsai Nolw09.1 so dnp.ry (11010091 a.sts99.11W90 so OmVery 09'9L1'LiS (XC) PO91100.11seaneu0a0n5 u0 &very SE LEL'96 LS +.su9erd may OnS 6D 9LS'EVS1 De 410'Si L9'OLO'ZBLS >L'6CZ'9(S 95'LeL'699 94 zee 991 91"L LY9E9 91100/09911990109 LZO'S 094 0911 999 OZS /ZI 1/1 9011e0919ee19M•1+0111.1019119 0u11019191Poxpunw9 lased W.W9tl IequV0.1 _._.....� ' sass ((L1 hH t4��41�1¢1 nT -(Wd N ldA V� np110u0Utl9 H ,...rv:'. 1 .1 A... _. ...� ..>. ID.! ul ..,l I. OpIVOVAsa1 Ywey - fNAlesV NeS 911919 9NS ' ' (MSV1 lVNO11d011u.u19sewY Pg901W9 9'C 00'00011 9Z 2[29019 4,09 OIL O99 at Eu119pow lW.yun010 Sf OS'EES'LS D9'(91 la OIZ DDl 09 OZ 01 OZ 0u1.191901U40a1 t t C 0000S LSS D9"690'Lett 099'l 099 Wtt 09 Op 01910411019 AlUlucW e0/9991801d 9 V 9 OS'esteOLs 6S'090'LL9 teS p9 SB 09Z OZ OZ4 ZI —6sV.Iwoll41U01199199 L SW'S Z'9'C SZ'424'LS DS'S90'SZ9 OCZ 0 01 09 09 94 9L 9 11199111119110 4"a9 - ua0.11pw u91d 0.VpIp1.F81.19.pullw0 p'9 - IN9Y11VN011d011.U9d NO91nple 1999141.1 9'E'E /Z'Kra 9C OZ 94 1109911w9w99.wVIr+MP.P0 IssIA 9E'C DV06S'Llt 09 OZ 0o 90491:1wew.99wY Ie09I10v1000 Veto /'6'6 /9'SS/'S9 9L 91 04 99d911 elep IegwP9100p Isola 999 09'E6ESt 01 OZ O11 Modell 6190 IAu1P.P0p9e10 Z'C'C' - la�p+P 9U.L9p1®Iu1P9P99oaoV1901 f"E ,10)/0aVP••1i 6ZC 1NSN911dp)IOOwN.4d 6'i'9••IP•1A10ry00e19"L"C9C"S(Z'9t :.19441V94 09 9z 9 8 9u9B101999M00..w1109u911 L'L'C 9EL ODI O2 9l 91111E 810990 201391.111 ro9Elb1 9E DL 8 8 Mu0998nw400 v.lsnplS P'0!9Md0941 Pep1Ava4eP0 10"LEE'ES 94 MOWfim v 9'Z"C //LZL'E9S 996 sa 09 098 09 94 19. V.1N0119n1..39+00 •104•100 91 DZSZB Zt M 01 L'SIVIV t'1lV CSIW'DSIW'LSIW 9N0491011 -- ' up0eglNPry 00'OL2'Olt eu!00o1'&NPw99'6991z1 4e191e10 " Sett9oLea 94 B ueidugw9gdz9 L'LC 29L 99'0l!'9S zE 2E al 94 wunflauuwey Fl9d 11111E - NWd Z'C - 0 Moss n$ Mooz3 VOtl.a Pep Newwn9 Moo *map L'E . AY_...... ,. w+wnn«.nvwm.umlaa,r„marzmlw.rlr.aew�..nmw.,n.le9tP'� 909CPI99Y119u9d9.1119P9 S 0'Z A NSYl lYN011d0 waW 9Waw9•eu9W p..13 S49Y'4 pe•01p.. - -- w.yA51ew.90999m pus 10 o01u.wD000L /. `L (04) c.9ua0V 1.9091019 19919 (BI98u 0m9.110 VOpY - - (Ba) 01391.11069096009t soasupo.0 NLaeM-I9 • - cegPOry P91md - 9M l111111110919119,003 9^`uoMUIwo-00 CI 10.Iwd9NI0 uaD94qpu9Solleu1lm000 --- ...la 1919.9999991.41911149.1 91.w.P.Iwd I9p1600 Outs109w9696e61PWmd L'l -I 80We1S PN0+d 1"1 ' -- . t.l 3 u_1 1 .. u.11. )..Iu1w.V.l'.%•'L rvl... 9uopdP09.0 L991 T1roOl0.tlp a.aw0.r3u00.1 IW010OS a0q.lF>-MS M9.1 9d uneH PY9w9g ix, EBl oly 0 4' yy,�a'y',ui »• S� - y �0'..�:'N ., �• .Yi?"' tp k'"��.'�-B !�r. ;:Ln ?`I§�!1'. settiodag _s�-u"+9T�ld zrM 11'WI '941 II el UV 909(. a.Nl9 +4 w1+ .aeon wMe+ mtl X00'814 fi01•9.tlly 9.NNCpV»P094490 en n•a yy 5 . `c= 1 g 5 a Lt $ 5 `:i :F a En i .i. ` y0 QQ S' 4109199d090 Iesodald;so3 Aemssaidx3 euouo3-eulmi GeoPentech Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity 1 Unit - Unit rate 'Total Quantity 1 Unit 1 Unit rate'Total Task 1-Administration and Project. Management '. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 {Project Staffing 1: 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1.2 'Project Management and Control I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3 'Coordination with Other Agencies Subtotal Task 1.3 1.4 {Web -based System (OPTIONAL) I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Task 2 - Special Use Permit Assistance Subtotal Task 2.0 Task 3-Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.1 [Data Collection Subtotal Task 3.1 3.2 Field Exploration Program 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance Subtotal. Task 3.2.1 3.2.2 ', {Exploration Plan Subtotal Task 3.2.2 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging Corehole Alternate 4 mileage 12000'. miles $0.49 $5,820.00 4x4 Vehicle Rental and maintenance (2) 6 Month $1,500.00 $9,000.00 Field Cameras (1) 8 Month $50.00 $400.00 mist field supplies 1 Lump Sum $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.2.3 $16,220.00 3.2.4 'Core Subtotal Evaluation/. Core Phot gfaphy_ - -- -- --- -- rt _- — -- - - Task 3.2.4 3.2.5 'Corehole Video/ Geophysical Surveys Ruen Standby Subtotal Task 3.2.5 3.2.6 'Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Subtotal Task 3.2.6 3.2.7 'Transducer and Wells Installations Subtotal Task 3.2.7 3.2.8 'Laboratory Testing Subtotal Task 3.2.8 3.2.9 'Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) I [ 1 T T 3.3 GDR and GAR 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3.3.2 'Draft Geotechnical Data Report Subtotal Task 3.3.2 3.3.3 'Final Geotechnical Data Report Subtotal Task 3-3.3 3.3.4 {Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report Subtotal Task 3.3.4 3.3.5 iFinal Geotechnical Assessment Report _ ------�--------- Reproduction Fees (estimate) - ---------- ------------ --- dot.dat inc gint logs and graphics GeoPentech Expenses GeoPentech Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs ; Quantity Unit Unit rate Total Quantity Unit , Unit rate Total Subtotal Task 3.3.5 3.3.6 }Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL) Subtotal Task 3:3.6 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report' - 3.4.1 Develop Plan _ Helicopter 8 hr $750.00 $6,000.00 Mileage 250 "miles $0.49` $121.25 Aerial Photos 1: Lump Sum $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Subtotal Task 3.4:1 '; $7,121.25 3.4.2 " Setup & Initial Month Monitoring - t` Private Well Equipment (datalogger) 11 Each $2,500.00 • $27,500.00 Datalogger, modem, antenna, software, etc: 5 Each $6,900.00 $34,500.00 Helicopter - - 40 hr ` $750.00 $12,500.00_ $30,000.00 Field and Office Supplies _ 1 Lump Sum $12,500.00 ,Cell Phone and Dedicated, Phone Line 1 each $125.00 Y$125.00 Water Quality Testing _ . 6 each $420.00 $2,520.00 Mileage. 2500 miles $0.49, $1,212.50 Subtotal Task 3.4.2 $108,357.50 3:4:3 Progressive Monthly Monitoring � - Helicopter hr $750.00 $33;000.00 Field and Office Supplies 1 Lump Sum $5,000:00 $5,000:00 Cell Phone and Dedicated Phone Line 11 each $125.00 $1,375.00 Mileage 25000 'miles $0:49 $12,125.00 Subtotal Task 3.4.3 $51,500:OQ 3.4.4` Technical Memo 8: Meetings Report Reproduction Supplies 2 Lump SUM : $1,000.00 $2,000.00 Mileage for Meetings 1100 miles $0.485 ' ' $533.50 Subtotal Task 3.4.4 _ $2,533.50 3.5 Groundwater Modeling . . ---= Software Purchase, Com uter Code --- - --------� ----- --------- -- 1 -- - -- l um $8,000.00 �. $8 000 00 $8,000.00 -:--------- ---- Subtotal Task 3.5. -- 3.6'" }Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL) Subtotal Task 3.6 _ 4.0 }QA/QC Subtotal Task4.0 GeoPentech Expenses 96.9E5'0954 = 33i -rnoiens .LOV 00110010LS 9129ES'zs2 10191. ME) Dopey ido uOgel u0 doyen 9C-0)+W 9-1 ew!ue69119010 Do dnyvry 92 1DS'22 (k9Uogol+og91 rvnlwuw9n9 u9 dnyvN 00'000104 999u999319,91Pn9 02'SCO'OSS 22109162 92 SL4'65 49'919'a R900+a9e1191o194S 9BV 99E 22 90 uOPwWssga Aq 9+n01191D1Vn9 "" _yv 1 49 F1i•A'llti tl M1{I } ikKh !df "1 1, 111 S'. v 6Y5 t ate- 1i6NT' 11_ u••ea sIs,imyylea a1!n 021 (Y9Y11YR011d0) µ9uieewev 194914919 90 T9iLapery+R9npuou091 09)1199ry S 90000119914991 91,2 Guy0Yw1S APP40W 4n199w9wd 211 - 994919441 won moo S omos L'YL 4991d919w0 1111 44941 Poe aeW ii 999DA+9leepml0 re 1)1121 040114O) 00499120991091194992991 1421 499oa µ.99944Y1oI440vµv01su1d 911 49.1 WowPo9Pov19.Yu4091aep YuO Ytt v9doa R901w1uw91090RRd CCC re': 49dea 91001?u40op901W0 ROOMY 919010e1090910e0 l'8'C 4w11149Mu9s»Y94e 9190 10+09491090 6'E (NSY1lYa011010) rolluory oMi eze 29941919.04mow1 911 4u919119144199.09 w9+wnpsuul 211 5929914011999991919.9414 1'2'2 SAWIS t9919•400.0 P.M 6194e+b0 SIT 1Vtlu0vWVd IMAM 391o0 9L'C 1 RvuNV slo4vro0 - E'1111 MIW'2•Slry •LSIry 9R9Yu90 uw941219W NOW, 141194re2111114019104u90 Meld 401449dx3 zZ 6 eo9199104499421R9W ' 1'2'2 wub9W 0099+91943 MRd zE 499191)19190 Ammons 99900190093 re wu9wi®Y..d. 99nIei uL . ^r. ads wnd.,<D p_oo201 00'000'BOLS 191999. L'9'L 46Y11YNOI1d0 191 IuoWO.9410 02'5E0105Y 991 WE Zl Bt sumnoM µ+Wo0 µ991nz0 l9'L 1A9I094999109999109000 µ9utlm0 1 'l '- (OW 99194021I41e 1111S 1199141112999919 OD949µvry091494090 Y00a 189) 010tl DIAL vYunorri u90009,090 MLseM•IB - 90u910ery I0 eo109199441110491 uRleulµ.00o0 81 999940400011901 ioN9ld o1p10 u0Py4g9d . 1999 95 9Rd Iue1M0490pueRoid le4uo0 Pue 049w112999E1 101d L'l WP9 S pelad 4'4 ' 'y1WR ,. 0 :�, , 4911dQ911a9IEYliI bs931w1i sxuwrjro99.1 19JM9 Srogoy 1s S Asu. eitl un aPN Limn As ul J 'b a a�r�;i I ';i dl. ,,pper� FlY FY'43l ,y •. �r 9�i i�i•i`4_, �9uond49sso 1(i I{:.� 99suW9j 29S 41'94{s Po1s1S Ttl 9Wf1PPYO D9e4+M0 %tll •VW eV an INN1\ ) \ Le 31 3 u a E3 g S w ; s+99uinu3l, nnsuo3 ny esodo.id Iso3 ABM s dx3 euo�oo-auinJ 131; M'S1.1.$ ' = 33A-rnoigns tlol.P.X.P9 suaeled et 011C'611,9 1.1.1 (X£) 6unsol Noleloge-1 uo &open - (%9) iogal saaWeS ePlslno uo &open 8L'689'SS Ms) noel Jogal lueunsuoogns uo Ompepy smadx31%01 anS . 09'569' 119 .. - .. - _ - '09'EZVLOIS - +mooioge,IelolanS 96£ 9ZC Imp - Apse* /q tunas pnolgnS • OZ — orvvr) V Hsl'I: 00'ZL9`99 OZ — P oa sl.G.V Me0 a11a1A a119 (NSVl IWN011dO) luotuasossV 1.1a1.1e 9'C 011llap0lry 4a1eMpueat0 it s01.0ea14 g ouloyy 1e01u400l 6.6•E 6upe11ueW7G14WcW aMssau6wd C'6'C - - - - - 6up011uoW 41uo1Y temul S OMeS Z'6'E uBld Dolene0 VP'S • ueeea pue geld CupopuoW uneMpunoa0 6•E 00'0ZeS9S 00Z DOZ (NSVl'1VNOtldO) Iousd NosIAPV 1e01u40a1 9'C'C .- OD'66tt19 Oe .. - 04 uodea {uewsseseV IaoW4oatoe0lewd SVC 00'914'81.9 09 09 uodaa luowssassV 1eo11.13a10a0 ue,0 rye uodaa e1s0 1e0lu40a10a01euy E'c'E tloargiwa aolu400loo0Imo Z'E'E spAptuV era IaoN4oa1oa0 t'C'E - _ - - . . pixies wowssessV pue e1e0 pguLtosloe0 -£•£ . - ... - (NSVlOVN01140)...Pory alld 8'Z'C Bensal Iu01e10ae1 9'Z'C • _ - suonenelsul seem Pue ieonpsuell L're 15.0.1 FIN1PoPeo0 ollnalPAH WET - - - sMuuns leopAwl.e0 /0aP1A o104ao0 S'Z'E D9'LSZ'SS 91. 91 A4aa001011d ry 11.111 n3 e.1o0 6're 1, elewanV.s104a100 E'11V'E-SIW Z SIW t•SIW s8104.00 - - -- - - u0nembaon - - - - -tu16Bo, BuOawes TuNpO'solo4a* E'Z'£ - • .. . wad uollemldx3 sty .. 00'99Z'es at - .. - 01.. aousselauu0oaa Neu 1•'Z'C - W.B.d uone1010x3 PIa1d VC neoaa ele0 fuewwn5 ma Bens1>nJ l'C , s:1JInAaS (iu1l5.a7, pue 1.10!leloll11x3.pp, calu4paloao � 1.1,,l .0'Z 9011e1s1ssy lleuod asn mi.. S aauemss V. lllulad .ut{I'{el.1ucl S.i>vie1 (N9V11VN011d0 el Sluewe:euenpeseq-a0m • vs, I. Ioauo0 Wawnoo0 1'6' 1 - - wanuis;taupe-cum poses Qom Pus lanuo0 uninuno00 El. • - - - (01) ealPuo6V IO+aPod',was l ., 411M ssuno.ri . is) etrunoayy eeplwwoo Vooa • (90 010M IIaM stiuneeyy uonau1peop {1GbAn•te ssunooly toa(a d • eslouo6Vse410411M11.00.lWa00 VI 1oa1041 NIP uanas1s114wPV Pus uollautP.00 _. eelel 111ewo9sud sly loo(a• 1041100 put lU@We66Y91^) loafdd Z 151,111.19 Iosleld l'I.. {uawalGl'ue1N :7 oroJ,J pllt'. un Wit510!lilpV t )15,I suopdposea heel %0VBS1 ' M'DI •*MI ay WNW boob paid @osuodx3 0...rx3 iogay 'wenng.rege'1 �etWans w 4.el iad tinc.H you ulpes - . 9a9SL! ... 091rat - �tl dnuea Y Ir _ 1 N E ; Howeloupe suolued les0d0.11d4s03 AeMSSaadx3 euO.109-autn11 Fe Rata • 10.R " Overhead +Additives 179.0014 . Task Descriptions l:.t1 Admini,tratiomand .reject Ma rrogement . 1.1 Project Staffing Rate Irvine -Corona Expressway Cost Proposal 017.aa sue is $128.64 Jacobs Associates S247.91 Estimated Hours per Task . Expenses` sew i Leber Subtotal Labor_Expenses pest Costs 1.2 Project Management and Control Project Management Plan Coordination and Administration & the Project 1.3 Coordination wkh Other Agencies Project Meetings 61-Weeky Coordination Meetings with RCTC (48) ROCA Committee Meetings (8) Meetings with Local, State, Federal Agencies (10Y 1.4 Document Controland Web Based Management System .° 1.4.1 Document Control 1.4.2 Web -based Mena .ementS -m OPTIONAL TASK Task 7 5pecial Ise Permit Assistance 2.0 $ • eclat Use Permit Assistance Tusk 3 e,eotechnical Field,. Exploration and Testing Serviee5 _ 3.1 Existing Data Summary Data Report 3.2 Field Exploration Program. 3.2.1 Field Reconnaissance 3.2.2 Exploration Plan 30 30 . $7,451.10 3.2.3 Coreholes, Drilling, Sampling, Logging ' Mobilization Coreholea MIS-1, MIS-2, MIS-3, ALT. 3 3.3 3.4 Corehole Altemate 4 3.2.4 Core Evaluation/ Photography 3.2.5 Corehole Video/ Geophysical Surveys " 3.2.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Testing 3.2.7 Transducer and Wells Installations 3.2.8 Laboratory Testing 3.2.9 Fire Monitor (OPTIONALTASK) Geotechnlcal Data and Assessment Report 3.3.1 Geotechnical Data Analysis 3,3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 Draft Geotechnical Data Report Final Geotechnical Data Report Draft Geotechnical Assessment Report Final Geotechnical Assessment Report 3.3.6 Technical Advisory Panel (OPTIONAL TASK) Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4.1 -Develop Plan 3.4.2 Setup & Initial Month Monitoring 3.4.3 Progressive Monthly Monitoring 3A.4 Technical Memo & Meetings 3.5 Groundwater Modeling 3.6 Biological Assessment (OPTIONAL TASK) Site Visits . Pate Analysis Re••rt Gptional.Tjsks C)ptiuriai-l"a..ks r 16 80 40 ' 200 II I 18 63,973.92 80 619,869.60 40 $9,934.8o 200 $49,874.00 20 20 $4,967.46 Technical Review Panel SubTotal Nouns by Classification SubTotal Labor Costs Sub Total Expenses 388 $90,903A2 386 > $95 870.82 Total Markup on Subconsultant Labor Labor (5%) Markup on Outside Services Labor (5%): Markup on Laboratory Testing (3%) $4,793.54 $100,864.36 Jacobs Associates St16TOTAL FEE = $100,664.36 Z9.8£L'LLS = 333 ivi018(IS 69919'u9319903 00'000.99 29'9C4'4LS 19101 (ME) bu119a1 3ioluone1 uo ampery I%9110991 0009u9309990 uO anvery 09'L9C (%SI1o9•1999911 9n.u9909S u9 dny.ry ' O0'0009 9Oae 1999 Z929L1L99 99909'9L3 04'YI 89'4n£O 00ZZt5i 9lLBE49 :O99-1191.1993 OZ9 O/Z OLi Ob B uglnye.eto IA vnoH 4e191095 - �._ r`y I. 5 [y 1Y Kiel' e 4a�,.:, ,�0a .) IA �%', ',f OroC ova' ... - Y9.ey g931e93 e3e0 vIR1A MIS ' (N5911C'N011d0) Na.seeetl 1.91091%9 9'E 9Y9w9aary 191eMpunuO $£ - - 0911e911 9Ouwryle]NV991 4'9'C - 9vy0auOry NV9.9 luo9v vvuOOld CO DIM ZO ZSl'199 023 OLZ OIL ZC 099 9 999O191991 919991 I99913 dnlas ' u4d dq•9a0 VI'S ' Yo�9 ue1�99ry I14114.999wO TE I95V11VN011d011•ovd NmIdVV 1991949.1 WET - 199•3 9lwuevavvtl 19O191991O90 Wand S'CE " 19d93119ew9.1.91V 19:1911993190 IMO " tlOd•y 91e0 In1uu9u9.OF4d C'EE Y0d9yeµ01W1O LE'E 9e9e933.199O9u0 19ounaslaypuee0 9aV W.eW019?uw991o•O YO01NOIL E'f 0 (NStl1ltlNOWoolO9o1+0091 err typal 919+49'Z'C ' 9n9sueei vW1911.pN9119MO9O001109.191 L'rC - 9o9.a1N99]n0YO09/9uMH 97T . - v1wm S'rE - 1,111.W0o99rywH319,99 3 Ialds:O9WdN0Aa9u,39y90 9ZC ' 9919w99tl 9Wud'J " - C'1ltl C3I91'E-3I91'1.9191.9119139.0 - ud19e01O911 091 1691114993'9+1990.91999190 C"ZC - ued uoll> 9 i 93 VET - 9]uvaleuuooaa plaid prC - 19916a91 999u91 .3 PI la l C . 10013 9490 N999995 91.0 9119.1.3 II OE -. 1`P :'n)"Ole KgP1'.]I e9uunalutttAMM apwel.p.V)I d.nPt. s - y 99V1l9I91O11d0 w%9luawa 1euerypwe9QaM Zt''01 104900 e1.1991w0 ns/13 zugnuebauevypaeanVeMp9a1Wuo01uawnx0 9"L --- 1909e19990Y IueO11J'WIC '1v991 101196 o soue 999w9190 V30/d I911 3109411M vOunagve uopeulP+OoO NMe•M-IB - 9019188991Oa101d - 99199991191110 1.191n 4o9e11191000 C'L - - 1991O1d 91410 uOOulg91.9V 1 u. onO9u1p1000 - wild Wew•9vuen pplad ' paws pug tuawaelauary tailed rL - 9919e191wl19d L'4 - unaH Pet 0993 - Puc clogutswiwpV � L . eisontlnave34.91IOW 9%a't 9+.07-401 0 puler Ewwm3 ao9./ inown5tl09.1 9d1 1.819b ss�..33..yy�� .�,] .`"'"�p9S; 9SLM'I9 E9 +... . a } ti. 9 altt ,W. F ",1 .f YWS swi ese STO aeons 9 1n03991. n9i tl O0951 eaPtl •1,9911w10 9n nay —w ''' 3 Z 3 0e ? 2 a- '� = u s a' 1°G' rE 2 S Z_ .Fi 3O . go I _ , • wl'6unIruns 1=03 esodad }so° Aennssaidx3 euoaoo-auiAl ACT Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ITotal Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ITolal Task 1- Administration and Project Management I I I. I I i 1.1 !Project Staffing I I I I .1 1.2 !Project Management and Control I I I I 1 I 1.3 ICoordinalion with Other Agencies Subtotal Task 1.3 1.4 Web -based System (OPTIONAL) ACT Info Management License & Support 18 Month $6,000.00 $108,000.00 Subtotal Task 1.4 5108,000.00 _ 4.0_ 1QAIQC Subtotal Task 4.0 ---- - —---- - ------ .._...----- ACT Expenses ®_ =� =MEM M—_ ® wnpuelowOLVRM1 o104061M0 U __ ��� =OEM 11=1111=10 IIIIIIMIll -- P••ea P06 aeld' WIN0ww9muPuaaKJld1111 II=MI0 .. - ..., liiiii� 11 90NE180 ® PadOH luea6sassy Ieuluyu01oe0 uma ®_ EMIEI 9mau6o 0 Pd.0 ema 1.R4o01oe010u1d ®mm' 1.44%ma itquvo SOum®— EIIIIII®®�. M.. i. ®_ ® suonmelsul 910M pus iwvnps ,.Eigl =MEM 6066614M1PoPuop 06.a141 Ia- 1:21101=1111111 11MIIME EZIMEIMIME1111111i=11111111MIM0 MMIM E=IEZZM0 MIIMIM 1:1311311=IMEINEMIIIME=211111111111111111 1=10 =� 0 IIIIIIIIIIII Lo/O�= EZIMMI ®� L0/0 MO L02000 0 - • 0 ®_ ��� Lofo6re6 ICCZ/8fE - - °. , n e r..a7_9 1R 11 al l u uu P �ulds t I IB-0. 4 laa0 E.Msr'1 w ,uME ...k a ��y aa"'%"tlAuuud os0le: SZMsep 12:2031.3= •. _®_ EM �® ''®` 1E2EI®— ®_ =MIME ®_ 11=11=1M13111 -------�-------5-�--- .. ®® 4" k' - {k+ty4 ...::rS°vrClu w B"tN to>Io dP nu a Ptl.t Ysul F3u9L�.:4"�a��F"° w�l�u�l�af�?Sf[�fi� �':i'�tYt''::'a.i'�a�{C.i{'F�€i��i r��l,�'?$�5i�".E.,o. ".�'C.•i�6Y.s..��'":tTCSi�n"F`,J.1'��•d.CFr,:s±b�s��lhi4eR 60fL0/90 80/OVL0 90vulo LO L0/01 600=2 LOOL'f914 Ionun Pus luaum00ueyy P0(ad mnPueAouwW Wet M018uld ZL kIVO Isuld'LL ava 'ol tla010u1d'6 mnpuvouwR 4a01 MO 46.10'6 MOO 11o10'L 8upop u18e8 9 hued 0811 Raod9'S unld uo06+o1dx3'1 ueld Supaluon JelmepunaO.E Paid 30eW0606 Wloo{ad.6 Paeaaid al eolloq .L 99110;99{{1N ----------1111111111--- E 1N31A1H31/111( Coast Survey Expenses Irvine -Corona Expressway Task Labor Expenses Direct Costs Quantity I Unit I Unit rate ITotal Quantity I Unit 1 Unit rate 'Total Task 1-Administration and Project Management I I I I I I Task 2- Special Use Permit Assistance I I I I I I I I Task 3- Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing I I I I I I I I 3.4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Report 3.4,1 Develop Plan Subtotal Task 3.4.1 3.4.2 Setup & Initial Month Monitoring .... .. .. expenses 1 Lump Sum $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Subtotal mileage___ Task 3.4.2 miles $0.49 _ _. .... . _ _ - -- $6,OOo.00 3.4.3 IProgresslve Monthly Monitoring Subtotal Task 3.4.3 3.4.4 'Technical Memo & Meetings I Subtotal Task 3.4.4 � _ I Coast Survey Expenses AGENDA ITEM 9 PRESENTATION AGENDA ITEM 10. PRESENTATION • AGENDA ITEM 11 i RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Appointment of a Representative to the Executive Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula to select their representative to the Executive Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Appointment of a Representative to the Executive Committee The membership of the Executive Committee shall be as follows: 1) The Chair of the Commission; 2) The Vice Chair of the Commission; 3) The Second Vice Chair of the Commission; 4) Past Chair of the Commission; 5) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley; 6) A regular member of the Commission representing one of the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula; 7) A regular member of the Commission representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage; and, 8) Three members of the Commission who are members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Such members shall be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. With the exception of the Chair, Vice Chair; and the Second Vice Chair, the term of the Executive Committee members shall be two years. Due to a change in the Commission representative for the city of Banning, a vacancy now exists on the Executive Committee. The following group of cities will need to select a new representative: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula. The term for this position will expire in December 2008. This is in accordance to the provision, under Section H3(b) of the Commission's Administrative Code. Agenda Item 11 82 Riverside County is California’s fastest growing big county at 2 million people with housing growth ranked fourth in the nation. If Riverside County were a state, it would have a bigger population than Idaho or Nebraska. Riverside County is the major rail and roadway freight corridor for the second largest port in the nation. Riverside County Transportation Commission State Legislative Program Transportation and mobility are critical concerns, not just for us, but for California We need authority to: • Own and operate public toll facilities • Use design-build contracting • Environmentally clear projects more efficiently Rush hour in Riverside County means 65% of all freeways are operating at Level of Service F. That’s a failing grade in any book. Riverside County residents already tax themselves for transportation. Local development pays its own way through a mitigation fee. Even with federal and state help, we still don’t have the $8 to $13 billion it will take to fix the problem. We need better tools to deliver projects that relieve congestio RCTC needs innovative tools to get gridlock under control and implement projects faster. The challenge is enormous. It will take $8-13 billion to construct all of the lane-miles of freeway necessary to bring Riverside County freeways just above Level Of Service “F” (LOS F) by 2030. Over 65% of all lane-miles in Riverside County already operate at LOS F during peak periods. Our residents, like all Californians, are demanding relief. RCTC can deliver more lane-miles for commuters more quickly with legislative authority to own and operate toll facilities on the state highway system. RCTC is prepared to deliver toll facilities on SR-91 and I-15 that will integrate with Orange County’s 91 Express Lanes and provide a progressive leap toward curing our highway system of its failures. Design-build contracting streamlines project delivery. One entity manages the design and construction of a project. This is a departure from the traditional design-bid-build process where separate entities may be responsible for each segment of a project. Design-build fosters efficiency, centralizes information, promotes communication, and minimizes risk. Streamlining, coordination, and quality are hallmarks of design-build. RCTC supports design-build contracting that is open, fair, competitive. The demand for transportation projects and limited funding available to complete them means pu agencies must get the best value for their money possible. RCTC encourages Caltrans to move forward with accep authority to approve federal environmental docume A streamlined environmental clearance process means m efficient delivery of projects. RCTC calls on the Legislature to take proactive steps give RCTC the ability to deliver urgently needed transporta solutions to the public in the most efficient, responsible, effective manner possible. We cannot wait any longer. • Riverside County sits in the cross-hair of increasing international trade coming through the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach—and our communities are paying the price. • $40 million more from the PUC Section 190 grade separation account plus $66.7 million o Proposition 1B goods movement funds is the state government’s fair share to build the 18 most critical grade separations in Riverside County. Today, 100 million metric tons of the nation’s freight thunders through Riverside County neighborhoods—a 58% increase from 1997 to 2004. We need the state to pay its fair share to help us protect our safety and quality of life—$96.7 million. Riverside County residents subsidize the nation’s and California’s economy with their health, their time, and their quality of life. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the nation’s second busiest and total almost five times the amount of all 14 other California ports combined. Riverside County is at the epicenter of problems created by this exponential increase. RCTC calls on the Legislature to give us a way to a safer and stronger community. In September 2006 RCTC adopted a Grade Separation Funding Plan that identifies 18 highest-priority grade crossings that constitute a feasible blueprint for relief in our communities. Local funders have committed $150 million to these projects with as much as $67 million more on the way. Today’s freight chokes local roads, inhibits emergency vehicles, degrades air quality, and exposes the public to the dangers of fast-moving trains. If Sacramento does its part to unburden our communities, the results will be striking: • 37 less hours of crossing gate “down-time” every da Riverside County • 36 fewer accidents per year • 212.25 less tons of projected 2030 emissions per year • 4,374.8 fewer hours of vehicle delay annually. In real terms, our residents will have 4,374.8 more hours w their families, participating in the economy, and be members of our communities. • Commuters on trains equal cars off the freeways. • Cars off the freeways equals a faster ride for everyone, cleaner air, a healthier quality of lif and better access to key job centers in Southern California. • RCTC supports state funding for additional rail capacity and rolling stock for increased Metrolink service and Amtrak service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley. RCTC is making commuter rail work to reduce congestion. Lines serving Riverside County carry almost 18,000 riders per day. Metrolink estimates almost 3% reduction on parallel freeways from Metrolink service. Providing rail service is an important component of better mobility. We need more funding for Metrolink and trains to the dese With one in three commuters from western Riverside County traveling to jobs in other counties, more commuter rail benefits the entire region. Riverside County residents can board Metrolink trains at any of five RCTC owned and operated stations and travel to Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura counties more quickly and more relaxed than driving on the freeway. Today, 25% of all Riverside County working households have a commute of 45 minutes or more one way. Metrolink helps improve working residents’ quality of life. The volatility of gasoline prices and worsening congestion has driven a surge in Metrolink ridership. In Riverside County, parking at many stations is beyond capacity by 6:30 a.m. RCTC is building a new parking lot at the Riverside-Downtown station and design is underway on a new state-of-the art parking facility at the North Main Corona station. RCTC is leading the charge to extend Metrolink to southwestern Riverside County with the Perris Valley Line. Today residents on the I-215 corridor are faced with Level of Service F (LOS F) at the key junction where the I-215 meets the 60 freeway. The Perris Valley Line will serve residents from the growing cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, Murrieta, and Temecula by providing service f south Perris to Riverside, taking pressure off the I-215 corridor well as helping to serve local employment centers in Riverside Corona, riders will be able to connect to popular Metrolink l serving job centers in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Ang counties further reducing traffic on the crowded 91, 60 and freeways. The Perris Valley Line has been partially funded by STIP, and RCTC seeks additional state dollars for this pro Service will begin by 2010. RCTC has endorsed Caltrans’ California State Rail Plan for 200 to 2015-16, which proposes intercity rail service between Angeles and the Coachella Valley, terminating in Indio. Coachella Valley is developing rapidly and ridership potential a this route is promising. Further state investment in passenger rail service will commuters what they are clearly demanding: more opti Capital investment in new rail infrastructure and rolling stock build on the momentum of Metrolink’s success and open the do to faster commutes and greater mobility in Southern Californi • Enhancement of incentives to employers with transit reimbursement or ridesharing programs will encourage more commuters to get out of their cars and into other modes o transportation. Less stressful commutes make for happier more productive workers. • RCTC supports incentives for taxpayers who utilize alternative fuels. Alternative fuels pollute less and can insulate consumers from the volatility of gasoline prices. The cost of building roadways continues to spiral upwards. The timelines required for new construction projects means we are always behind the curve. We can’t build our way out of congestion with- out also encouraging alternatives that promote fewer trips and cleaner air. We need more assistance to encourage alternatives. Riverside County residents already tax themselves and impose fees on new development to pay for transportation improve- ments and there’s still not enough money to solve all our congestion problems. Only Houston has worse air quality than Riverside County. Alternative fuels and fewer trips mean cleaner air and less congestion for everyone. But Southern Californians have to be coaxed to make different choices about the way they get to work. Incentives, especially in a climate of volatile and seasonally higher gas prices, really work in Riverside County, where many households have stretched their budgets to buy their first affordable home. Ridesharing incentives have a demonstrated track record in Riverside County. Transit service is also a new concept for most south California residents. Forming a public transit habit ta inducement. Once commuters try different ways of gettin work, however, many of them like the benefits of saved t and money and reduced stress and stay with the change. In addition, for these same budget-conscious Riverside Cou households, incentives that address the cost differen between alternative fuel and conventional fuel vehicles wo make clean fuel choices more accessible. RCTC is working hard to guarantee mobility for a region that is critical to California’s future. With your help, we can succeed. Riverside County Transportation Commission (951)787-7141 • www.rctc.org 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 For more information contact: John Standiford (951) 787-7969 Aaron Hake (951) 787-7965 If Riverside County were a state, it would have a bigger population than Idaho or Nebraska. At the rate it’s growing, by 2020 Riverside County will be more populous than Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Kansas. Riverside County is the major rail and roadway freight corridor for the second largest port in the nation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Federal Legislative Program Transportation and mobility are critical concerns, not just for us, but for the country. • Riverside County sits in the cross-hair of increasing international trade coming through the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach—and our communities are paying the price. • $125.8 million in discretionary Congressional funding plus $60 million in formula funds is the federal government’s fair share to build the 18 most critical grade separations in Riverside County. • The federal government has already recognized the issue by naming the Alameda Corridor-East a trade corridor of national and regional significance in SAFETEA-LU. Today, 100 million metric tons of the nation’s freight thunders through Riverside County neighborhoods— a 58% increase from 1997 to 2004. We need the federal government to pay its fair share to protect our safety and quality of life—$185.8 million. Riverside County residents subsidize the nation’s economy with their health, their time, and their quality of life. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach are the nation’s second busiest and bear the brunt of burgeoning globalization. Riverside County is at the epi- center of statewide problems created by this exponential increase. RCTC calls on Congress to give us a way to a safer and stronger community. In September 2006 RCTC adopted a Grade Separation Funding Plan that identifies 18 highest-priority grade crossings that con- stitute a feasible blueprint for relief in our communities. Local funders have committed $150 million to these projects with as much as $67 million more on the way. Today, almost 8 of every 10 freight cars that cross our streets are bound for destinations beyond the southwest. They choke local roads, inhibit emergency vehicles, degrade air quality, and expose the public to the dangers of fast-moving trains. If Washington does its part to unburden our communities, the results will be striking: • 37 less hours of crossing gate “down-time” every day in Riverside County • 36 fewer accidents per year • 212.25 less tons of projected 2030 emissions per year • 4,374.8 fewer hours of vehicle delay annually In real terms, our residents will have 4,374.8 more hours w their families, participating in the economy, and being mem of our communities. Form Federal Funding Source Discretionary Fu Appropriations $ 16.0 Projects of National & Regional Significance $ 77.8 Transportation & Community & $ 2.0 System Preservation Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) - $ 3 Surface Transportation Program - $ 3 High Priority Projects $ 30.0 TOTAL $ 125.8 $ 6 Freight Destined for SouthWest 23% Freight Destined for Rest of U.S. 77% • More than half of the nation’s freight leaves and arrives through west coast ports. • Goods movement is a national economic priority and warrants permanent federal funding • Most major transportation projects have a fifteen to twenty year timeline, we already have crisis and must act now. Our nation’s ability to prosper in the global economy means we must be able to meet projected demands. If things don’t change, we won’t be ready to ship and receive three times more goods 20 years from now. We need dedicated federal funding for freight projects. The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach will be the nation’s key west- ern portal as freight traffic triples over the next 20 years. Riverside County is the conduit for freight from these ports as it goes to and comes from the rest of the country. Our railroads are short on capacity and trucks already clog our congested freeways in unprecedented numbers. Businesses throughout the U.S. rely on timely deliveries and flexible inventories. If major investments are not made in goods move- ment infrastructure our economy will suffer as goods crawl to their destinations. Transportation projects take a long time to plan, approve, fund, and build. If we wait, there will certainly be a crisis. Congress has approved limited funding for projects of natio and regional significance related to goods movement, inc ing the Alameda Corridor-East ($125 million in SAFETEA- and Congress has recognized goods movement as a natio priority by identifying the Alameda Corridor-East as a H Priority Corridor. RCTC supports a new funding mechanism dedicated to go movement projects of national and regional significance. • RCTC supports opening the doors to more partnerships between the public and private sectors to solve transportation challenges. • Tax credits, private activity bonds, TIFIA loans, and other mechanisms will spur private sector investment in infrastructure. Riverside County residents already tax themselves for transportation. Local development pays its own way through a mitigation fee. Even with federal and state help, we stilldon’thave enough money to build the transportation infrastructure to unclog roadways and guarantee goods movement. We need more incentives for private investment in infrastructure. The private sector has a strong financial interest in the efficiency of our nation’s transportation network. The move- ment of goods and people translates into economic vitality. Infrastructure is a large capital investment and the overwhelming need for projects makes the costs prohibitive to firms without significant financial incentives. The private sector can be a powerful partner with the public, working together to solve common challenges. RCTC supports more tools to leverage private investment that can move critical projects forward and deliver a win-win for the public and private communities alike. RCTC is working with policymakers in Sacramento to improve state laws to bring more private dollars to California and take advantage of public-private partnership provisions in SAFETEA-LU. • Communities to be served are among the fastest growing (2000—2020) in Riverside Coun Perris (167%), Moreno Valley (41%), Murrieta (107%), and Temecula (125%). • Today’s bumper to bumper traffic can only be moderately improved by planned highway improvements. • With one in three commuters from western Riverside County traveling to jobs in other counties, more commuter rail benefits the entire region. • FTA’s recommendation will give commuter rail expansion in Riverside County the green signal. Congestion relief has no better friend than another Metrolink train taking 6,000 ca off the freeway daily. Riverside County’s population will grow to 3 million between now and 2020. Much of this growth will occur in the already congested I-215 corridor. We need full-funding for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension to help cope with commuter traffic. Today the I-215/SR-60 facility operates at Level of Service “F” (LOS F) during peak hours, and despite planned highway improvements through 2025, bumper-to-bumper traffic will persist. Today, 25% of all Riverside County working house- holds have a commute of 45 minutes or more one way. The Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension will serve residents from the growing cities of Moreno Valley, Perris, Murrieta, and Temecula by providing service from south Perris to Riverside. As well as helping to serve local employment centers in Riverside and Corona, riders will be able to connect to popular Metrolink lines serving job centers in San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties further reducing traffic on the crowd- ed 91, 60 and 10 freeways. This congestion reduction will also provide significant air quality benefits to one of the smoggiest regions in the nation. The Perris Valley Line will be a long-term component of the Inland Empire’s economic engine. • SR-79 today mixes regional traffic with local traffic. • There are numerous residential and commercial direct access points along the roadway. • The geometrics of the roadway do not support truck traffic. • Accident rates are higher than state averages for suburban roadways. • Realigning SR-79 through San Jacinto and Hemet will take drivers off a slow, circuitous, and dangerous route and onto an elevated, grade-separated highway that can handle the growth in the San Jacinto Valley. The San Jacinto/Hemet area has 54,500 new homes either under construction or in the pipeline. That’s a brand new city of 163,500 people—a community the size of Rancho Cucamonga and bigger than Santa Rosa, Escondido, or Pasadena. The only regional route north and south is circuitous and passes through highly developed neighborhoods. We need $1.5 billion to realign State Route 79. SR-79 is the future of the San Jacinto/Hemet region. The pop- ulation in this part of Riverside County is about to explode. Today, SR-79 is more of an overloaded arterial than a highway. RCTC needs to bring SR-79 into the future and pave the way for mobility in this important region of Riverside County. RCTC’s SR-79 Realignment Project is already in the project approval and environmental document process. RCTC secured $700,000 in Congressional funding for SR-79 realignment in FY 2006 appropriations. RCTC has committed $132 million of local Measure A funds, plus TUMF dollars to the project. • East-west arterial traffic connecting San Jacinto, Perris, and Corona will increase 200% to 500% to more than 102,000 trips per day in some areas unless we do something about it. • Commuters and trucks share the roads with school buses and local trips. • The Mid County Parkway will be a new 32-mile east-west limited access route for western Riverside County to relieve congestion, improve safety and help address future traffic demands. The east-west 91, 60, and 10 freeways within western Riverside County have significant gridlock. There is no direct access to them from the fastest growing area of the region. Riverside County residents identified a new east-west corridor as a major priority. RCTC obtained an environmental stream- lining agreement to move it forward. We need $3 billion to build the Mid County Parkway. The Mid County Parkway is one of four corridors included in the Community Environmental & Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), a countywide planning effort to ensure mobility, protect the environment, and improve quality of life as the Inland Empire continues to grow. Mid County Parkway is one of seven high priority projects initially identified by President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13274 for environmental streamlining. RCTC is working with federal, state, and local agencies to deliver environmental documents in a timely and efficient manner. The project is in the final stages of the environmental process. The estimated construction cost is $3 billion. Congress must address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Timely action and wise policymaking could mitigate a future crisis and help ensure long-term stability of this important funding source for highway projects. RCTC supports proactive measures taken by the federal government to address this issue. Furthermore, RCTC encourages the federal government to prioritize stakeholder participation in developing solutions. Amtrak must continue to be funded. Passenger rail service provides an alternative to highway driving. Congress must support the Amtrak system and the choice it provides to the traveling public. Two Amtrak routes serve two Riverside County stations with connector bus service to five cities. RCTC also supports new Amtrak service connecting Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley. RCTC is working hard to guarantee mobility for a region that is critical to California’s future. Also on our radar — Congress must reauthorize the CMAQ program. Riverside County rivals the city of Houston for the worst air quality in the U.S. The CMAQ program is a key fundin source for projects that improve mobility while improving the region’s air quality. CMAQ has helped build many important projects in Riverside County including: • SR-60 HOV lane extensions + Mixed-flow lanes • SR-91 improvements • East Junction (I-215/SR-60 in Riverside/Moreno Valley) • Clean Fuel Opportunity Program • Grade separations Riverside County Transportation Commission (951)787-7141 • www.rctc.org 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 For more information contact: John Standiford (951) 787-7969 Aaron Hake (951) 787-7965