Loading...
04 April 11, 2007 CommissionREC 79950 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside Commissioners Chair: Terry Henderson 1 s` Vice Chair: Jeff Stone 2"d 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 Salas / 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 Carlson / 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 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 1 0: 00 a.m. Wednesday, April 11, 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. Z if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7.141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the .meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE: OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each _individual speaker is limited .to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three 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 two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments ifsuch 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 whichare 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 April 11, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF .I IINUTES MARCH 14, 2007 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Commission may add an item, to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar .` will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific - item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the Investment Policy: 7B. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE . PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT Page 12 Page Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Program Quarterly Report. 7C. • FISCAL YEAR 2007/11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY. OF BEAUMONT Overview This . item is .for the. Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital lmprovement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Beaumont as submitted. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11 2007 Page 3 7D. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR .2007/11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF BLYTHE Overview Page 18 This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Blythe as submitted. 7E. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page•26 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter. Rail Program. 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS TO THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S SPECIAL SERVICES Page 34 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $90,102 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to the city of Riverside's Special Services (RSS) program; and 2) Amend the FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding. 7G. REQUEST FROM PEPPERMINT RIDGE FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS . LOCAL MATCH FOR THE SECTION 5310 CAPITAL PROGRAM Page 35• Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $26,100 • to Peppermint Ridge_ to provide the required local match for the Section 5310 capital program; and 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-114-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $26,100 in Measure A ; Specialized Transit funds : available in Western County. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 4 7H.. REGIONAL PROGRAMS SPOTLIGHT: COMMUTER PROGRAM UPDATE Overview ASSISTANCE Page 37. This item is for the Commission to receive and .file an .:;update on the Commuter Assistance Program. 71. _ .BECHTEL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 AGREEMENT AUGMENTATION AND FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 AGREEMENT Page 56 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the proposed Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation (Bechtel) staffing plan for program management support of the Commission's Measure A Capital Delivery Program; 2) Approve Agreement No. . 06-31-075-01 for .a . $273,535 augmentation to the FY 2006/07 contract . with Bechtel . to provide. program management support to the Commission's Capital Delivery Program and the associated budget amendment. This. brings the total not to exceed amount of the contract to $2,862,408; 3) Approve Agreement. No. 07-31-120-00, FY 2007/08 contract with Bechtel, to provide program management supportto the Commission's Capital Delivery Program for a not to exceed amount of $4,259,796 and inclusion in the FY 2007/08 Commission Budget; 4) Authorize the : Executive Director, ; pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate contract clauses . associated with the establishment of a project office; and 5) Authorize the Chair,pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the. agreement on behalf of the Commission: • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 5 7J. REPLACEMENT OF LOS ALAMOS BRIDGE AT INTERSTATE 15 IN THE CITY OF MURRIETA Page 63 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) • ;:Approve Commission •2009 Measure A/Commercial Paper funding participation in the replacement of the Los Alamos Bridge over 1-15 in the amount of $2.9-18 million; 2) Approve a, proportional funding 'arrangement of 56.5% city of Murrieta (City) • and 43.5% Commission on future costs (higher or lower) of the Los Alamos Bridge replacement project based on the attached project estimate; and 3) Direct staff to develop an agreerent with the city of Murrieta,_ which will be brought back for final action, pursuant to legal counsel review. 7K. AMENDMENT • TO AGREEMENT WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR " RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES • RELATED TO THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Page 67 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. •04-33-009-03, Arnendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 04-33-009, with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $1,063,23.6 with an extension of the agreement .through December •.31, 2008 for right-of-way services related to. the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Allocate $1,063,236 in Measure A Rail Capital funds to fund these services. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 6 7L. AMENDMENT TO• AGREEMENT WITH EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-51-030-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 04-51-030, with Epic Land : Solutions for property management support services for Commission owned parcels for a not to exceed amount of $622,484; 2) Approve extension of agreement to December 30, 2008; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission .and 4) Approve a budget adjustment of $81,509. 7M. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH TROPICAL PLAZA NURSERY FOR A THREE-MONTH EXTENSION Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-25-059-02, Amendment No.2 to Agreement No. 02-25-059, with Tropical Plaza Nursery for landscape maintenance services for ' the Commission ` owned Metrolink station for an amount not to exceed amount of $ 26,025 2) Approve extension of agreement through July 31, 2007; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 7 7N. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 83 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report; and 2) Approve the following bill positions: • AB 291 (Jeffries,. R-Lake Elsinore and Benoit, R-Palm Desert) - SUPPORT • AB 1240 (Benoit, R-Palm Desert).. SUPPORT AJR 14 (Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore) SUPPORT • SB 224 (Battin, R-La Quinta) - SUPPORT SB 872 (Ackerman, R-Irvine) - SUPPORT • HR 1475 (McGovern, D-MA) - SUPPORT 8. 1989 MEASURE A LOCAL CIRCULATION INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 - ,LA SIERRA INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page91 Overview . This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve 1989 Measure A funding commitments to the following city of Riverside Local Circulation Interchange improvement projects: • La Sierra Avenue/SR-91 . $27.218 million • • Van Buren Boulevard/SR-91 $ 7.616 million 2) , Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the funding Agreement No. 07-31-118-00 with the city of Riverside for the La Sierra Avenue/SR-91 Interchange improvement project, on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 8 r�. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILL FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT Page 112 Overview. This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31 043-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 02-31-043, with CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule and cost that is attached to this agenda item for : a not to exceed amount of $ 9, 964, 941 for the development of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the realignment of SR-79 in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet; `. 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment for non cardinal changes to the scopeof work for a not to exceed total contract amount of $25,318,092 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. 10. ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST GRADE SEPARATION ' FUNDING RECOMMENDATION Page 216 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve an "off the top" allocation of 25% of CMAQ,.and STP federal funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated after ` 2009) for Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation projects, contingent upon a "use it or lose it" _provision; 2) Approve ACE grade separation projects as eligible projects for 2009_. Measure A Economic Development funds with an allocation of 25%; and 3) Adopt the Grade Separation Funding Strategy Blueprint Report: 11. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences : and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 11, 2007 Page 9 13. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 9, 2007, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • £0/06 lWOlOf1 "ON "131 :SS31i43aV SS3NISn8_ _ damp ;o aweN 2/-4 JDJ) 1 D JOSS / J b- U-4 1/14.,n D C :JNI1N3S3ad3b apo0 d!Z ✓ 7 �(�i� / loansJ 2.sE 64:4 /s6 "ON '131 :1/11311 VON3JV :ss3aaav :3WVN (varuaDv 3H1 NO 031SI1 SV) dO Iowans "ON 1N311 VaN3JV ) I a�'oUa :S1N3WWO0 3118nd I :S1N3WWO0 onand AO IOwans 4 0//// 6 :31VQ :6ulnnopo; ay;< a3aldwoo Heys sie4eads r111lirta 3111 -um 11613301 311.1_fL1-111Atatle nniti_unw 1 3f] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL APRIL 11, 2007 Present Absent County of RIVerSi,de, • District 13 , County of Riverside, District II ;County of Riverside, District,111 County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside,Dstrict'V' City of Banning City of Blythe Crty,of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of; Cathedral` City • City of Coachella City of,`'Corona City of Desert Hot Springs 4 City of Indian Wells ;City,of'Indio City of La Quinta City Lake Elsinore _ City of Moreno Valley City of 1Murr.ieta�� ' _1 City of Norco Crty_ofPalm Desert , City of Palm Springs City of<Perris City of Rancho Mirage :City of; Riverside ' � . City of San Jacinto City of -T m 'ecula'�� - e I Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 11, 2007 AME . GEN Y E MAIL ADDRESS ,9'niik-- -/itdiv geffL,/,-21#,-)--- t 1)...c- a S - Pur V l (CrfN ACIA-L% PRA.vr. w',e-i r /heR ed/o VA. lief, /Cry �ib,65' Ncl%(Z/iZiA- �tGglia.-71-ko/5 A' • ,ii/ Gli(C�/� �' 94 •�` ---, - o i3 5l1.,-5 / C csc� ,_.„#.4 eicz,./.. t .�Ce./ ( �� � ges-e.y.1__ \_2,-r,$) ,,z, H , C a i -1/2--r-ct_r, S41.4Lit JJ g.CIT Lep/ (aGtkJel �A ��G <,- �c -7-c_ 2L---� ,..s%7--A a) r ,J t—sl Z-,1&. l S%G1q�e ►' 4 P-e 6,Y,c-e t,_._ - `i-- l fJ /` ve-7C0.6E e/-r-/ Cir(v 6re-R4tvcgp (%g«" .`( "I,v,_ '),L,si,r, n r, �,6 �;0 ��. 4 :(� e 4r I,V r,� ,4- ,Z,�. p LAA-.0y ,y , A7 .S o/4a 6 ( ; ,ti4�4 � /-* S • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Terry Henderson at 10:01 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside , Administrative . Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time,. Commissioner Jeff Stone led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Joseph DeConinck Rick Gibbs Frank Hall. Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez. Hank Hohenstein Dick Kelly Robin Lowe John Machisic . Bob Magee Jeff Miller Patrick Mullany Ronald Oden Mike Perovich Ron Roberts Jeff Stone Frank West John Tavaglione Roy Wilson John Zaitz Roger Berg Gordon Moller Gregory Pettis Michael H. Wilson Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bev Perry, Member Relations Manager, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), introduced herself and stated that SCAG is increasing its outreach and communications. She indicated that she and Arnold San Miguel are the contacts to assist the Commission and welcomed feedback concerning SCAG. Arnold San Miguel, Member Relations Officer, SCAG, provided the Commission with an updated fact sheet on SCAG's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Pilot Program dated March 2007, highlighting that local jurisdictions seeking adjustments to their draft allocations may file revision requests and/or appeals by March 16"'. SCAG's final allocation is scheduled to be adopted on July 5' 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 14, 2007 M/S/C (Hohenstein/Stone) to approve the February 14, 2007 minutes. Abstain: Machisic 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted additional information for Agenda Item 8, "2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Augmentation". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Bob Buster requested clarification on Agenda Item 7K "Agreement No. 02-31-009-02, Amendment No. 2, with SC Engineering to Provide Additional Engineering and Environmental Studies for Proposed. Improvements to State Route 91 from Adams Street to the 60/91/215 Interchange" related to final design, construction schedule, input from the city of Riverside, and impacts on congestion in the area between Adams Street and Arlington Avenue. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, replied that the 9t" Street ramp is being moved to 10t" Street, which was coordinated with city of Riverside. He provided background information on the environmental process and scope of work, noting that staff is working in close coordination with Ca!trans District 8 and the city of Riverside. It is anticipated .that the environmental report will be completed by September 2007. He then discussed issues and • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 3 alternatives related to Jane Street. Also, staff believes it has addressed all issues related to environmental implications of noise. This project will provide additional capacity to the system. M/S/C (Hohenstein/Stone) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2005/06. 7B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2006. 7C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the second quarter ended December 31 2006. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2006. 7E. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT Receive and file the Interfund Loan Activity Report for the second quarter ended December 31, 2006. 7F. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM -EXTENSION FOR THE CITIES - OF MORENO VALLEY AND SAN JACINTO 1) Grant the city of Moreno Valley an extension to June 30, 2008 to complete the' Pan Am Boulevard and Graham Street sidewalk improvement projects; and 2) Grant the city of San Jacinto an extension to June 30, 2008 to complete the Idyl!wild Drive sidewalk improvement project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 4 7G. AGREEMENT WITH SCHIERMEYER CONSULTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE PROFES6IONAL SERVICES TO THE COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM 1) Award Agreement No. 07-25-103-00 to Schiermeyer Consulting Services to provide professional services to support the Commuter Rail Program, for a total not to exceed $195,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 71. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, THE COMMISSION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS 1) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-65-111-00 with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Commission and the . Riverside County Transit Operators (cities of Banning, Beaumont, Blythe, Corona, and Riverside; Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency); and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the Commission. 7J. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Report. 7K. AGREEMENT NO. 02-31-009-02, AMENDMENT NO. 2,WITH SC ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROUTE 91 FROM ADAMS STREET TO THE 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE 1) Approve Agreement No.02-31-009-02, Amendment No. 2, with SC Engineering to provide additional. engineering and environmental studies required to finalize. the project report, environmental document and geometricapproval drawings for • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 5 the proposed improvements to SR-91 from Adams Street to the 60/91 /215 ipterchange, for a total amendment amount of $280,977; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. 8. 2006 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AUGMENTATION Eric' Haley, Executive Director, provided the Commission with a handout dated March 10, 2007 regarding the definition of a special dividend, a nonrecurring dividend that is exceptional in terms of either size or date issued. The Commission's plan for the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program was to obtain funding to offset existing commitments and construct additional projects as demonstrated in this agenda item. Shirley Medina, Program Manager, presented the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) - Augmentation that is sponsored by Proposition 1 B, highlighting the following items: • STIP funding history; • STIP Augmentation available funding; . • Commission STIP intra-county formula;. • Available highway programming; • Staff recommendations for Western County formula funds; • CMIA and 2006 STIP Augmentation funding; • Additional Western County STIP Augmentation projects and available Western County programming; • Eastern County STIP Augmentation projects; • 2006 STIP Augmentation Public Transportation Account (PTA) funding; • Impact on the Commission projects; and • Submittal deadline and adoption. At this point, the presentation was turned over, to Eric Haley. He outlined the four reasons he believes the Commission was successful in the CMIA allocations: 1) Complete understanding of the CMIA guidelines and the work of Mike Perovich and Bill Mosby, Ca!trans District 8, in developing a joint program, which 65 of the 68 projects were successfully funded; 2) The unity of the Commission; 3) The Governor's support letter; and 4) Joe Tavaglione, . California Transportation Commission (CTC) Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner, for his focus, diplomacy, and understanding of the process. He then provided a review, of the infrastructure bond package, highlighting the following items: • $37.3 billion package approved; • Proposition 1 B and transportation details; • Proposition 1 B timeline; and • Summary of actions. Commissioner Steve Adams expressed his strong belief that the Commission needs to support a voluntary container premium on the trucks to obtain the funding necessary for grade separations. Commissioner John Tavaglione thanked the Commission and staff for its hard work. On behalf of Joe Tavaglione, he expressed appreciation for the support and continued dialogue. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Lowe) to: 1) Approve programming Western County formula projects and submit to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and 2) Concur with Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) project submittal for Eastern County formula funds and submit to the CTC. Commissioner Buster concurred with Commissioner. Tavaglione's comments. He then asked for confirmation on Caltrans` total figure on project needs in California. Eric Haleyresponded that the figure is approximately $180 billion. He then commented favorably on the presentation made by Chair. Henderson at the CTC's CMIA hearing and added that Commissioners Buster. and . Jeff Miller also represented the Commission. Commissioner Buster commented on the benefit of collaboration with neighboring counties. He then asked if the Commission received a satisfactory explanation from CTC staff as to why the SR-91 priority project was initially viewed as not ready to proceed. • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 7 Eric Haley replied that is misinformation. There were no disconnects' between Caltrans and Commission staffs. He believes that there was skepticism based on the difficulties of the 60/91 /215 Interchange project and the competitors took full advantage of that opening to take the SR-91 project out of the queue. There were no breakdowns, the data was fine and . the Governor supported it. Commissioner Jeff Stone commended staff and Commissioner Miller for their quick response to protect the Commission's interests as a self-help county. He added that Will Kempton, Caltrans Director, made a commitment that the self-help counties would be first in line to receive funding for qualifying projects and the process rewarded the Commission for its innovativeness. He thanked Chair Henderson and Commissioners Buster and Miller for representing the Commission at the CTC hearing. He then recognized Mike Perovich, Caltrans District 8 Director, for partnering with the Commission. Chair Henderson thanked Commissioners Buster and Miller for attending the CTC hearing. She then commented on the excitement of the hearing, adding that respect. for Commission staff was evident and they did an outstanding job. Commissioner Robin Lowe commented on an interview with a reporter in which she was asked about the impact of Los Angeles County on the Commission. She stated that she believes the Commission impacted the outcome of Los Angeles County. She stressed that goods movements issues and competition with Los Angeles County for funding will continue to increase in intensity and recommended that the Commission broaden its education efforts to all legislators in Sacramento. She expressed concern about a letter that was . distributed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) that could delay the Perris Valley Line (PVL) for another year due to lack of communication concerning San Bernardino County. She concurred the comments made by Commissioners Stone and Buster and commended the Commission and staff for its unity and integrity. 9. PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 BUDGET Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, provided an overview of the primary changes made to the policy goals and objectives set last year and the budget process for FY 2007/08. The final budget will be presented to the Commission for final adoption on June 13, 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Hank Hohenstein commended staff for its excellent work on the list of goals and objectives. He expressed that he believes it soundly reflects the input of this Commission. He suggested under the overall goals and objectives to use the word "promote" before the major headings. Eric Haley concurred with Commissioner Hohenstein's suggestion. M/S/C (Lowe/Stone) to approve the proposed ,.Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2007/08 Budget. 10. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the consent calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Eric Haley introduced and welcomed Naomi Boyungs, the new Administrative Support Specialist to the Clerk of the Board. B. Chair Henderson briefed the Commission on her meetings from the prior week that spanned from the Palo Verde Valley to Irvine, She thanked Commissioner DeConinck of Blythe .for attending the Commission meeting. C. Commissioner Steve Adams expressed appreciation to staff for its assistance in establishing the taxi overflow program as part of the RTA service profile and fully funded. 12. CLOSED SESSION ITEM CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:. .EXISTING , LITIGATION Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9(a) • Case No. RIC 392211 There was no announcement from the closed session item. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes March 14, 2007 Page 9 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 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 • • AGEN s D A ITEM 7A • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Investment Policy Review STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the Investment Policy. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section. XIV of the Investment Policy requires an, annual investment policy review and specifically states that the "Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting. Any changes to the policy shall also be considered by the Board at a public meeting." Based on a review of the Investment Policy approved by the Commission on March 8, 2006 and consideration of changes to the California. Government Code (Code) as of January 1, 2007, staff in consultation with the Riverside County Treasury staff has determined that no technical changes are required. Staff recommends adoption of the Investment Policy. Attachment: Investment Policy Agenda Item 7A 1 INVESTMENT POLICY - i. Introduction The purpose , of this document is to identify policies and procedures that enhance opportunities forr a prudent and systematic: investment program and to organize and formalize investment -related activities. II. Scope Its is 'intended that this Policy cover all funds- (except retirement funds) and investment activities under the direction of the Commission. III. Delegation of Authority Pursuant to the Commission's Administrative, Code:, the Board's management responsibility for the investment program is hereby delegated for a one-year period to the Executive Director who shall monitor and review all investments for consistency with this investment policy. Subject to review, the Board may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year. The'Executive'Director may delegate these dutiesto his designee ("Chief Financial Officer"). The Commission may delegate its investment decision making and execution authority to an investment advisor. The advisor shall -follow this Policy and such other written instructions as are provided.. IV. Prudence All persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Commission are subject to the prudent investor standard. Investments shall be made with care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the ,anticipated needs' of the Commission that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and -familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a Like character and with Like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Commission. Authorized individuals acting in accordance with this Policy and written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit 'risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion. . Objective The Commission's primary investment objectives, in priority order,. shall be: 1. Safety. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment ,program. Investments of the ,Commission shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks ,to ensure : preservation of capital in the portfolio. Liquidity. The investment portfolio of the Commission will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the Commission_ to meet its ;cash flow - requirements. Return on Investment. The investment portfolio of. the. Commission shall be designed with the objective of maximizing' return on its investments, but only after ensuring safety and liquidity. In order to maximize return on its investments, the Commission seeks an active rather than passive management of portfolio assets. The Commission may from .time to time sell securities that it owns in order to better reposition its portfolio assets in accordance with updated cash flow -schedules, yield curve optimizations, yield opportunities existing between market sectors; or_ simply market timing. VI. investments California Government Code Section 53601 governs the investments permitted for purchase by the Commission. Within the investments . permitted by Code, the Commission seeks to further restrict eligible investments to .the investments listed in Section V1.1 below. Percentage limitations, where indicated apply at the time of purchase. Percentage holdings with any one non -governmental issuer are further restricted to a maximum of 1.0%. Rating requirements where indicated,apply at the .`tune: of purchase. In the event a security held by the Commission is 'subject to a rating change that brings it below the minimum specified rating requirement, the Chief Financial Officer shall notify the Board of the change. The course of action to be followed will then be decided on a case -by -case basis, considering such factors as the reason for the rate . drop., prognosis ` for recovery or further rate drops, and the market price of the security. 3 1. Eligible Investments A. U.S. Government Issues. United States Treasury notes, bonds, bills, or certificates of indebtedness, or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of: principal and interest. Federal Agency Securities. Federal agency or United States government -sponsored enterprise. obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government -sponsored enterprises. C. Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase agreements are to be used solely as short-term investments not to exceed30 days. The Commission may enter into repurchase agreements with primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationallyrecognized rating services. Gounterparties should also have (i) a short -:term credit rating of :at least A=1 /P 1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 ;million in capital; (iii) five years of acceptable audited financial .results; and (iv) a strong reputation among market participants. The following. collateral restrictions will be observed: Only U.S. Treasury securities or Federal Agency securities, as described in V.1 A and B, will be acceptable collateral. All securities underlying repurchase agreements must be delivered to the Commission's custodian bank versuspayment or be handled under a properly executed tri-party repurchase agreement. The total market value of all collateral for each repurchase agreement must equal or exceed 102 percent of the total dollar value of the money invested by the Commission for the term of the investment. For any repurchase agreement with a term of more than one day, the value of the. underlying securities must. be' reviewed on an on -going basis according to market conditions. Market value must be calculated each time there is a substitution of collateral The Commission or its trustee shall have a perfected first security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code in all securities subject to repurchase agreement. The Commission shall have properly executed a PSA agreement with each counterparty with which it enters into repurchase agreements. D. U.S. Corporate Debt. Medium -term notes, defined as all corporate and depository institution securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less, issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States . or depository institutions licensed by the UnitedStates or any state and operating within the United States. Eligible investment .shall be rated "AA" or better by one or more nationally recognized rating service. Investments in U.S. Corporate: Debt are further limited to 30% of surplus funds. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper'; rated in the highest category by one or more nationally recognized statistical rating_' organization (NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (1) or paragraph (2): (1) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) Is organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation. ('B) Has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars - ($500,000,000). (C) Has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated "A" or higher by a NRSRO: (2) The entity meets the following criteria: (A) 1s organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, . trust, or limited liability company. (B) Has program -wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, ,over collateralization, letters of credit,' or surety` bond: (C) Has commercial paper that is rated "A-1" or higher, or ` the equivalent, by a NRSRO. Purchases of eligible cornmercial paper may not exceed 270 days maturity nor represent more than 1.0 percent of the outstanding paper of an issuing corporation. Investments in commercial paper are limited to a maximum of 25 % of surplus funds. Banker's Acceptances. Banker's acceptances issued: by dornestic or foreign banks, which are eligible for purchase; by. the Federal Reserve System. Purchases of banker's acceptances may not exceed 180 days maturity. Eligible _ 1. banker's acceptances are restricted to .: issuing_ financial institutions > with short-term` paper rated in the highest category by one or more nationally ` recognized rating service. Investments in banker's acceptances are further limited to 40% of surplus funds with no more than 30% of surplus invested in the banker's acceptances of any one cornmercial bank_ 5 Money Market Mutual Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market: funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940.(15 U.S.C. Sec. 8.0a-1, et seq.) and that investsolely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of . the U.S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements.: relating to such treasury obligations. The Commission may invest in shares of beneficial interest issued by accompany shall have met either of the ' following criteria: (1) Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized rating services. (2) Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not Tess than five years' experience managing money market, mutual funds with . assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($ 500,000, 000) . The purchase price of shares of beneficial interest purchased pursuant to this subdivision shall not include any commission that the companies rnay charge. Investments in Money Market Mutual Funds are further limited to 20% of surplus funds. Riverside County Pooled - Investment Fund (-RCPIF"). The Commission may invest in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. As on -going due diligence, the Chief financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below: A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy: • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of ..;gains and losses in the portfolio. • A: description of how often the securities are ,priced, how the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in the, program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. State of California Local Agency 'investment Fund ("LAIF").. The Commission may invest in LAIF. As on -going due diligence, the Chief. Financial Officer shall obtain the information listed below.' • A description of eligible investment securities and a statement of investment policy. • A description of the interest calculation, the frequency of interest distributions, and the treatment of gains and losses in the portfolio. A description of how often the securities are priced, °how : the securities are safeguarded, and the audit arrangements. • A description of who may invest in.,the program, how often they may invest, and what size deposits and withdrawals are allowed. • A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A fee schedule, and when and how fees are assessed. • The composition of the investment fund for each reporting period. ▪ Certificates of Deposit. Federal 'Deposit 'Insurance -Corporation (FDIC) insured or fully collateralized time certificates of deposit in financial institutions located in California. Eligible . investments are restricted to those issuing institutionsthat have,.. ,been in: business at least five years and whose ', senior ;debt obligations are rated "AA" or better by one or. more :nationally recognized rating service. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. Investments in certificatesofdeposit are further "limited;. to 20.%0 of surplus funds. All time deposits must be. collateralized in ,.accordance with California Government Code section;'53561. The Commission, at its discretion, may waive the coliateralization requirements for any portion of the deposit that is covered by federal insurance. Eligible Investments for Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds shall be invested in securities permitted by the applicable bond documents. If the bond documents are silent as to permitted investments, bond proceeds will be invested in ;securities: permitted by this. Policy. With respect to maximum maturities, the Policy .authorizes investing ` bond reserve fund proceeds beyond the five . years if prudent in ,the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer. 7 3. Ineligible Investments As provided in California Government Code Section 53601.6, the Commission `shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage derived interest -only strips or in any security that could result in zerointerest accrual if field to maturity. The purchase of any security not listed in Section V1.1 above, but permitted by the California Government Code, is prohibited unless the Board approves the investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board. VII. Maximum Maturities Maturities of investments will be selected to provide necessary liquidity, minimize interest rate risk, and maximize earnings. Current and expected yield curve analysis :will be: monitored and. the portfolio will be invested accordingly. Because of inherent difficulties in. accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested inreadily available funds. Where this _Policy does not specify a maximum remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security, other than a security- underlying a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement authorized by this section, that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Board has granted express authority to make that investment either. specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Board no less than three .months prior, to the investment. VIII. Performance Standards The Chief . Financial Officer shall continually monitor and evaluate the portfolio's, performance. A comparison of the portfolio's performance against a performance benchmark shall be included in the Chief Financial Officer's quarterly report. The Chief Financial Officer shall select an appropriate, readily available market index to use. as . a performance benchrnark. IX. Reporting The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare; and provide to the .Board. and the Executive Director, within _ 30 days : following the end of the quarter, a portfolio report, which includes the following information: • Type of investment • Name of issuer • Dateof maturity • Date of purchase • Par value . • Original purchase cost • Call date (if applicable) • Current market value of securities • Unrealized market value gain/loss • Coupon rate, if applicable • - Yield to maturity • Creditquality, as determined by one or more nationally recognized credit rating services, of each investment • Average duration of portfolio • Listing of: all investment transactions during the quarter • A, statement that -the portfolio complies with the investment policy, or the manner in vvhich the portfolio is not in compliance A statement denoting the ability of the Commission to meet its liquidity requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation . as to:. -why sufficient money shall, or may not be, available. Investment Procedures The Chief Financial Officer, as the Board's designee, is responsible'for ;ensuring compliance 'with ,the -Commission's investment policies and establishing written procedures and :internal . controls for the operation of the" investment program. No person, may engage in investment transactions'- except as provided under the terms of this Policy and the written procedures established by the Chief Financial Officer. The written procedures should address: delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, controlof collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, written confirrnations of .transactions; reconciliation of custody statements, 'and wire transfer procedures and agreements. An -independent analysis by an 'external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies and procedures. XI. Authorized Broker Dealers and Financial Institutions The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a list of authorized` broker/dealers' and financial institutions which are approved for 'investme:nt. purposes. It shall be the Commiss'ion's policy to :purchase securities °::only from, those authorized institutions ` :and firms. Separate lists 'shall be' maintained' for broker/dealers and financial institutions approved for repurchase..agreernents 9 and those approved for :the . purchase of other securities. If an investment advisor is Fused, they may use their own Fist of approved broker/dealers and financial institutions: for. investment purposes. To be eligible, a: firrn must: ,meet the following minimum criteria: (i) an institution licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, or from a member of a federally .regulated. securities exchange, from a national or . state -chartered bank, from a federal or state association or from a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve bank; and (ii) all broker/dealer firms and individuals must be properly registered with the NASD and/or SEC to transact business , in the relevant geographic locations and product sectors,. In addition, counterparties for Repurchase Agreements. shall be limited to primary government securities dealers rated "A" or better by two nationally recognized rating services. Counterparties shall also have . (i) a short-term _ credit rating of at least A-1 /P=1; (ii) minimum assets and capital size of $25 billion in assets and $350 million .in capital; ;(iii) five years of acceptable :audited. financial results; and (iv) a strong reputation arnong market participants. The Chief Financial Officer shall select broker/dealers and other financial institutions on the basis of the firm's expertise and credit- worthiness. The Commission shall annually send a copy of the current investment policyto all dealers approved .to do_ business with the Commission. Each broker dealer or financial institution that has been authorized by the Commission shall be required to .submit and annually update. a . Broker/Dealer Questionnaire which. includes` the firm's most recent financial statements. The Chief Financial Officer shall maintain a file for each firm approved for investment purposes, which includes the most :recent Broker/Dealer Questionnaire. X11. Safekeeping and Custody To protect the Commission's assets, all securities owned by the Commission shall be held in safekeeping in the Commission's name by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the Commission under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the Commission. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures; the Commission's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security after the security has been properly delivered. Physical delivery securities shall be avoided whenever possible, as book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. In addition, .delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss ` or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities. XIII. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest The Commission adopts the following policy concerning conflicts of. interest: Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall. refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. 2. Officers and employees involved in the. investment process shall disclose any material financial interest in any financial institution that conducts business with the Commission; and they shall further' disclose any large personal financialtinvestment.:p:ositions :that could be related to the performance of the .Commission's' portfolio.: Officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business is conducted on behalf of the Commission. XIV. Investment Policy' Review The Chief Financial Officer shall annually render to the 'Board a statement of investment policy, which the Board must consider at a public meeting Any changes to the ` policy shall also be considered by the :Board at a public meeting: 11 s AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION_ DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley .Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT:. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Quarterly Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the :Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform' Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial. Program Quarterly Report: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In September 2004, the Commission approved 23 projects for the Western County. TUMF Regional Arterial Program originally totaling $71.3 million. Subsequently, the Western Riverside Council' of : Governments (WRCOG) 2005 TUMF 'Nexus' Study update identified adjustments to project costs. These adjustments are being reflected in the agreements. Project sponsors. are required to enter into formal agreements with the Commission' for each individual project outlining the work to be performed,- phase and funding amount. To. date, 19 agreements have been executed totaling $49.569 million of which $16.336 million is for construction activities. Three agreements are currently being processed and the last remaining agreement is planned to be initiated in FY 20P7/08. Attachment 1 illustrates the projects that are under agreement. The table below identifies the amount of funding programmed per fiscal year for projects with executed agreements: Fiscal Year Funding (millions) 2005/06 $ 9.330 2006/07 $ 34.736 2007/08 $ 3.503 2008/09. $ 2.000 2009/10 $ 0.000 Total $ 49.569 million Agenda Item 7B As of January 2007, project invoices for the fiscal year totaled $8.5 million. Approximately $6- million of the invoices were for right-of-way acquisition for the SR-79 Interchange and French Valley Parkway Interchange. The balance ,of the , invoices covered environmental and design phases for various projects.:'. Estimated construction schedules are included in Attachment 2., The table below;: summarizes the number of projects scheduled to begin construction over the ,nexj five years: Fiscal Year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/1 1 201 1/12 TB;D of Projects Under Construction_ 3 4 4 2 1 2 Construction of the TUMF Regional Arterial Program projects is wellunderway with: the city of San Jacinto's Ramona Expressway project, the first to go to construction in February ,2007. Commission staff is actively monitoring the status of each project and will continue to report on the progress of the program on a quarterly, basis: Attachments: 1 } RCTC TUMF Regional Arterial Funds Programmed - January 2007 2) TUMF Regional Arterials Construction Schedule Agenda Item 7B 13 • TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT JANUARY. 2007 Protects Programmed 23 Agreements Signed 19 Ageements In Process 3 Agency Project Limits Agreement Number Project Number Programmed Amount Agreement Amount (2) Phase (1) AGREEMENTS SIGNED 19 Corona Green River Road Dominguez Ranch Rd to SR 91 06-72.539 5103 $4242 $4242 4 Corona Foothill Parkway Lincoln to Green River 06-72-540 5102 $2.000 $2.000 2 $2.000 $2.000 3 County of Riverside Bundy Cynl Scott Rd 1-15 to 1-1215 06-72.524 5109 $0.712 $0.712 1 County of Riverside Eastern Bypass Auld Rd to 1-15 06-72-525 - 5110 $3.000 $3.000 1 County of Riverside Eastem Bypass I.C. @ 1.15 06-72-523 5111 $2.000 $2.000 1 County of Riverside Schlelsman Rd. - I.0 @ 1-15 06-72-522 5113 $0.750 $0.750 1 $2-000 $2.000 2 County of Riverside SR 79 Thompson to Domenigoni 06-72.521. 5114 $1.000 $1.000 1 $1.000 $1.000 2 County of Riverside Van Buren Blvd Washington to Wood - 06-72-047 ' 5116 - $0275 $0.226 1 $0.612 $0.546 2 County of Riverside Van Buren Blvd Clay to 1200' S. of Santa Ana River 06-72-070 5115 $4.860 $5220 4 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Ramona Expressway to Cactus 06-72-040 5106 $0.389 $0.389 1 $0971 $0.871 2 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Ironwood to Manzanita 06-72-041 5105 $0.134 $0.134 1 $0.336 $0.336 2 Riverside Van Buren Blvd I.C. @SR 91 06-72-036 5108 $2.000 $2.000 3 Riverside Van Buren Blvd Andrew to Garfield - 06-72-013 5122 $0.905 $2.329 4 Riverside Van Buren Blvd Santa Ana River to Jackson 06-72-050 5125 $0.845 "' $0.845 4 San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Sanderson to Wly City Limits 06-72-519 5117 $0.040 $0.040 1 $0.160 $0.160 2 $3.000 $3.700 4 San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Seventh to Cedar 06-72-520 5118 $0200 $0200 1 $1300 $0.300 - 2 $0.900 $0.900 3 Temecula - Westem Bypass Align, 1-15 to SR 79 South I.C. - 06-72-542 5121 $0.700 $0.700 1 Temecula SR 79 South I.0 @ I-15 - 06-72-506 5120 $0.100 - $0d00 2 $4.000 $4.352 3 Temecula French Valley Pkwy I.0 @ 1-15 06-72-048 5119 $7.000 $2.000 2 $5.517 3 I Total Signed Agreements PA&ED $9.151 PS&E $9.313 RAW $14.769 CONST $16.336 TOTAL $49.569 AGREEMENTS IN PROCESS 3 County of Riverside Reche Cyn42eche Vista Heacock to S.8 Co Line 5107 $0.409 $0.409 1 Corona El Cerrito Bedford Cyn Rd to 1-15 N.B. 5101 $0.120 $1.000 4 County of Riverside Potrero Blvd San Timoteo Cyn Rd to Sr 79 5112 $2.000 $2.000 2 Total Agreements In Process PA&ED $0.409 PS&E $2.000 R1W CONST $1.000 TOTAL 1 $3-409 AGREEMENTS TO BE STARTED 1 Lake Elsinore Railroad Cyn Rd 1-15 to Canyon Hills Rd 5104 E0300 2 Total Agreements To Be Started $0.300 RCTC PROJECTS RCTC Mid County Parkway SR 79 to 1-15 2302 $6.650 1 RCTC SR 79 Realignment Gilman Springs to Domenigoni 3003 $13.159 1 RCTC MCP/SR79 - 5123 $25.000 3 RCTC Green River Rd Interchange @ SR 91 5124 $3.145 4 Total RCTC Projects $47-954 • 1.) Phases : Phase 1 ( PA&ED); Phase 2 (PS&E); Phase 3 (R/W); Phase 4 (Construction) 2..) Where the agreement amount is higher than programmed amount for Phases 1,2 or 3, it is due to an update of the Nexus Study. Higher amounts for Phase 4 may also be due to inclusion of a 10% contingency identified in the Nexus Study but not nol previously programmed. • 3.) MCP/SR79 RAW Expenses to date i MCP $1.522 and SR 79 $2298 = $3.818 pb 2/13N7 14 • • TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIALS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Corona Riverside Riverside Corona Coun of Riverside Count of Riverside Coun of Riverside Riverside San Jacinto Corona Coun of Riverside Moreno Valle Temecula Temecula Count of Riverside Lake Elsinore Coun of Riverside Moreno Valle Count of Riverside Temecula Coun of Riverside El Cerrito Van Buren Blvd Van Buren Blvd Green River Road SR 79 Van Buren Blvd Van Buren Blvd Van Buren Blvd Ramona Ex•resswa Foothill Parkwa Bund C n/ Scott Rd Perris Blvd SR 79 South Potrero Blvd Railroad C n Rd Schleisman Rd Perris Blvd Eastern B pass Western B • ass All • n. Limits Sanderson to WI Cit Limits Bedford C n Rd to 1.15 N.B. Andrew to Garfield I.C. • SR 91 Domin • uez Ranch Rd to SR 91 Thom •son to Domeni • oni Washineton to Wood Cla to 1200' S. of Santa Ana River Santa Ana River to Jackson Seventh to Cedar Lincoln to Green River 1-15 to 1-1215 Ironwood to Manzanita I.0 ••.1-15 Auld Rd to 1.15 I.0 • 1.15 San Timoteo C n Rd to Sr 79 1-15 to Can on Hills Rd Ramona Ex•resswa to Cactus_ I.C. L•'+ 1-15 1-15 to SR 79 South I.C. Heacock to S.B Co Line Project Number 5117 5101 5122 5108 5103 5114 5116 5115 5125 5118 5102 5109 5105 5120 5110 5119 5112 5104 5113 5106 5111 5121 5107 CONSTRUCTION START FISCAL YR. 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008. 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 TBD* TBD* *TBD - Date cannot pb 2/13/07 be determined until significant environmental impacts have been addressed. 15 • AGENDA ITEM 7C • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Beaumont STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Beaumont as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a CIP on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Coachella Valley) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit an annual certification of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. At its April 10, 2006, meeting staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required Five -Year CIP. The agencies were asked to submit their CIPs by June 12, 2006 for submission to the Commission on July 12, 2006. The required CIP, MOE certification and supporting documentation has been received from the city of Beaumont. The remaining two cities, Calimesa and Coachella, have been informed that no disbursement of Measure A funds for local streets androads will be made until all of the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachment: CIP for City of Beaumont Agenda Item 7C 16 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007-2011 Agency: City of Beaumont Prepared by: Public Works Department Date: February 6, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Fiscal Year PROJECT NAME/LIMITS . PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST STATUS MEASURE «A». 2007 Palm Avenue, 6' Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $1,321,000 Pending Caltrans $946,000 2008 8`h Street, Elm Avenue to Highland Springs Avenue Rehabilitation $950,000 Pending Design $500,000 2009 Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue to Cherry Avenue Widening and Rehabilitation $1,200,000 Pending Design $525,000 2010 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6`" Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $700,000 Pending Design $550,000 2011 Brookside Avenue, Highland Springs Avenue to Beaumont Ave. Rehabilitation $750,000 Pending Design $575,000 2 17 • AGENDA ITEM 7D • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fiscal Year 200.7/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Blythe STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the amendment to the FY 2007/11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads for the city of Blythe as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Measure A Ordinance requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a CIP on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the cities in the Coachella Valley and the County (representing the unincorporated area of the Coachella Valley) must be participating in CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are also required to submit an annual certification of. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. The CIP for the city of Blythe (City) was approved at its September 14, 2006, Commission meeting. Any revisions to the adopted CIP must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City is requesting to amend its FY 2007/11 CIP to revise one project and add three new projects as indicated on the attached schedule. The City is also requesting to amend the amount of funds and project description of the Hobsonway Reconstruction/Design (Phase 3) project programmed in FY 2008/11. Attachment: Letter from the City of Blythe with Revised CIP Schedules Agenda Item 7D 18 hlyNcm h 6, 2007 79634 EH/JR CITY OF BLYTHE 235 North;Broadway / Blythe, California 92225 Phone (760) 922-6161 / Fax (760) 9 '` 9'3e E D tv. E MAR 0.8 2007 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY OF BLYTHE'S FY 2007-2011 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Dear Mr. Haley: The City of Blythe is hereby requesting to amend its FY 2007-2011 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Project amendments being requested that will affect the current fiscal year are as follows: • Fiscal Year 2007 - Amend item number 8 "Chanslorway Street Resurfacing Project" to include Lovekin Blvd. and increase the amount of funds to $1,680,000. • Fiscal Year 2007 - Add "Hobsonway Reconstruction Project (Phase 2)" for a total project cost of $2,000,000. • Fiscal Year 2007 - Add "Pavement Management System City Wide Project" for a total project cost of $100,000. • Fiscal Year 2007 - Add "Balszburg Neighborhood Improvement Project (Paving of Florence Blvd., Thomas Drive, Whitman Drive, and McKinley Drive)" for a total project cost of $400,000. Please present these amendments to the Commission on the City's behalf. If you should have any questions, please direct them to Mr.IJim Rodkey, Public Works Director at (760) 922-6611. Sincerely, Les Nelson City Manager CC: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Jim Rodkey, Public Works Director Helen Colbert, Director of Finance Measure "A" Project File 19 X.29.03 OZ 000`szs`o I. 000`otn`z 000s6e`I. 000`sas` I. 000`sss� �. 000`oser VA .Had -111oJ. ridi.oi aNVII0 oLoz 1111t3A "IVOSId 1 I.OZ ' LOOZ InaA 1V3Sl.1 IN11219011d saNnA 11/30 1 ..d.. 3ansvmty NOISSIINIA103 NOLL1111:10dSNVILL AINnO3 3011S113A111 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2007 Agency::= Prepared By Phone No.: Date: City of Blythe Pielen Colbert (760) 922.6161 March :5, 2007 (Amended) Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 1 2 10 *** 11 * *, 12 PROJECT NAME/LIMITS 2006/07 Traffic Signals/Rehabilitation 2006/07 Administrative Overhead 2004/07 Sidewalk Improvements 1998/09 _ Wheelchair Ramps (ADA) (50,000/yr) 2005/07 Fog : 8i Chip Seal 2006/07 Asphalt Emulsion OIUBase Material (Annual Stock) 2006107 Combined. Streets Annual -Improvement Project 2005/07 Lovekin/Chansiorway.Street _Resurfacing PROJECT TYPE 2004/11 Hobsvnway/CVAG Loan Payanent (Phase 1) 2006/08 Hobsonway Reconstruction/Design (Phase 2). 2006/08 Pavement Managen en System City. Wide. 2006/07 Balszburg Neighborhood mprovement Project (Paving of Florence Blvd., Thomas Dr., TOTAL COST ($000•S) $65 $70 $692 $500 $100 $175 $100 $1,680 $2400 $2,000` $100 MEASURE "A" FUNDS ($000'S) $65 $70 $65 $50 $100 $175 $100 $1,680 $245 $1,000 $100 Whitman Dr., ,and McKinley Dr.) $400 ** Amend Scope ofProject & Amount * * * :. AddProject to Plan Sias OS$' OS$ ooZ$- 09$ (9.000$) SaNna aabaa 321nSd3W oao'z$ OotOZ$ . 001$ 0014 OOZ$. 009$. (s.000$) 1900 11111.01 (Z ovum) uBlsea/uoi}omisuooaa itumuosgoH @o7900Z (t, essijd) wenuAed •ueol 011A0/Aumuosgoly L 14VOOZ lees diu3 +g Boa 90/900Z. OupwonoAdua8 tenuity/slue, OAC Idwi AemAally 90/1700Z 3d,A11O3rowd #41, 9 (uBis®a) aie;ul s AepAuusgoti •3 le leuBlS.�I�# 1 9OILOOZ taiti000ts' Nam) sduaetl aleyolaa4M 60/966 M MINIM 'ON W311 910 Z efied (papueullf) LoOZ `S 4oa01Al 09.9-ZZ6 (09L) pagloo uol®H aN l9 �o 40 ea;ea rON euo4d a(g pendald utoua8d 800Z 111/3A 1V3SH WVIIDadd SaNnd 1d301 ..V..3iJ[1Stl3W N®ISSIMA10 ► NOI1V1110dSNIFELL AJi.Nil03 101SH3A111 . 0 7 £ (Amid) uoi}duosoa Opuewy ®� ®11111111111111111 .11111111111111 009$.` 05$ 009$ 09$ (S.000$) SONna ,.n.. 311Ie1S1/341 00p`Z$ 001•$ 000` 0,$ 009$ (8.000$) SO31V►lo1 ®M111111111 3dAl. i33roaa (g eseyd) u61seOtuonone;suooeb Aunnuosgog 01./800Z. (1, eseyd) ;uawded ueol OVAOplennuosgopi L 1►/tiooZ s;uauaanoidusl lenuuyiewauiewo.:du atenn/telly 60/900Z ®fiem sr AemuoscloN '3 pe lou6lS *WW1 607LOOZ (att000`os) (tpd) sdtuea alg4olegKM 60/9661 S11W111131AItiN lO3rOaa `ON W311 S_;o g aced (papureua'b) LOOZ `S Woaew :etea 1.919-ZZ6 (09L) voN euoya pecHoo uoiem :/ta pe eclaad 84ait18 o A410 utouefid 600Z /1113A 1V3S1a Wlf219011d SONirld 111301 ..11“ 311 1S113tN NOISSIWW03 NOl.LVIIJ0dSN1 ILL A1NI103 3OISa3A1a (E eseyd); uatdposep pefoad pepuauay fi 1111111111 111111111111111 000` 4$ SIMS OS1•g (S.000$) SaNAA ..d.. 3snsv3W 000tt OOb`Z$ 00s$ (S000$) 1SOO 'VIOL 3dA1.' 103f owd (E esuyd) uQlseapuonon i;suoomi AstmuosgoN 01Kt00Z: (I, esuyd) ;uauuAud ueol .011A0lAsmuosgoN 111VOOZ CutI000`0GY (tlCV) sduigu 01 /966➢. S11WI9/3WVN 103f ONd 'ON W311 pepueuwb) LOOZ Rg yoieW .. :e;uQ 19 69"ZZ6 (09L) roN euo4d. Peg103 ualeH. e/tg peiedeud $N#LIA Jo 413 _aouaBti O 10Z lit/3A 1V3Sli INVII9011d SaNnd 1V301 ..V.. 31111SV3IN NOISSIWI11103 NO111 .1110dSNVI L A.LNf103 3a1S113A1111 1111101111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 111111111111111 000`iS ovv` i4 (s.000s) saNnA ..a.. alinsv3w 000` S oov`zs (s.000s) 3.503 1'd101 3dAJ..133rowd (£ eseyd) uBlseamonon4suooea AemuosgoH y ip:ton (� eseyd) ;ueusited ueoll OVAO/Aemuosgm "upon SLIIAIn 3wini h3roaa 6 'ON 11013.111 S 30 S ailed. (papueuoi') LOOZ `S 4oaew 1L919-ZZ6 (091) paquoo ualaN eWPt19 Jo A410 ranea roN auogd :Rs paaedaad :Roue0y 110Z HAMA 11113SH 1NV119011d saNna 11/301 NOISSIIJUw00 NOLLVIHOdSNda.l AINn00 3®ISa3A1a AGENDA ITEM 7E • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM:. Plan and Programs Committee Sheldon Peterson, 'Program :Manager Henry .Nickel, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT:: Commuter Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Connecting Transit Service Performance One of the Commission's, roles is to facilitate interconnectivity betweenMetrolink and connecting transit services at Riverside County stations. This is essential to the ongoing viability of the system. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the stations. The Commission is: working with the transit operators to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services , to and from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no additional cost to the riders for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County,. services include free transfers to routes operated .by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and the Corona Cruiser. For the month of February, these werea total of 7,125 combined trip connections to and from Riverside County stations. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink .transfer passenger trips on each of the .three services. Agenda Item 7E 26. 5000 y 4,000 3,000 . F- c 2,000 1,000 0 5,000 to 4,000. 'a 3,000 H c 2,000 1,000 0 500 t 400 .Q- 300 — 200 �* 100 0 Agenda Item 7E Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route 00 \-\°, p� Month Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link MR MIMI a ' -moss O Month Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser, o`O oo` o0 0�0 \-\°J' Q� 27 Month • New Riverside Downtown Station Lot Easing Parking Congestion Since opening February 20, the new east side lot at the Riverside -Downtown Station is proving to be a success. More than 100 of the newly added 321 parking spaces are occupied during weekdays. Now .able to accommodate 1136 vehicles, the station is better equipped to meet the ever increasing transit demands of Riverside and surrounding communities. IEOC Weekend Service i Cumulative Passenger Trips 1E0C Weekend Service First week of school �. `32,000 H 24,000 0 16,000 ,000 0 4r Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC Metrolink weekend service have remained consistent through Febiruary. To date, the -IEOC weekend service has provided 35,221 passenger_ trips since commencing July 15, 2006. This constitutes 1.6,289 additional trips ,resulting from year-round service compared to 2005's 18,932 Summerlink seasonal trips. Growth of :the service ,reflects ongoing marketing efforts coordinated among the Commission, Orange County Transit Authority. (OCTA) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Riverside Line 5,400 5,000 to 4,600 H 4,200 c 3,800 * 3,400 3,000 2,600 Agenda Item 7E Passenger Trips Riverside Line cS° dz. d) o`O do 0� 6 01 Month 28 Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside line #or the month of February averaged 4,826, an increase ' of 740, 18% more than the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase o 1,715 passenger trips, nearly 55% more than a year ago, February 2006. 100 m 95 es 90 85 a� 80 a 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goat) Riverside Line O`O Month February on -time performance averaged 88% inbound (-3% from January) and 80% outbound (-4% from January). There were 38 delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following areprimary causes: 1E0C- Line Signals/Track/MOw Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL 17 18 2 1 45% 47 % 5% 3% 5,000 4,800 t 4,600 a 4,400 c 4,200, , 4,000 3,800 3600 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange Com 0 o`O 4 0 Pao, 4 OG\. Month ` Agenda Item 7E 29 Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 1E0C line for the month of February ,averaged 4,707, an increase of six trips, no significant change fromthe month of January. The Fine has increased by 132 daily trips. or 3% .from a_ year ago February 2006. On Time Performance (95% Goal) inland Empire Orange County Line 100 95. m 90 85 6 80 n- 75 70 ,OcO Oco ,0 c �szo fat V'x a' O�O s) Oco Oc° p� O�O pcO \ Pao; 0C1 \-\°J p�C' �a� c�6() Month February on -time performance averaged 94% southbound (+4% from January) and 95 % northbound (no change from January). There :were: 26 delays greater than five minutes during the month of. February. The following are primary causes: 91 Line sue; Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 6 10 4 6 23 % 38 ° 16% 23% TOTAL 2,800. 2,600 2,400 H 2,200 0 2,000: 1,800 1,600 1,400 Passenger Trips 91 Line co co co co co co co Oa co Month Agenda Item 7E 30 Daily passenger trips on M:etrolink's 9=1 line for the month of February averaged 2,298, a decrease of 49 trips, 2% less than the month of January. The line has decreased by 185 daily trips or 7% from a year ago February 2006. 100 d 95 go 90 a� a) 85 L. 80 a 75.. 70 OO z ����� On Time Performance (95% Goal 91 Line ocp co Month O0 'O� C` `O February on -time performance averaged 94% inbound (-3% from January) and 100% outbound: (no change from January). There were five delays greater than five minutes.: during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations TOTAL, 4 0 Attachments: 1) : Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule. Adherence Summary — Weekday Service 0% 80 % 0% 20% Agenda Item 7E 31 owe. sun JA-Aonw Pus ensi. mem tiutd %g %L- %£` %E %99' o/09 -- _ %1r %9 . ' %6. 90 clad SA LO clad: %£ %Z- %0 %0 � %9 I. - % I. - %Z %£ %tr LO uer SA LO clad eBu 4J e" %E %6 %06- " %0 %Z % V %0 %tr %E %0: 90Yr17 960` cv Z1►9 Le 991. Z1► 0£9`Z'fr /SEIM? 06£ 1, 906` It 060 ZP tsct, 96.1. It: 9£6'6£ 99Z`0 96Z`Z L4£'Z E88' 6 MO Z 9trZ`Z 9Ltr'Z trZV'Z E817'Z Z9£`Z 9Ztr`Z 61Z`Z 6Ll.'Z £8tr'Z /On, L0L'b 70Z`tr 9Z/17 gen, 99947 9607 fi96'17 tr8E`tr LLtr'v . 96E`t7` tr8E' 9L9`.b L9t7`9 I.£tr`9 11.9`5 Z19`9 b99'9 8 6tr`9 96E`9 9/9`9 EE9'9 099'9 99E'9 96L19 89r9 9Z8`17 990`tr 09t17 OZO'9 09617 50L`tr 109`tr 9Ltr`tr 9Z9`b 89L't7 6L9`tr L89`£ L46'£` 9/9 689 9/g ltr9'; 011 Z99 ZZ9 /S9 999 . £S9 Ltr9 L99 Otr9 ZZVZ6 LE6` 6 4 9/6'0 6 4S0`Z t 66Z`Z 6 90Z`Z4 £99'6� .189' 41 996` I. I. 8ZE'Z 6 999` 1. I. 1tr6` 16 £69'Z I. 8L 1'1 096`9 tr89'9 Z46`L 19b'L . 86Z L 69r Z6Z`1 99Z'1 9170!L Z£8`9 961.9 9E 1.17 Z96`E ZZ9.`E 9£6`E OL0't Otr6'E 000'tr Z91.`b tLZ`tr 966`S 09/ £ LO ges L0 uer 90000 90A0N 90 PO 90 hf' 90 aQW 90 qed a3lsnrav AvanoH - MOCINIM H1NOIN N33.l211H1 SdIN1 ?130N3SSbrd AVCIN33M 39b213AV MN1"1021131N s �91. 11onein6leo etu!Puo etp ul papnloui lou we suleJl pelpiuUy �uoneuluual leluiod awn o aleiec4mil X 1O pweplsuoo,We suieq paleuitwei •sitelep algena*.1oj apew uaaq-eesy sivau�sn(pe ON a+ul1 palnpeu?$;o se num s u14;!M:61mnl y suleJl polaaa deed.. %96 %96 %96 %001 % %b6 , ' %96 - VoV6 _ _ 1%96. %96 %09 %99 %L6 %00I %96 %Le %56 _' _ %L6 ., . %16 %oL6 L0 4aA %96 %96 %96 •%b6 %001. %L6 %96 -%06 ' %L6 ` %Z6 %Mit % 1•6 %96 %96 :.:_ %L6 %L6-- • %£6 %96. %96 %66' LO Uer %96 %96 %96 %96 %St %96 %b6` %06 %06 %99 %a '"%S6 %96. %L6 ;. %.V6: %96 °A96 -%46 90Oed %1.6 %16 %06 %£6 %£6 %Le ` 4%96 %Z6 %69 %SS %1•6 %06 %96 %96.. %l6 %1.6 %Z6.` %16 %69 %99 ' 90 MN , %96 %96 %L6 %96 %b6 - ' %96 %96 %96 %66 '%96 %L6 %96 %OOl %b6 %96 %176 %96 %96 %001 90 PO %96 %b6 %96 %96 MEI %99 %99 %96 %Z6 %96 %Z6 %66 %V6 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 90 des CO %176 %96 %V6 %96 %Z6 %Z6 %Z6 %96 %16 %96 %96 %RI %°66 %96 .. VoV6 %£6, %£6 %96 %L6 90 V %96 F %Se %%96 %96 %b6 %Z6 %b6 %176 %06 �o %/6 %96 %96 %96 %b6 %o96 %tr6 %b6 %96 %96 _ 90ln V %£6 o 0 /o£6 /ob6 0 ALS 0 /o9S %L9 ° /ob9 o /069 u /01>6 /ob6 0 /096 %16 _o 96 %96 %96 o o /o96 /oL6 c Jo£6 - .. %96 90 Uri(' %96 %96 .' %96 %96 %£6 . %£6 %96 %oLe %be %I6 %b6 %96 %96 %b6 %96 %96 %L6 %96 %96 90 4411 %V6 %S6 %96 %69 %06. %99 %96 %V6 %06 %Z6 %96 %66 % 00l %96 %86 %16 %176 %96 7096 90 idb-. %£6 %£6 %£6 %Z6 %99 %/9 %99 %96 %L9 %ZL %99 %OOL %001 %96 %L6 %£6 %96 `YoL6 %£6 - 90 JeW .: %£.6 Von %96 %Z6 %b6 `%69 '/o06 %I6 1%96 %L9 %£9 %L6 %66 . %L6 %96 ' ` %£6 To96 %96 %66:' 90 gad :.. -.. ,. ac W.:'_...-..-, .. . !. ... •.,. _., r -.: .. . ...... '.. .. :' .t . ..... ► :..;�. { -.,,.-)s r.. .,..h -. .... r.... J.Y %`.... C ;krjJ /rf• r�`t-�., : +C\ t ` +�k. � i. .l. . ��. � i 4 .. °,71..v' ..,•.:j.: ..f Y. ��,L ..5. s:.tcr^ -.✓ - '. ,J »...--. � 1 , �` '_5...�t-;•.k c.. ,`7x'. —., r .,.t , .3 N ,:. p. _: .� �-�.r- .. .. �%,. S'a ,b.f .. u.f -,,. ;.� ," .; .'�. ,,. i .� v.. r. ,. :.::: P'�z- 71r5L'�.dit5a:.rx1 t .i . S t. ,.-S.. f .r..� ,� .-.... .. .- : ['c��r ... .s is -.A>i S r .. - v..ii f 2 'a� .1',rS; X " Pam"` r/..%1.•�, L'8 'i,'w:• • '➢F)'. . •�":OM Y. � �� ( FH. ..[ w � }x)':� .� fK . .,f s . , r °! v I.e h. t�F.i Sr ai'7 • S ''.rL: • '(� . X`. � �i'"� �1 - .�'' •iu_' 7•^.• .Y yµ .i .r ..L. � 7.. .fciP , 1 is � .A '�tA. Q.. -i`i;� !- �f .. � • � r" 'F. �� Y . .,. aL• �:. r .an'I•� .. :i .. .. . ..r, �= -� '..Y.:; fi ` ( 5''',,... 't� SHINOW 1S31V1 atuu peinpayag }o semum S my lM-Fuininv suleal o efique*Jed 331A113S AVON33M - Jl21dWWi1S 33N32#3HCIV ainaaHos NNI102:1131A1 • AGENDA ITEM 7F • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment: Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds to the City of Riverside's Special Services PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $90,102 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to the city of Riverside's Special Services (RSS) program; and 2) Amend the FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On an annual basis, as part of its oversight responsibilities, the Commission ensures that a financial audit is conducted on public transit agencies and municipalities receiving TDA funding - transit's major source of operating and capital revenue. Through the financial audit process, it was determined that RSS had incurred excess operating expenses during FY 2004/05 in the amount of $90,102 due to vehicle repairs and increased fuel costs. As a result of the FY 2005/06 financial audit process, it was determined that RSS had deferred operating revenue of $103,928. To cover the operating shortfall identified in FY 2004/05, RSS is requesting a SRTP amendment to allocate $90,102 of the $103,928 deferred operating revenue. If approved, keeping in line with the Commission's policy on administering TDA funds, RSS will amend its FY 2006/07 TDA operating subsidy by $13,826 ($103,928 - $90,102). Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $90,102 Source of Funds: TDA-Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: q �•su'�uv ion Dater 3/12/07 Agenda Item 7F 34 AGENDA ITEM 7G RIVERSIDE . COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE:, April 11, 2007.. TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Prograrns Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager Fina Clemente, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request from Peppermint Ridge for Measure A Specialized Transit Funds as Local Match for the Section 53.10 .Capital Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1 i Allocate $26,100 to Peppermint Ridge to provide the required local match for the Section 5310, capital program; and 2) Approve Agreement No...07-26-114-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $26,100 in Measure A Specialized Transit ,funds available in Western County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Peppermint Ridge, located in Corona,. California was recently notified by Caltrans that it was approved to receive funding -under the Federal Transit. Administration's Section '5310 grant program for FY .2006/07. The award amount is, for a total of $130,502 for the procurement of the following capital equipment: Two modified vans $100,000 Two base stations, 13 radios, computer equipment and software $ ` 30,502 Pending approval of the federal budget, Ca'trans has given Peppermint Ridge the option of obtaining the vans and equipment by using some "leftover" state monies from previous grant years. This option, however, will .require the .agency to provide a 20% match, which was the match .percentage in effect when those funds were originally allocated, instead of. the 11.47% match requirement that is currently used. The differential amount of match funds between the 20% and 11.47% match requirements is $11,131. The agency has expressed a desire not to wait for the federal budget approval so that it can obtain the vehicles and equipment more quickly. Agenda Item 7G 35 Peppermint Ridge is requesting that the required 20% ($26,100) be funded from the Measure A " Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County. These funds are . specifically set aside, on an annual basis; to provide thelocal capital match to operators located in Western Riverside County participating in the Section 5310 program. Peppermint Ridge, a non-profit organization founded in 1959, provides a_ range of:: programs and services aimed to support individuals with developmental disabilities. It provides specialized transportation for participants in its programwho do ` not have the required mental capacity to navigate public transit on their own. The agency also offers training and guidance on essential living skills including using public transit to help participants obtain greatest ossible"de ree of independence. P, PP P g P ,., g p The required ` . operating and maintenance funding necessary to operate its ' transportation service is provided by the agency through its general fund budget. If the request for Measure A funding is approved, the local match ,will be placed on deposit directly with Caltrans. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $26,100 Source of Funds: Measure A Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Adjustment: No G'LA No.: 225-26-86103 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 3/16/07 Agenda Item 7G 36 • AGENDA ITEM 7H • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Regional Programs Spotlight: Commuter Assistance Update Program PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Commuter Assistance Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This presentation represents the first in a series of regular updates on Regional Programs that will be presented to the Plans and Programs Committee. Regional Programs include Commuter Assistance, Commuter Rail, Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), Goods Movement, Specialized Transit, and Transit. All of the Regional Programs are funded in part by Measure A, with the exception of the FSP Program. Since FY 1991 /92, the Commission has operated a Commuter Assistance Program as part of its Measure A suite of projects, as approved by the voters. During the past 16 years, the program has undergone many different stylistic changes and viewpoints. This past year has been no exception. With the department changes of January 2006, it is important to review the new elements of the program along with a status report on the program's mid -year performance. Robert Yates, Program Manager, presented an overview of the Commuter Assistance Program and its performance to the Plans and Programs Committee on March 26'. Attachment: Commuter Assistance Program Presentation Agenda Item 7H 37 146!nods stuewthoid euo 6aN loam 00IAJOS ABMOOJJ nea Joinwwos 111161110 pozpiao missy Joinwwo3 S sweAcud 11SUBJI euo!6aa oV LOOZ uDaeW a4epdn wea6oad aeaApiw LOOZ/900Z tue.160.1d apueispsy Ja:Inuatico iij HUMS SUIDJOIkld 10110 nom aoinegaq ovit.0 aoa annewalle a4ouuaad aM legfit anipadsaad ppoua-141n1A1 nneN 900Z Lienuer 6.10-9.1 iewatuvedea • Alingow anoadwi o} sauei „podaeD„ aziwixew dlaH — uonsa6uoD anoaduai — sapia aaeys o4 saa4nwwoD a6eanoDu3 — wai.sAs Aenny6iH uo saainwwoD jo pedwi — asivaoad aaIon :apueuipap V aanseaw 686T puncu ;np tue.456.14 ep 0 a'17 �! pue *Jed %81, sdRisaeuped JeAoldua ztb 3i7Z emu grim clio 147 anRua.oul liea/Z$ %£ G loodsns /looduen swea6oad apueisssdaalnuauaoD LOOZ/900Z Ad vom smiloa xei y amseaw • sJauved as et7 s.leAounoo apisaaniBuiladioilied sqor 000'9'17 61,11maS o tu Alunco apis.ienim 9LE tt7 swanmsuo3 Awno3 apis anw pames peam swaminsuoD 00019S ijon-so61163 poprtoONN 46.nmitu messwornasupD 11V•su:epti dd� «71)lligoua anoaa►uij o� aapao sdmsaauped Aijunallijoo pug `uopeonpa `uopenouulleop6oloutpaj `Aaanllap uollecuaogij q5nam_ saainuauaoo aoi sanneuaalle uollepodsuaaq alouaoad pub a5eanopua ol„ • uauaalels uopsi w a • JO� ISMS . Jel. • pewselnwwoo 4e6pne le401 Jo %LI, wathcud sejaiado uo!ss!wwoo ONIHOIVIAlaCIIH 1VN010-3221 171: fit VI- uoReonp3 r•• uoReuLuolui • 0 law „„ awoH ep! peeluenno laBpng le401 40 °AM waiboid seleuedo uo!sspwoo gauped = JoAoldw3 Lpeaijno iainwwoo • eSt.ietiox3 Jelnuiwoo 0011eppAV UORSO6U00 A1171901111 s a3A0ild1/111 d swea6oad He Jo uon.eniena lenuaitioD awi4 nano o: mep Nen Ameansgeis = eqep jo uon.DaHoD pazHetwoN pa)pa.q. aDueuaaopad jo sI.uawala IIV 900Z loot 6upipesil weathoad padoleAaa aad 11A0F1 05 paonpaN suoissiuu3 suol o;8a= aouewmpad Jea), leosiA snoinaid 181. Z917`Z9£ 9ZZ`914 61. £06`851 Lb I- 1-66`86Z 061 `898`9 t Z I-Z`999 em (pm 91, 1.09`ZE 58Z`L98:` I, Z6t»08 loodsn8. 8 Z8 1, 9 1, OZO`LZ6 080`9 jooduen 01. 889`6 1- 1•EL`C90` 1, 61.1 `817 aaeuserow eBeimenpv paonpeN suoi suoissiva3 waieninb3o spunod panes sa�iw; paonpeN sdpi a10149n ,Kenn-aup - uaea Road s4uapisaj Aluno3 apisaanqi 3 JO a • 15 sath] ssa.adx3 aanuuuaoo; sapaS :00L ani .1 sa ea ad -- ,� : O `d100 TZ 01-9`Z 1.09`t eBeaaneueul aauS!W iyon elm enuenam Jed sBuipa:eos eBeaane usy; JetiBiu %8Z anoH enueneN Jed sfuipaeog eBeaane ueto aaLIBiy %o02. .aan0 sf umueos ,6aBaaany ainoN sepeS (AL ti6L alnou 4S32!'ddW03 SIHl MOH '900Z JagweOes ui yqune! aauis sBuipsiaoq wepisaa .Awnoo amsaan!N 000`6Z aanp Awnoo a6umo aplsaanftj woai. sn8 ssaadx3 aal.nwumo Me a3epdfl 176 L 031101:1 quapisali uno3 apisaani ns eaueturiolvied r sAep amp aol AemaaJA T 6 Air ud ol ivaleninba si sdia4 £0618SL :pampa's sdal Aem-auo �. a _.. • 1 p • jo Ainenb panoJdui • dVD • sawn sgst veq pue 3 31a0A maN 6u!A!Ja off. ua�eninba si sdP4 9ZZ'9IL`EIT panes sa n W L� sa �5 Reivi46114 ay; }}o 31.1149n Spei, 6upealD o� 4uaieninba si sql Z9t`Z9£ ;papnpab suopsuu3 sql al JO na pent:Lida! • dVD • OuippplA aanseaW 6ZOZ-600Z1444qnS uoissiwwoD o� iuea9 ein sapinpam uo ojui jo uonpa6aluI uoissiwwoD 04 luea9 ein 0a4aW av9 jo uopea6aluI aaeysapialeuoi6aa aoj liewgalnwwoD jo aonea6a4uI rts jo uogewauaaidwI 96eueW. saavnumioD 04 AnDago a4e3iununuoD pue wea6oad ai.eword ouI dol9A90 wea6oad nnoa6 04 saaAoldwa news upeaaqno anunuoj peoadde lepow-pinw pue aDuepione uoilsa6uoD ssans lepaltew 6upavew suopyw auituns pue jy/D 1414nn diysaaui-led anivuaoui Aeop/z$aoi pm,.19 enapeoo jijo-ADI; uopeaado wea6oad o4 uoPppe ui AMMO Li! sdals �xa AGENDA ITEM 71 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11., 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission <, FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Dire'ctor THROUGH: =_ Eric Haley; Executive Director SUBJECT: Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation Program Management: Fiscal Year 2006/07. Agreement Augmentation and Fiscal ;Year 2007/08 Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the proposed Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation (Bechtel)" staffing plan for program management support : of the Commission's` Measure A Capital Delivery Program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-31-075-01 for a $273,535 augmentation to the FY 2006/07 contract with Bechtel to provide program 'management support to the Comrission's Capital Delivery Program and the associated budget amendment. This brings the total not .to exceed amount of the contract to $2,862,408; 3) Approve Agreernent No: 07-31-120-00, FY 2007/08 ` contract with Bechtel, to provide program management support to the Commission's Capital Delivery Program for a not to exceed amount of $4,259,796. and inclusion in the FY 2007/08 Commission. Budget; 4) Authorize. .the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate` contract clauses associated with the establishment of a project office; and 5) Authorize the 'Chair, pursuant to legal" counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bechtel has provided Measure A program management supportto the Commission since 1989. The range of services has included project managementsupport for project development project study reports; project report and environmental documents; construction management; project controls; document management support for a wide range of 'highway; commuter : rail, and special projects. The Commission's contract with Bechtel can provide a very broad `range of support due to Bechtel having recognized experts in. `very specialized support due to its Agenda Item 71 56 specialized engineering subjects as was applied in the recent evaluation of geotechnical proposals for the MIS Corridor B assessment work and the subject, of ` tunneling: This contractual 'relationship has been a series of one-year contracts to provide support to the Commission's Capital Projects Development and Delivery Program and; has the capability of expanding or contracting in order to be tailored to fit. With the Commission's adoption of a 10-Year Delivery Plan for the Western County portion of the 2009 Measure A 'Program, the 'Commission and Bechtel staffs are expandingin order to meet the .anticipated needs of delivering amulti-billion dollar highway and commuter rail capital' program. Given the limitations of its. current space, staff is ' requesting Bechtel move out of the Commission. ; offices and establish a project office in the Riverside downtown area. _ For the past six years, the Bechtel contract with the Commission .has had Bechtel provide approximately 10 full time staff dedicated to the Commission's project development and delivery efforts. Additionally, for the past two years, Bechtel has provided support to the Commission's Property Administrator to coordinate maintenance improvements to the Commission's aging commuter rail stations. Staff is currently working with Bechtel to identify the number and 'type ;of project management support specialists that will be needed to support the Commission's project delivery efforts. With Bechtel establishing a project office, staff has requested. Bechtel identify several conference rooms where project development meetings can be hosted.. This office will be for the :exclusive: purpose of supporting the Commission's capital project development and delivery efforts. With the Commission taking .on the development of the environmental documents for the segments of the 1-215 and the SR-71 /91 Interchange improvement projects,: beginning to enter .preliminary engineering under the auspices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the delivery of the 'Perris Valley Line (PVL) Metrolink extension project, as well as supporting a few near term construction projects. (North Main Corona parking structure, final design and construction of the Phase I, Perris Multi -Modal Transit Center), the Commission is embarking on the most robust capital delivery y program in its history. Subsequent to the Commission's approval of the. 10-Year Delivery Plan in December 2006,,staff ;has been working with Bechtel and has identified an, ;.. additional 6.3 positions that are necessary to support delivery of the 'Commission's capital program. Agenda Item 71 57 • • • At this time, Bechtel, has secured the services of an experienced rail design manager with a design -build- background to assist us in supporting the delivery of the PVL Metroiink . extension project. In recent discussions with the FTA, it has - strongly urged the Commission to consider "alternative delivery methods" such as design -build for the delivery of this project. The benefit of this approach is that there can be savings in both schedule and cost. In Agenda Item 7N of this agenda, the legislative report identifies AB 1240 (Benoit), which is the bill that is intended to provide the authority for the Commission to apply design -build. for delivery of commuter rail projects: Another position staff has identified 'as key is an environmental manager position. The Commission, ;given the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval of Corridor .Mobility Improvement .Account (CMIA) funds, now has delivery timelines to meet in order to maintain eligibility for the discretionary funds. Bechtelhas recently p p identified an experienced environmental specialist that will assist the Commission in launching delivery of environmental documents for the I-2.15 project., Nuevo .Road to the 1-15/215 split, the SR-91 /71 Interchange improvement and will be key in supporting other Commission priorities such as the 1-10 truck climbing lane and the high occupancy toll (HOT) lane proposals. Due to the ramp up of project delivery activities as well as the "wrap up" of delivery . of the ' 1989" Measure A Program additional support is needed. For the FY 2007/08 period, staffis recommending expanding the Bechtel staffing plan to include an additional project coordinator, a project controls/scheduling position, a contract administrator, and an administrative manager position to support the Commission's delivery plan efforts, in addition to the two ...positions described above. Lastly, there is a IA time person with extensive heavy rail experience that has been supporting the development of a project management plan (PMPY for the PVL project. At this time, the additional °project coordinator position is assumed to be hired in mid 2007/08 so only six months of that position : is. proposed in the proposed FY 2007/08 contract. The proposed FY- 2007/08 contract is for a not to exceed amount of $4,259,796. It is estimated that the impact of the Bechtelstaffing expansion to the FY 2006/07 contract is approximately $273,535. This includes several months of time for the raildesign manager, the environmental manager and contracts administrator. The original FY 2006/07 contract was $2,588,873. The contract expenditures as of February 28, 2007 :are $1,612,427, leaving a remaining balance of $976,446. In estimating the cost of the new Bechtel staff on top of the current staffing plan, the cost to finish the FY 2006/07 contract period is estimated to be $1,249,981. This results in a difference of $273,535 over the original_ contract. Agenda Item 71 58 Staff recommends amending the FY 2006/07 contract to include an additional` . -$273,535 to: support the revised staffing plan. This brings the not to exceed: amount of the, contract to $2,862,408. In establishing a project office outside of the Commission's office, there are several, key. considerations. Proximity is important and the ability to host project development meetings. Having space to support the Bechtel .staff, as. well :as, a: few part time offices to support Commission staff and 'perhaps Metrolink, Ca!trans and consultant staff for efficiency sake, is envisioned. There may be, depending on location, a few extra workstations to support unanticipated needs. The costs associated with establishing this office will likely include 'participation in tenant improvements, :equipment, furnishings, and a lease. While Bechtel ,has been under contract with the' Commission for 19 years, the contract has a` one -.year term and includes a provision whereby the Commission can terminate` the contract for convenience within 30 days. Building lease agreements are ' generally for, ` a multi -year period (three to, five years), which conflicts with the term of -the annual: (one year) Bechtel contract. Staff recommends the Executive Director;: pursuant to` legal 'counsel review, be authorized to negotiate this issue with Bechtel`. Additionally, the FY 2007/08 proposed contract includes $350,000 to support the establishment of the project office plus $100,000 as a contingency. These :are one time costs .and staff, in negotiating with Bechtel, has sought the lowest cost alternative for establishing the office. The lowest cost alternative for establishing' this office is to have it created on a direct reimbursement of cost basis ,rather than have it factored into the Bechtel billing rate. An increased billing rate would take; into account the :capital cost of establishing the office . and would result in: an'' on -going billing rate that would be applied to the Bechtel staffing level supporting,:`` the Commission's work. Given the manner in which billing rates are applied and given that the Commission has launched a major capital delivery program,:including an expansion of Bechtel staff support, altering the Bechtel billing rate at this time is unadvisable. The only other contract change that is being pursued with Bechtel relates` to Bechtel's rights to terrninate the ,annual contract. The intent is shouldBechtel terminate the annual agreement, Bechtel would be restricted from competing for work with the Commission for a one-year period. This is envisioned to be rnuch like the contract restriction placed upon executive staff when it Leaves employment with the Commission. Agenda Item 71 59 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NO Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $ 273,535 Y Yes FY 2007/08 $4,259,796 Source of Funds: Measure A, TUMF. and LTF Budget Ad ustment: Yes No 222 31 81001 P3999 $ 96,000 Measure A Western County Highway GLA No.: 253 31 81001 P3999 $ 8,000 Measure A Coachella Valley Highway 210 72 81101 P2302 $ 35,000 Measure A TUMF 221 33 81101 P4199 $134,535 Measure A Rail and LTF Fiscal Procedures Approved: vAtt4i 14 L Date: 04/04/07 Attachments: 1) FY 2006/07 Proposed Program Management Support 2) FY 2007/08 Proposed Program Management Support Agenda Item 71 60 • Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation. Proposed Program Management Support July 2006 thru June 2007 4 Apr.07 Personnel Original contract Budget Billed to date ° thru 2/28J07 Balance remaining ( 3l1/07 6/30107) Project Management Project Manager Project Controls Manager Project Scheduler New Environmental Manager New Contracts Administrator- New Administration Manager - New Project Adminstrator DocumentControl Technician Project Coordinators Project Coordinator - New Subtotal PM Rail` Management Design Manager - New Project Coordinators Civil Field Inspector -Replacement Rail Engineer Subtotal Rail Mgmt Design Sequencing 1-215 Home Office & Other Professional Support Services " Total Labor Direct expenses (March - June ) Total Labor + Direct expenses Total amount required to complete Fiscal Y Remaining balance as of February 2007 Amount over/under # of Staff $2,588,873.00 $1,612,426.65 ($976,446.35) 1 1 3.50' Budget Hours 732 732. 0 442 442 0 732 732 2562 0 61 9.50 1 1.37 1 0.25 3.62 0.25 0.50 13.9 6374 732 1098 295 183 2308 . 183 366 9231 Project Office Cst Home Office Cst Base on Base on 2.44 2.59 . $171,749 $95,019 $0 $70,101 $57,159 $0 $50,475 $42,616 $345,383 $0 $832,503 $133,956 $132,081 $32,391 $28,863 $327,291 $23,290 $832,503 $327,291 $23,290 $47,397 $47,397 $1,230,481 $19,500 $1,249,981 $1,249,981 $976,446 $273,535 Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation Proposed Program Management Support July 07 thru,June 2008 4 Apr.07 Total Project Off. Total Home Off. Budget Cost Base on Cost Base -on Personnel # of Staff Hours 2.44 2,59 Project;Manaoement Project Manager 1 1848 $433,597 Project Controls Manager 1 1848 $239,840 Project Scheduler - New 1,_ 1848 $178,336 Environmental Manager -'New 1 1848 $293,093 Contracts Administrator - New 1 1848 $238,983 Administration .Manager - New 1 1848 $143,165 Project Adminstrator 1 1848 $127,428 Document Control Technician 1 1848 $107,588 Project Coordinators 3.50 4620 $623,949 Project Coordinator - New 0.50 924 $126,255 Subtotal PM 12.00 20328 $2,512,234 $2,512,234 Rail Management Design Manager Project Coordinators Civil Field Inspector Rail Engineer Subtotal Rail Mgmt Design Sequencing 1-215 1 1848 $338,184 1.25 2310 $277,875 1 1848 $205,390 0.25 462 $72,867 3.50 6468 0.25 400 Home Off.& Other Professional Support Services ' 0.50 924 Total Labor Direct Expenses for.project and Home office support (Temp. Assignment, Travel, Vehicles, lease; services and other direct costs) v $225,500 Office Building Expense (One time Set-up) $350,000 $894,316 $50,908 $894,316 $50,908 $126,837 ' $126,837 $3,584,296 Contingency Total Other Direct Costs Total Contract Not to Exceed • $100,000 AGENDA ITEM 7J • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH:. Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Replacement of Los Alamos Bridge at Interstate 15 in City of Mur.rieta the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve 2009 Measure A/Commercial Paper funding .participation in !the replacement of the Los Alamos .Bridge over 1-15 in the amount of $2.918 million; 2) Approve a proportional funding arrangement of 56.5% city of Murrieta (City) and 43.5`% Commission on future costs (higher or lower) of the Los Alamos Bridge replacement project bused on the attached project estimate; and 3) Direct staff to develop an agreement with the city of 'Murrieta, which will be brought back for final action, pursuant to legal counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission adopted a 10-Year Delivery Plan for the Western.. County 2009 Measure A- Highway Program. The program includes improvements to SR-91 (Pierce Street to the Orange County line) 1-215 (Box Springs Road to the 1-15/215 split) and I-1.5 (San Bernardino County line to the 1-15/215 split). Currently the City is working on developing a project report and environmental document to deliver .a focally funded widening of the Los Alamos bridge over 1-15. The City has been coordinating this effort with Caltrans District 8 and it has been determined that if the Los Alamos Bridge widening project is implemented (widen the bridge from 2 to 4 lanes) an under clearance issue would be created for the Measure A funded future widening of 1-15. if the Los Alamos Bridge .is widened, as currently proposed, when the- Commission constructs the Measure A project on -15 the Los Alamos Bridge would have to be replaced. Rather than having the bridge widening .move forward, the . City has requested the. Commission consider Agenda Item 7J 63 providing the additional funds necessary to replace the bridge rather than the City; moving forward with what will become a throwaway project.' Staff concurs with the City's request and recommends the . Commission put a funding agreement in plane with the City that assures Commission .participation in the replacement of the Los Alamos Bridge over I-15. Attached are the preliminary estimates for widening the bridge versus replacing the. bridge.. The cost estimate from the project study report (PSR) for a bridge widening is $3.787 million and the bridge replacement estimate is ` $6.705 million. Staff recommends that the Commission approve $ 2.918 .million' of 2009` Measure A Western County Highway/Commercial Paper funds for the Los Alamos Bridge <replacement project over 1-15. Additionally, staff recommends that should the actual cost of ' the replacement bridge be higher or lower, that the Measure A funds be either ;reduced or increased based on the percentage difference between the preliminary cost of widening the bridge versus; replacing the bridge. Based on the attached cost estimate this means: City of Murrieta share = $3.787 million/$6.705 million = 56.5% Commission share = $2.918 million/$6.705 million = 43.5% Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2007/08 Amount.' : $2,918,000 Source of Funds: Commercial Paper Budget Adjustment: - N GLA No.: 303 31 81301 P8200 83 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 04/02/07.: Attachment: Preliminary Estimates — Los Alamos Bridge Agenda Item 7J . 64 i PROJECT STUDY REPORT/PROJECT REPORT Project Description; 08-RIV-15-10 EA 08-0H380K Limits In Riverside County in the City of Murrieta_ EA/Program at the Los Alamos Road .Overcrossing Proposed widen bridge to accommodate 4 lanes Improvement (Scope). Alternative widen bridge to accommodate .4 lanes SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $785,000 $3,002,000 $3,787,000 $0 TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $3,787,000 Reviewed by District Program Manager Date (Signature) Approved by Project Manager Date (Signature) Phone No. Sheet '1 of 5 65 i PROJECT STUDY REPORT/PROJECT REPORT 08-RIV-15-10 EA 08-011380K Project Description: Limits In Riverside County in the City of Murrieta ' at the Los Alamos Road Overcrossing EA/Program Proposed Replace existing 21ane bridge with a 41ane bridge; Improvement (Scope) Los Alamos road open during construction Alternative Replace existing 2 lane bridge with a 4lane bridge SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS TOTAL STRUCTURE ITEMS SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION.COSTS '$6,705,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS TOTAL ,PROJECT CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS$6 105,000: $1,352,000 : $5353,00,0 Reviewed by District Program Manager Approved by Project Manager Phone No. 66 (Signature) (Signature)' • AGENDA ITEM 7K • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment: to Agreement with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Right -of -Way Services Related to the Perris Valley Line Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This .item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-33-0.09-03, Amendment No. 3, to Agreement No. 04-33-009,. with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for a not to . exceed amount of $1,063,236 with an extension of the agreement through December 31, 2008 for right-of-way services related to the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission and 3) Allocate $1,063,236- in Measure A Rail Capital funds to fund these services. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its October 8, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement. No. 04-33-009 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. for Phase 1 right-of-way services for the PVL project for a term of three years frorn November.4, 2003, in the amount of $312,774. ` Phase 1 activities focused onthe acquisition of the Union Pacific (UP) Riverside Industrial Lead, community/public outreach, preliminary right-of-way studies, and project management. Upon approval of Agreement No. 04-33-009 by the Commission,it was the intent to secure the services of Epic Land Solutions,. Inc. through the completion of right-of-way acquisition and related 'tasks for the PVL project. Given the complexity of the right-of-way issues for this project, it was planned to execute amendments to the original contract once the scope was more clearly defined. At its December 8, 2004 meeting, the Commission . approved Agreement No. 05-33-526`, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-33-009 in the amount of $30,175. Services under Amendment No. 1 included resolution of title issues, a Agenda Item 7K 67 license and easement review, and resolution of easements for adjacent businesses along "D" Street in Perris. At its May 11, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved ;Agreement No.05-33-546, Amendment No. 2 (also known as, Phase 2A activities) to. Agreement No. 04-33-009 in the amount of $ 155,300. Amendrnent No. 2. covered services to commence the March JPA/1-215 transfer, appraisal of the UP Riverside Industrial Lead and community outreach. Amendment. No... 2 also included .' the development of the GI.S and Global Application Database, review of _acquisition documents, resolving 'encroachment issues related to the, BNSF railroad right -of way, and the Caltrans right-of-way swap. Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 04-33-009 (Agreement No..0.4=33-009-03) proposes to complete property and tenant review resolution,. conversion of easement to fee ownership of the BNSF right -of -way --within the PVL project alignment, the March JPA property transfer, and commencement of right -of --way. acquisition for the PVL project. Approval of this amendment for $1,063,236 will increase the total contract value, to $1,561,485. A budget amendment for FY 2006/07 in the amount of $180,56.9. is recommended. The balance of $882,667 will be proposed in next fiscal years': budgets. The proposed funding source is Measure A funds. Additionally, staff recommends approval of an extension of Agreement No. 04-33-009 with Epic Land Solutions ending on December 31, 2008. n Fiscal Year Budget: No Financial Information Year:. FY 2006/07 Amount:: $180,569 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 221 33 65.520 P3800 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Attachment: Epic Land Solutions Scope of Work Agenda Item 7K 68 Date: 3/19/07 PERRIS VALLEY LINE SERVICES FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Epic Land. Solutions, Inca has been providing. right of way services on the Perris Valley Line (PVL) for Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) from January 2004 through current. It has been segmented into Phases with Phase 1. covering January 2004 - April 2005 and Phase 2A covering May 2005 - current. The scope of work outlined below is for • . Phase 2B from current to June 2007 • Phase 3A from July 2007 — December 2007 • Phase 3 B from January 2008 — June 2008 It is, assumed that by June 2007, the Environmental Assessment will be completed, FTA approval .to begin Preliminary Engineering will be obtained, and RCTC will have made a final decision on ,the PVL Locally Preferred Alternative.. Depending on the outcome of those decisions, the scope; and fees may vary from the budget. Budgeted hours and fees are attached.. . • (February D Assum i tionsl , sks _ Io December Assum . tions/Tasks Phase 5E3 (�1.ro Ar#20 20 08) _ zamazihi AI. PROJECT. PLANNING : Tasks: ' 1. Kick-off meetings (RCTC, Epic internal and site visit) B1. GLOBAL APP. DATABASE - PVL Assumptions: • The development of the Global Application will be performed under the Property Management contract. Only areas that are specific to PVL will be included under this scope of work. WRCOG will plot all tenant contracts and provide GIS maps, • Fees related to inputting property and tenant contract information are included: under the estimate for Property and Tenant Review and Resolution. • Accurate and current milepost data is available from BNSF and can be assimilated into both GIS and the Global Application. Tasks, 1. Functionality for additional PVL maps and reports • Epic Land Solutions, Inc: l Page 1;of 10 69 OI:o a ud •oul `suopnios pow.' oida 'gun AQUA suxad xoj, sdeuzp mpums 8uiow .tasn aun.uxasap pue sdt,tu sio �aafotd tuorno Joj spaau azA eue pug udtsaQ 'c ` • zumoid loruuoo utajuoo put htatnaa . • pa fold aut7 iiaiisA sutod as of °moods suodas &Nana( •i : Rsn,Z ; sistslisuoi} , usns sxsniesaogdmnssy - agnsglaquaana-( Ms arrE rsisgifsuoirduulnsty i et s-Suanxgadri) MEZEUE Nr-ig: (800Z a 's —0.walla clig asngd • tbtu_ 82. PROJECT DATABASE (EPIC . PROJECT MANAGER) Phase 233 +FebruarysaiiimlalEe- ---- Assum . tioq /Tasks_ rstE.EGNa. St —December MN) -Assampt_ ons/,�Ta_.k_ Phasef ,; W Qa.D2i i Assumptions asks � - - Assumptions: • The global application database is a property . management -tool and therefore incorporates information only after a property has been acquired via the import function. This scope of work is for implementation of a project specific database (Epic Project Manager or EPM) to handle PVL acquisition and relocation information which can be imported into the Global Database Application upon possession of property. • EPM itself will not be a deliverable, but used only as . a tool for this project. It can be adapted to be a tool for all RCTC projects and Epic can provide a separate scope/budget for that. • EPM will manage information, resources, and schedule for PVL. Agents will update it on a daily basis and utilize the parcel diary function as their exclusive file diary. Project Managers will utilize EPM to see both aggregate data as well as detailed information to proactively manage difficult cases or potential problems. Tasks: I. Develop and implement EPM for PVL Assumptions: - • See assumptions under 313 Tasks: . • Report modifications for EPM, as -needed .. . - C2. PROPERTY AND TENANT REVIEW AND RESOLUTION Assumptions: • Geographical scope is the San Jac Line from Highgrove to Perris Station (Perris ,Valley Line) • Approximately 70 parcels, 700 tenant contracts, and an estimated 50 easements relate to the PVL • The San Jac Line from Perris Station to San Jacinto, the San Bernardino Line, and San Jac "additional Assumptions: • See Phase 28.assumptions • It is anticipated that a comprehensive review will require 12 months. The scope of work included in Phase 3A anticipates completing the first half of the tenant contract review; • The scope of work is based on the assumption that Assumptions: • See Phase 2B and 3A assumptions. • Surveys for areas where. there may be . encroachments, but which cannot be verified visually, will be performed in Phase 4, • Opportunities for revenue maximization and to update contracts will be identified in Phase 3A and Epic. Land: Solutions, Inc. Page 71f 10 Et.:03 Phase 1► .3 (February —anoegin Ph (%" December t Assumptiansaasks —RELEG 200$) Assam . tions/Tas . s Assum nous/Tasks -parcels" and spur tracks will be reviewed under the the most critical need for. Phase 3A is to identify 3B, but not performed until Phase 4 Property Management contract (approximately 300 encroachments on the PVL. The following areas • UPRIL property and tenants will be included in _ contracts and 250 °easements) _ • The scope of work. included in Phase 2B anticipates will not be reviewed in this phase, but in. future phases or separate contracts/work orders: Phase 4 scope if that alternative is selected only segregating the contracts related to the PVL • RCTC staff will perform the following functions: Tasks: and not analysis of the contract information (to be o Scan, name and categorize all source Licenses performed in 3Aand 3B) documents 1. Perform site visit and take pictures • The pre-1993 contract spreadsheet will be utilized to o Download; name and categorize all pictures 2. Terminate/archive inactive licenses provide contract numbers for pre-1993 contracts and o Input base level data 3. Provide GIS with sketch of license c-ari be updated and uploaded to the database for o Attach scanned documents and pictures to 4. Perform detailed review of license information and post=1993 contracts and locations for all: database records input into database • Assumes 15 minutes per contract to determine • On -site verification and pictures will be performed 5. Identify encroachments and other areas for location for tenants, but not properties resolution • "_Fee assumptions Tasks: o 0.5 Manager hour,1.5 Senior Agent hours Easements 1. Determine location of licenses and leases and 2 Agent hours for 350 licenses 1. Perform site visits and take pictures a. Check licenses and leases for Exhibit A maps o 1 Mgr. hour, 3 Senior Agent hours and 2 2. Provide GIS with sketch of easement b. Determine milepost and TB page/grid Agent hours for 50 easements 3. Perform detailed review of easement_ information 2. Determine location of easements o 1 Agent hour for 10 ROE's and input into database a:: Obtain and review.title reports to determine - 4. Identify encroachments and other areas for easements impacting the PVL b. Determine milepost and T13 page/grid for all contracts on PVL . Tasks: Licenses resolution 1, Perform site visit and. take pictures ' 3. ` Update property inventory database a a.. Update tenant spreadsheet to incorporate locations and post-1993 contracts- - b. Upload excel spreadsheet to RCTC property •. inventory database :: - 2, Terminate/archive inactive licenses • 3; Provide GIS with sketch of license _. 4. "Perform detailed review of license information and input into database S:. .Identify encroachments and other areas; for resolution _ Easements = 1. Perform site visits and take pictures Epic Land Solutions; In Page..4 of 10 72 Tasks . Phase All (Febru : ry o&COi Ass matt° i s/jEasks P ase g), O.= December Sit _ _Assumations/Tasks 2. Provide GIS with sketch of easement 3. Perform detailed review of easement infonnation and input into database 4. Identify encroachments and other areas for resolution Right of Entry ,. - Phase (Jan ary ,ThoGi 2008) - sum ptionsirasks /` -- _ , ` . 1. Identify PVL ROE's 2: Provide GIS with sketch of ROE area 3. Attach source documents to database record C3. PVL EASEMENT TO FEE - CONVERSION Assumptions: • Only properties impacted by PVL will be included in this scope. The remainder of the Sanjacinto Line , .will be addressed under the Property Management contract. Tasks: . 1.. Identify. all properties: currently held in easement with an option to convert to fee 2, . Draft scope of work and map for Phase 1's (Phase l's will be performed by RCTC's environmental consultant) . 3. Liaise with BNSF to convert easement to fee 4. Work with title company to obtain insurance for fee Tasks, 1. Liaise with BNSF to convert easement to fee 2. Work with title company to obtain insurance for fee ownership on full line . _ - D 1. MARCH JPA Tasks: 1, Oversee 'and prepare documentation for Caltrans escrow and resolve any outstanding issues 2. _ Oversee March JPA escrow and resolve outstanding issues,, including EMWD pipeline and LNR access ` Tasks: 1. 'Review 20' strip encroachment and work with Caltrans to resolve 2. Other on -call title resolution issues as required Tasks: - 1. Other on -call title resolution issues as required ' Epic Land Solutions, Inc. le Page 5of10 __ 73_ (February =ap " i + Assumptions i ias_ks Phase gZ, (MP aDecember + + Assume ions/Tasks Phase ID Mann arynilkEt2t+ + ; AssumpPons/Tasks easement 3. Provide mapping support for March JPA .transaction , • (assumes 25 hoursof GIS time) . 1)2_. RAILROAD NEGOT. ; • Assumptions: • Internal meetings with RCT.0 to discuss rAv aspect of railroad negotiations • Does not include acquisition due diligence (review of sales documents, tenant contracts, properties, etc.) Tasks: 1, 30 hours of railroad negotiations , Tasks: 1. 30 hours of railroad negotiations` E2. PRELIM ROW STUDIES Tasks: 1. Right of way studies for revisionsin conceptual _ alternatives and other ad -hoc research (70 hours) 2. Monitor subject properties for sales, planned development and tax foreclosures Tasks: 1. Review right of way impacts based on revisions in conceptual alternatives (30 hours) 2. Monitor subject properties for sales, planned development and tax foreclosures . 3. Liaison (up to 10 hours) with FTA, as needed • Fl. PROJECT MNGT ,. • Assumptions: • ' Status reports provided -bi-monthly -• Status meetings held on a bi-monthly basis • Key team members will participate in monthly meetings . • Timeframe for this portion is for 5 months Tasks: 1. Generate and -review status reports .2. Prepare for and participate in status meetings ° Assumptions: • Status reports provided bi-monthly • Status meetings held on a bi-monthly basis • Key team members will participate in monthly meetings • Time came for this portion is for 6 months Tasks: 1. ''Generate and review status reports 2. 'Prepare for and participate in status meetings Assumptions: e.. Status reports provided bi-monthly • Statusmeetings held on a bi-monthly basis • Key team members will Participate in monthly meetings, • Timeframe for this portion is for b months Tasks: 1.. Generate and review status reports 2, . Prepare for and participate in status meetings F2. ON -CALF SERVICES , Assumptions: • 40 hours of issue -specific, consultation w _ -- with Ann Assumptions • 40.hours o`f-ssue�specfic consultation withf Ann. .- Assumptions: .. •' -._40 hours of issue -specific consultation with Ann Phase SD fFebruaryatE0t Assumptions/Tasks gV•\, �+% a D eeembe i • ss mptions/Tasks • • ' tease (J nuary 2008) Assumptious/a:Asks Catlin on FTA matters 40 hours of issue -specific consultation with Jim Wiley on railroadrelated matters Approximately 120 hours of time from other team -_ members related to on -call services •. • Catlin on FTA matters 40 hours of issue -specific consultation with Jim Wiley on railroad related matters Approximately 120 hours of time from other team members related to on -call services . Catlin on FTA matters 40 hours of issue -specific consultation with Jim Wiley on railroad related matters Approximately 120. hours of time from other team members related to on -call services • Epic Land Solutions, Inc: Page 7 of 10 75 i Gl. UnG42313 (February •=ario ar4at'— Assum p do � s/Tas EtOEGga December + i A _ tiinaons/Tasks _ Phase3 (Januaryd � 200$) Assum tionsta sks _ _• Assumptions: • 2 public meetings • . 2 internal meetings Tasks: 1. Meet with RCTC board and/or staff to discuss approach or results 2. Participate in 2 public meetings torespondto r/w questions 3. Address and respond to written questions related to r/w 4. Prepare maps and other supporting presentation materials Assumptions: — • 2 public meetings • 2 internal meetings Tasks: 1. Meet with RCTC board and/or staff to discuss approach or results 2. Participate in 2 public meetings to respond to r/w questions . 3. Address and respond to written questions related to r/w 4, Prepare maps and other supporting presentation. materials COMMUNITY OUTREACH Hl. REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION AND MNGT PLAN (RAMP) Assumptions: • 1 RAMP required + 2 updates Tasks: 1, "Gatherrequired information 2. Draft Plan 3. Submit flan and revise as necessary Tasks.: 1. Review Environmental Assessment (two versions) 2. Update RAMP, as required H2. PROJECT. ESTIMATES/ ADVANCED: , ACQUISITION ; Tasks. 1. ;Case Road Parcel Acquisition a. -.Appraisal review b. Negotiations c. Oversee escrow 1 Allessandro Station - a. Appraisal . b.` -Appraisal-review- K1. - Assumptions: Assumptions: `,Epic Land. Solutions, 'inc.. Page 8of10 76. • 1n [ EID (February d i As. _ mptiou_s as : _ Phased alpa December OCCR Assu:mp_tionsfiTiasks Phase gr3 ACQUISITION AND. RELOCATION Tialiao—arCEigara Ass_umptionsaasks . 10 vacant properties will be acquired from private owners during this period. The properties to be acquired are station sites that are uniform across all • 15 properties will be acquired from private owners during this. period based on the selected alternative. ." alignments. • 15 business relocations will be required (some of the • No relocation will be required for those acquisitions properties are vacant and others have multiple • Epic will draft scope of work and commission . businesses) appraiser from RCTC's on -call appraisal._ list • 3 negotiations for acquisitions with public agencies . • Epic will draft scope of work and commission Tasks: - appraiser from RCTC's on -call appraisal list_ 1. Obtain title reports 2. Oversee appraisals and appraisal review Tasks: 3. Commence negotiations 1. Obtain title reports . 4. Enter into escrow for acquisition and/or support 2. Oversee appraisals and appraisal review . eminent domain proceedings 3. Commence negotiations 5. Liaise -with FTA, as needed (up to 20 hours) 4. Enter into escrow for acquisition and/or support eminent domain proceedings , 5. Liaise with FTA, as needed (up to 20 hours) Epic Land Solutions, Inc. Page 7 of 10 asks : c Phase' o December o i Assumptions/Tasks - (%—2008) Assu_mpt_o_nslTasks . ��7a t Assum 1 tions/iliasks OPTIONAL SCOPE OF woxx _ C4. ACQUISITION OF UNDERLYING FEE PROPERTY FOR BOX SPRINGS QUARRY .assumptions:: • It is determined that "railroad fee" is insufficient for the property in the Box Springs area • Nina(9) underlying fee owners - • Caltrans will provide their research performed to date,on underlying fee owners Tasks: 1, Liaise with BNSF to convert easement to "railroad fee" 2. Work with Caltrans to obtain information previously gathered with respect "to underlying fee owners. 3. Prepare scope of work for appraisal and commission appraisal 4. Perform review appraisal 5. Prepare offers and negotiate with, property owners 6. Oversee escrow and/or provide eminent domain support Assumptions: • Approximately 160 hours Tasks: 1. Assist with FTA symposium planning to be hosted by ROTC, including PTA liaison, speaker line-up, agenda preparation, venue coordination, etc. . Epic Land Solutions; Inc, Page 10$ f 10 AGENDA ITEM 7L • RIVERS/DE COUIV TY: TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE:. April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager Claudia Chase,Property Administrator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Epic Land Solutions, Property Management Support Services Inc. for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This :item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-51.030-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement. No. 04-51-030, with Epic : Land Solutions for property management support services for Commission owned parcels for ;.a not to exceed amount of $622,484; 2) Approve extension of agreement to December 30, 2008; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review; to execute the amendment on_behalf of the Commission; and 4) ; Approve a budget adjustment of $81 509: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its November 12, 2003 meeting,.. the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-51-030 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc. - (Epic) for Phase 1 of property management support services for a, not to exceed amount of $237,238. Phase 1 activities focused on - identifying opportunities for revenue ` maximization of . Commission owned parcels, reducing liability exposure, and assessing needs for a property inventory database. When the original agreement was recommended, and approved by the Commission, it was the intent to secure the .services of Epic through the completion of complex transactions involving Commission owned ` properties. Staff informed the Commission that amendments to the contract would be. brought forward for approval as the specific needs were more clearly defined. in July 2004, the Commission .approved Amendment No. 1 . for a not to exceed amount of $374,589 to complete Phase 2 activities. These activities focused on Agenda Item 7L 79 marketing of properties, conveyance of parcels to Ca'trans (i.e. Lamb Canyon incorporating GIS and County Assessor data into the property database. In December 2005, the Commission approved Amendment No. 2 for a not .to exceed amount of $301,850 increasing the total contract amount to $913,677._ . Activities included :resolution of deficiencies in the Atchison,. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway acquisition documents, closing escrow on Old' 1-215 and Pierce .Street properties, and the sale of the Corona Depot and Madison Station properties. The key objectives of Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No.04-51-030 are closing,. escrow for the Corona Depot and Madison Station,: properties, resolving: encroachment on property °outside of the Perris Valley Line (P.Vt), coordination with Caltrans for the conveyance of SR-74 right-of-way, and conversion of easement ownership to fee- ownership on Burlington Northern Santa Fe right of=_way outside ' the PVL.. Approval of this amendment in the amount of $622,484 will increase .the total contract value to $1,, 536,161. A budget adjustment for FY 2006/07 in the amount of $81,509 is recommended. The balance of $540,975 will be included in :the FY 2007/08 budget. The proposed funding source is property lease revenue: Additionally, staff " recommends approval of an extension. of No. 04-51-030 with Epic to December 31, 2008. Financial Information In Fiscal Year :Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Source of Funds: Property Lease Revenue GLA No.: 105:51 65520 $66,683 10`5.52 65520-:$14,826 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \44,4,...43 Agenda item 71_ 80 Amount: :$81509 Budget Adjustment: Yes Date: 3/19/07 • AGENDA ITEM 7M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 1 1, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: -' Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager „ Claudia Chase, Property Administrator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Tropical :`Plaza Nursery for a. Three -Month Extension STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-25-059-02, Amendment No 2 to Agreement No. 02-25-059, with Tropical Plaza _Nursery for landscape maintenance services for the Commission owned Metrolink station for an amount not to exceed amount of $26,025; 2) Approve extension of agreement through July 312007; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal - counsel review, to execute "the amendment on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 10, 2002, the Commission approved Agreement No. 02-25-059 with Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. (Tropical) for landscape maintenanceservices for the four existing Metrolink stations owned by the Commission. The approved agreement with Tropical was for a not to exceed amount of $196,200. The term of the original agreement was for a period of three years... The original term included an option to extend the agreement for two successive one-year periods upon written consent of both parties prior to the expiration of :the original term or the first extended term, as applicable. The extended term increased the Agreement No. 02-25-059 for a not to exceed amount of $327,000. On July 1, 2003, the agreement was amended to include the provisions of landscape maintenance services for a parking Tot adjacent to the Riverside -Downtown Station, additional parking area at .the La Sierra station .and the North Main Corona Station for a not to exceed $28,500 annually. The total amount of the agreement is $441,000. The extended terms of the original and amended agreements will expire on May 1, 2007. Agenda Item 7M 81 Staff will release a request for proposal (RFP) for landscape maintenance . services on April 1, 2007..To allow sufficient time for the selection process, staff is requesting a three-month extension of the current agreement with Tropical, for a revised termination date of July 31, 2007. The scope of service of the new RFP. includes all five Metrolink stations and the parking areas adjacent to the Riverside; Downtown Station. Approval of this amendment in the amount of $26,025 will .increase the contract value to $46.7,025. A budget adjustment for FY 2006/07 is not required since there is enough remaining budget authority to cover these expenditures. Staff will include the necessary amount in next fiscal year's budget to cover the amendment, , Additionally, staff recommends approval of an extension of Agreement, No.. 02-25-09-02 with Tropical through July 31, 2007. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 Amount: $17, 354 $ 8,675 . Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: E. No GLA No.: 103 25 73312 P4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4006 Fiscal Procedures Approved: i.,1,x Date: 03/27/2007 Agenda Item 7M 82 • AGENDA ITEM 7N • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Cornmission FROM: John Standiford, Public Affairs Director Aaron. Hake,, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal. Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the state and federal legislative status report; and 2) Approve the following bill positions: • AB 291 (Jeffries, R=Lake Elsinore and Benoit, R-Palm .Desert) SUPPORT • AB 1240 (Benoit, ;R-Palm Desert) - SUPPORT + AJR 14 (Jeffries, R=Lake Elsinore) — SUPPORT _• SB 224 (Battin, R-La Quinta) -SUPPORT • SB 872 (Ackerman, R-Irvine) — SUPPORT • HR 1475 ,(`McGovern, D-MA) SUPPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Federal Update . The 110t' Congress is in fullswing and . key transportation committees and subcommittees in both the House and Senate are actively delving into several major issues. Legislation at the forefront includes transit security, rail safety, and the reauthorization of Amtrak. A bill that makes technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU, which failed to get out of Congress by the end of last year is again moving through both chambers and is expected to be sent to the President soon. The appropriations , process', for ; FY 2007/08 is also underway. Commission staff has been engaged with Congressional offices representing Riverside County and promoting the Commission priorities for federal funding, not the least of which are grade separations, the Perris Valley Line (PVL), SR-79, and the Mid County Parkway (MCP). Agenda Item 7N 83 The National Surface Transportation and RevenueStudy Commission, a panel mandated by ' SAFETEA-LU to make recommendations to the President and Congress regarding the future of U.S. transportation policy, held two days of field hearings in .Los Angeles in February. These hearings provided an opportunity for the National Commission to receive expert testimony from Southern California . transportation officials on the nature of the transportation challenge in this region. The National Commission will publish its final report by the end of .;December 2007. Commissioners Robin 'Lowe, Ron Roberts and Jeff Stone, along with Commission staff, attended the annual Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) Consensus Trip to Washington, D.C. in date February/early March and _participated in a series of meetings with federal agency representatives s and . Congressional offices. Commissioners and staff visited with Congresswoman ` Mary Bono', and Congressmen Ken Calvert and Jerry Lewis to discuss Riverside ' County transportation priorities and the outlook for the 110th Congress. Commission staff also participated in the first annual Trade Corridors Summit hosted by the Coalition for America's Gateway and Trade Corridors (CAGTC). This event brought together representatives of the major trade .corridors throughout -the nation for a dialogue to draft key principles for Con ress to apply in the _next g Y P P Congress :PP Y. federal transportation authorization bill. Commission staff; will continue to monitor CAGTC's activity pertaining to a new federal policy on freight funding. HR 1475 (McGovern, D-MA): Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2007 Under federal` 'law employers may provide up to, $1.75 per month' ;per employee of pre-tax fringe benefits to pay for employee parking expenses. However, the same Taw only provides employers with $100 per month per employee of pre-tax benefits for transit passes. Congressman James McGovern has introduced- a bill that would equalize the pre-tax benefits for parking and transit to $200 per, month per - employee. The intent of the legislation is to encourage more commuters to use public transportation by eliminating the disparity between the parking and transit. benefits. State Update` The Legislature continued to hold hearings last month _ on the implementation of Proposition 1 B, particularly concerning the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TGIF) for $2 billion and the air quality funding to mitigate the .impacts of goods movement for . $1 billion. Commission staff ; continues to closely monitor and Agenda Item 7N 84 provide input to the .Legislature on how best to execute the will of the voters with Proposition 1 B. Also, Eric Haley, Executive Director, and Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, are members of the California Transportation Commission's. (CTC) working group to develop guidelines for the TGIF. The Commission is also sponsoring two bills in the Legislature this year. AB 1240 (detailed below) is being carried. by Assemblyman John J. 'Benoit of the 64th District and will authorize the Commission to use design -build to deliver the. PVL Metrolink extension. AB 1295 is being carried by. Assemblyman. Todd Spitzer of the 71' District and is the vehicle that will authorize the Commission to develop high . occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on SR-91 and 1-15 pursuant to the Commission's adopted 10-Year Delivery Plan. Cooperation with the Orange County Transportation. Authority, (OCTA) on thisbill is vital, as OCTA currently holds the franchise rights for. HOT lanes on :SR-91 up to 1-15. Additionally, the Commission's new facilities should provide drivers witha seamless experience, with the existing 91 Express- Lanes in Orange.. County. The Commission and OCTA are coordinating at the staff and elected official levels to ensure win -win legislation for both counties. Commissioners are encouraged to promote AB 1240 and 1295 during their visits to Sacramentoand petition for support from legislators and the Administration. AB 291_ (Jeffries R-Lake Elsinore and Benoit, R-Palm Desert): State. Route 74: Relinquishment Coauthored by Senator Jim Bat -tin (R-La Quinta),, this bill is sponsored by the city of Lake Elsinore (City) and authorizes the CTC to relinquish SR-74 within Lake Elsinore city limits to the City. . By relinquishing . state highway status, the City, becomes responsible for operations and maintenance of SR-74 within city boundaries. Under local control, the City will be better able to manage the routes according to its needs. AB 1240 (Benoit, R-Palm Desert): The Commission: Design -Build Contracts The Cornmission is sponsoring . AB 1240, which . provides the authority to use design -build contracting for commuter rail projects until 2011. The legislation will allow the Commission to deliver the PVL Metrolink extension using a streamlined engineering and .construction process. The Federal Transit Administration ,(FTA) is encouraging local transportation. agencies to use design -build and has stated that design -build can make . a project such as the PVL more competitive for federal funding. Agenda Item 7N 85 AJR 14 (Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore): Customs Duties and Importation Revenues This Assembly Joint Resolution calls on the President of :the United Statesand Congress to °enact federal legislation that ensures a "substantial increment" of' new revenues from customs duties and importation fees be dedicated to goods movement projects in California and other impacted states. The resolution is coauthored in the Assembly by Members Adams, Benoit, Carter, Cook, Emm,erson,` Horton, Huff, and Maze. Senate coauthors include Senators Dutton, Negrete McLeod, and Wyland. This resolution is consistent ,with the Commission's message to Washington that a greater federal role is needed in funding .the . mitigation of international trade. SB 224 ('Battin, ,R=La Quinta): State Routes 79.and 111 Relinquishment':: Similar to AB 291, Senator Jim Battin's bill authorizes the CTC to relinquish; the portions of SR-79 within the city Limits of Temecula, San- Jacinto and Hemet from Caltrans control to city control. The bill also authorizes the same Srelinquishrnent by the CTC on SR-111 in the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio and Palm Desert.` B relinquishing state highway status, these cities become responsible for Y q, 9 9_ Y operations and maintenance. Under local control, these Riverside ` County jurisdictions will be better able to manage these major routes according to their needs. SB 872 (Ackerman, R-Irvine): State -Local Partnership Program Proposition 1 B creates a $1 billion state matching program : that provides a 1:1 match to local transportation dollars, known as the ;State -Local Partnership program.` Because the language of Proposition 1 B does,not specify how the program will operate,the legislature and CTC` are undertaking an effort to design; the criteria ' that will determine how the $1 billion : is spent. At its: January '10, 2007, meeting the Commission took a "Monitor" position on SB 47 (Perata, D-Oakland), which the Senate President Pro. Tem introduced as a vehicle to; address the State -'Local Partnership ,program. That ;bill rernains in;" spot" form. In February, Senator Dick Ackerman of Irvine introduced SB 872, a bill sponsored= by the Orange County Business Council. Ackerman's legislation proposes to.: allocate 'State -Local Partnership funds equally over five fiscal ' years beginning FY 2010/1 1 at $200 million :per year. Eligible applicants for this funding would be limited to government entities with voter -approved transportation sales. tax measures (i.e. "self-help" counties), such as the Commission with Measure A The ; bill also establishes a minimum project cost of $25 :million to ensure the program is Agenda item 7N 86 supporting major projects on the state system. Projects that could be funded by State -Local Partnership would include local streets, state highways, or exclusive transit guideway improvement projects. Staff recommends the Commission endorse legislation, such as SB 872, that recognizes the contributions of self-help counties and their voters to the state transportation system. Staff believes SB 872 captures the original intent •of Proposition 1 B to leverage locally -generated revenue to achieve the greatest net benefit for the state. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 7N 87 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION Revised: 2/22/07 n STATE LEGISLATION AB 291 (Jeffries & Benoit) This bill relinquishes state control of the portions of SR-7.4 within Lake Elsinorecity limits to the City Lake :Elsinore. Set for hearing 03/26/0`7 Staff Recommendation; SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval AB 1`240 (Benoit) This bill authorizes the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to use design -build contracting in the delivery of the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. Read first time 02/26/07 Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval AJR 14 (Jeffries) 4 This joint resolution calls on the President of the U.S. and Congress to enact: federal legislation that ensures a substantial increment of new revenues from customs duties and importation fees is dedicated to goods movement projects in California and other impacted states. Referred to Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy - 03/08/07 Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval SB 9 (Lowenthal) This" bill will .be a vehicle for establishing a process for the (selection of transportation projects to be fundedfrom the Trade Corridors Improvement` Fund (TCIF) of Proposition 1 B: The TCIF is a $2 billion fund. Referred to Rules Committee - 01 /18/07 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. Referred to Rules Committee - 01 /18/07 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. Referred to Rules Committee 01 /18/07 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). Referred to Rules Committee - 01 /18/07 Monitor 01 /10/07 88 m 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,.; ,brid:ge conditions, and life cycle costs): SB 53 would require Caltrans to consult with agencies such as RCTC in developing: its performance measures. Hearing. cancelled at.; request of author - 03/22/07 SUPPORT IN CONCEPT • 2/14/07 SB 56 (Runner) This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee and Rules Committee -01 /25/07 SUPPORT 2/14/07 SB 224 (Battin) This bill relinquishes state control of SR-1 11 and SR-79 to local jurisdictions. SR-1 1 1 is relinquished within the city limits of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio, and Palm Desert, SR-79 is relinquished within the city limits of Temecula, San Jacinto and Hemet. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time, Amended. Re - referred to Sen. Transportation & Housing Committee — 03/19/07 Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval SB 872 (Ackerman) This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local Partnership program created when voters approved Proposition .1 B. The bill allocates $200`million per year statewide over five FY's beginning FY 1`0-11.: Funding goes only to self-help counties and to projects with a rriinimum'cost of $25 million. Referred to Senate Transportation & Housing Committee — 03/15/07 - Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT _ Pending Commission Approval'' FEDERAL L.EG/SLA TION ., :: HR 147.5 (McGovern, _ " D-MA) : This bill -equalizes the fringe benefit employers may offer their employees tax-free for transit reimbursement and parking reimbursement to $200/month. Presently, 'employers may reimburse parkingup to $175/month while transit may only be reimbursed up to $100/month.:,' - . . - Referred to House. Ways-&- Means. * :' Committee; Referred to House Oversight and Government' . Reform Committee - '03/12/07 Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT Pending Commission Approval • H.R. 5576 (Rep. Knollenberg, R- MI) This is the appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia. The House and Senate reports on this bill contain a combined $6.5 million for Riverside County transportation projects, including $3.0 million for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. House and Senate reports issued. Monitor 01 / 10/07 90 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1989 Measure A Local Circulation Interchange Improvement Funding Agreement with the City of Riverside for the State Route 91 :— La Sierra .Interchange Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to 1) Approve 1989 Measure A .funding commitments to the following . city of Riverside Local Circulation Interchange improvement projects: • La Sierra Avenue/SR-91 $27.218 million • Van Buren Boulevard/SR-91 $ 7.616 million 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute. funding Agreement No. 07-31-118-00 with the city of Riverside for the La Sierra Avenue/SR-91 Interchange improvement project, on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 14, 2006 meeting the Commission approved a redistribution of prior 1989 Measure A Local Circulation Interchange funding commitments to the city of Riverside's La _Sierra Avenue, Adams Street, and Van Buren Boulevard Interchange projects on SR-91. Due to increases in the La Sierra Avenue Interchange improvement project, which is about to be advertised for construction a revised Measure A allocation is being requested. This revised allocation is embodied in the attached funding agreement. At its June 14, 2006,: meeting the Commission action resulted in .the following funding commitments: Van Buren Interchange . La Sierra Avenue Interchange Adam Street Interchange $1 1.584 million $23.250 million $ 0.000 million Total = $34.834 million Agenda Item 8 91 The action requested today is to move $3.968 million from the Van . Buren BoulevardInterchange to the La Sierra Avenue Interchange: Should this be approved, the remaining Measure A Local Circulation Interchange funding for the city of Riverside will be: Van Buren Interchange La Sierra Avenue Interchange $ 7.616 million $ 27.218 million Total = $34.834 million Financial Information n Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Amount: $18,000,000 $ 9 218, 000 Source, of funds: Measure A Western County Highway Budget Adjustment: G'LA No. 222 31 81301 P3014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 04/02/07 Attachment: Agenda Item Dated June 14, 2006 and Proposed Funding Agreernent No. 07-31-1 18-00 Agenda item 8 92 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 14, 2006 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission ' FROM: Budget and Implementation "Committee of the Whole" Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Revisions; to the 1989 Measure A Local Circulation Interchange Improvement Projects for the City of Riverside BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE"AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item ;is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the city of Riverside's (City) request to split the; ; Con missi'on's 1989 Measure A Local Circulation Interchange project commitment of $1 1.758 million for 'the Adams.` Street Interchange with $3.968 million going to the Van Buren Interchange and $7.790 million to the La Sierra Interchange projects; :and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to redistribute the Measure A funds between the La. Sierra and Van Buren Interchange projects based on the_/value of construction bids received. This requires the City to provide written documentation on the bid value to the .Commission and this authorization cannot exceed the total arnount of Measure A funds approved for the'se projects in the Strategic Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: There are three local circulation interchange improvement projects included in the 1989 Measure A program for the city of Riverside. The interchange projects are on State Route 91 and are 'located at La Sierra Avenue, Van Buren Boulevard,` and Adams Street. The only Measure. A funds expended to date related to the east bound SR-91 off ramp and auxiliary lane at Van Buren Boulevard in the amount of $2.954 million. This results in a remaining commitment of $7.616 million of Measure A funds available to the Van Buren Interchange improvement project. Agenda Item 8P 93 The Measure'"A fundsapproved for the projects are: Van Buren Interchange Expended to Date Balance Available = La Sierra Interchange Adams Interchange Total Remaining Available = $10.570 million ($ 2.954 million) $ 7.616 million $15.460 million $11.758 million $34.834 million ATTACHMENT 1 Attached is a Fetter from the City requesting that the Commission consider defunding the :Measure A commitment for the SR-91 Adams Street Interchange. project to assist the delivery of the SR-91 La Sierra Avenue and the SR-91 Van Buren Boulevard Interchange improvement projects. For your information,: the status of the interchange projects is as follows: Van Buren: Wrapping up environmental (July 2006) and entering ' final design. Construction is anticipated in fall/winter 2007. La Sierra: Completed environmental and final design .anticipated to be .completed (August 2006). Construction is anticipated to begin January 2007. Adams: No work undertaken to date. Given the dramatic increases in land valuation and material costs (concrete, steel, asphalt, aggregate base, etc.) that impact project delivery costs, stafff recommends that the Commission approve the City's request. The City requests the. Commission to split the Adams Street Interchange Measure A commitment of $1 1.758 million with $3.968 million going to the Van Buren Boulevard Interchange project and :$7.790 million to the La Sierra Avenue Interchange project. If approved, the Commission's revised funding commitment to 1989 Measure A Local; Circulation 'Interchange improvement projects in the City will be Agenda Item 8P Van Buren Interchange Expended to Date = Balance Available = From Adams interchange = Revised Total for Van Buren = 94 $10.570 million ($ 2.954 million) $ 7.616 million $ 3.968.million $`11584 million • • • La Sierra Interchange From Adams Interchange = Revised Total for La Sierra = Adams Interchange To Van Buren Interchange = To La Sierra Interchange = Revised Total for Adams = ATTACHMENT 1 $15.460 million $ 7.790 million $23.250 million $11.758 million ($ 3.968 million) ($ 7.790 million) $ 0.0 million Staff also recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to redistribute the Measure A funds. between the La Sierra and Van Buren Interchange projects based on the value of construction bids received. This will require the City to provide written documentation on the bid value to the Commission, and this authorization cannot exceed the total amount of Measure A funds approved for these projects in the Strategic Plan. If approved, and given the anticipated delivery timeframes for the projects, staff expects this action to be reflected in the FY 2007/08 Commission budget. . Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $11,758,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 222-31-81301 P 3008 $3,968,000 222-31-81301 P 3014 $7,790,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/te4i4e:ai,� Date: 5/22/06 Attachment: Letter from the City of Riverside Agenda Item 8P 95 • • Agreement No. 07-31-118-00 RIVERSIDE -COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT,WITHCITY OF RIVERSIDE FOR FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 91/LA SIERRA AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT 1 Parties and Date. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and. CITY . OF RIVERSIDE (the "City"), a California" charter city and municipal corporation. 2. Recitals. 2.1 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„).. 2.2 ) Pursuant to Public Utility Code sections 240000 et seq.; the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. • 2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for the continued funding_ of ,transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. 2.4 City; in conjunction with the . State of California Department. of Transportation ("Ca!trans") and the _Commission are participating in the construction of the SR 91 /La Sierra Avenue Interchange project, which project involves : the. . replacement of the existing freeway and railroad overpasses with new six lane bridges with dual left turn lanes (the "Project"). 2.5 City desires to perform, or to engage a contractor to perform, and to assume responsibility for the provision of construction services required for the completion- of the Project, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. City represents that. City will retain a contractor that its experienced in providing construction services, to publicclients, and is licensed in the State of California ("City Contractor") . 2.6 The Commission: desires "to: assist City with the funding of the Project, as set forth in this Agreement. - RVPUB\HSHANH\727053.4 96 Terms. 3.1 General Scope of Services. City, by and through the City Contractor, shall furnish all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and _ customary work necessary to fully and adequately perform the. construction services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services and the'. Project are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by , reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed ,in accordance . with, this: Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto, and: incorporated herein by reference, and .all applicable local, state and federal laws,. rules and regulations. 3.2 Commencement of Services. The City Contractor shall commence, the Services upon. receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from City. 3.3 Term.: The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution of. this Agreement or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the City, whichever occurs' first, to January 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.` 3.4 Extension of. Term. Performance of the Services described in this: Agreement may be delayed or extended upon mutual agreement of the Parties, as determined necessary. City shall take all reasonablesteps to minimize: delay in> completion of the Services, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension.: 3.5 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act ,as its Representative. for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"):. Commission's ,;Representative shall have the authority ,to; act on behalf. "of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the, details of the Services as . they progress. Neither 'City, nor the City Contractor, shall accept direction or orders from an person other than y p the Commission's Representative or .his or her designee. 3.6 City's Representative. City hereby designates Thomas J. Boyd, City Engineer to :act as its Representative for the performanceof this Agreement ("City's Representative"). ` City's Representative shall have full authority to.act'on behalfof City for all purposesunder this Agreement. The City's .Representative shall supervise , and direct the Services performed by the City Contractor ;using his best: skill and attention, and shall ensure- that the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures utilized by the City Contractor are adequate to perform the Services described in this Agreement and that City Contractor satisfactorily coordinates all portions of the Services. .City shall work closely and s, cooperatefully with Commission's Representative and any other agencies.which may have jurisdiction over or an .interest in the >Services. City's Representative shall be available . to the Commission staff at'`all reasonable times. Any substitution: of City's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Representative. RVPUB,H$HANEe727063.4 2 97 • • 3.7 Substitution of Key Personnel. City has represented .to the Commission that certain key personnel will oversee performance of the Services under this Agreement by the City Contractor. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, City may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and City cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.13. The - key personnel for performance .of this Agreement are: Thomas J. Boyd, City Engineer; Philip Hannawi, Principal Engineer and Sean Gill, Construction Contracts Administrator. 3.8 Preliminary Review of Work. The Commission shall, upon request, have the right, but shall not be .obligated, to review all reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared in the: course of. completing the Services 'described in this ` Agreement. If requested by Commission, such materials shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form, and the Commission may request revisions of .such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event that Commission's Representative, in consultation with. City, determines the formally submitted work product to be inadequate; City shall require .the City Contractor to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 3.9 Appearance at. Hearings If and when required by the Commission, City shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. 3.10 Standard of Care;Licenses. City represents and maintains that City Contractor will be properly Licensed by the State of California to perform the Services described in, this Agreement. City warrants that it will ensure . that all of City Contractor's employees and subcontractors have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. City further represents and warrants to the Commission that it will, ensure that City Contractor's employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. The Commission shall not be responsible for any errors. or omissions which are caused by City Contractor's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and the City shall indemnify the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from City Contractor's errors and omissions. 3.1 1 Inspection of Work. City shall allow the Commission's Representative to inspect or review the Services in progress at any reasonable time. 3.12 Laws and Regulations: City shall ensure that 'City Contractor is fully informed of and in compliance :with all local, state and federal laws; rules and regulations in any manner. affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, RVPUB\HSHANE\727063.4 98 including all. Cal/OSHA .requirements, and that City Contractor: gives all notices required ` by law. City shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. if the City allows City Contractor to perform any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving, written notice to the Commission, City shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. City shall' defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of :any failure oralleged failure to comply with such .laws, rules or regulations. 3.13 Termination. 3.13.1 Notice, Reason, Commission or City may, bywritten notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any by giving written notice of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof {";Notice of Termination"}. Such termination shall be for Commission's or City's failure to:. perform its respective duties and obligations under this Agreement: Such 'failure on ,. the part of City may include, but is not Limited to, the failure of City Contractor to timely perform Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3..14-.of this Agreement. 3.13.2 Discontinuance of Services Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, City shall discontinue all affected Services :which are expected to be reimbursed by Commission pursuant to this Agreement. 3.13.3 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for cause, City shall be : compensated for those Services which have been. fully .and adequately completed by City Contractor and accepted by the Commission .as of the date the .Comrission provides the Notice of Termination. In . such case, the Commission may, but shall not be required to, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or', otherwise. Further, City 'shall be liable ` to the Commission: for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the 'Commissionto: revise work for which .the Commission has compensated City 'under this Agreement, :but which the Commission has determined in its reasonable discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determiningwhether to enter into future agreements with City. 3.13.4 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies ' of the. Parties provided :in ;this Section are in addition to any other, rights andf remedies Provided by law or under this Agreement. 31,3.5Waivers. City, in executing this Agreement,: shall be deemed to have ,waived any and all claims :for damages which rnay otherwise arise ;from the Commission's termination of this -Agreement, as provided in ;this. Section. RVPVB\HSHANE\727063.4 4 99 • • 3.14 Schedule and Progress of Services. 3.14..1 Schedule of Services. City shall 'ensure that City Contractor performs the Services expeditiously, within the term of City's agreement with City Contractor and in accordance with all schedules set forth therein ("Schedule of Services"). City represents that it will ensure that City Contractor has the necessary skilled personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate City Contractor's conformance with the Schedule,. the Commission shall respond to City's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative, City shall provide to Commission a copy of the Schedule of ;Services and a more detailed schedule of the City Contractor's anticipated performance of the Schedule of Services. 3.14.2 Modification of the Schedule. City shall regularly report to the Commission, through. correspondence or progress reports, the progress. of the Services and ;the Project. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that City deterrnines that a schedule modification is necessary, City shall promptly submit the revised :Schedule of Services for. Comrnission review. 3.14.3 Trend Meetings. City shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission's Representative and other interested parties, as requested ` by. the Commissions, as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a standard day and time. These trend . meetings will encompass focused and informal ;discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. City shall be ,responsible_ for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be receivedby the Commission and other attendees no later than three i3l working days prior to the meeting. r - 3.14.4 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, City shall submit a progress report, in a form detefmined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during . the previous month in relation to the Schedule. of Services. Submission of such progress report by City shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 3.15. Delay in Performance. 3..15.1 Excusable Delays. Should City or City Contractor be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any: act or Services described in this Agreement by reason .of acts of God or .of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantinerestrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall beexcused for the period of such delay. f RVPUB\HSHANE\727063_4 3.15.2 Written Notice. 1f City believes it is entitled; to an extension of time. due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.15.1, City shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time City knows, or reasonably should have known; that the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of. City to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by City of. any right :to an excusable delay. 3.16 Status of Contractor/Subcontractors 3.16.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by City or under its supervision.: City Contractor will determine the means; methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement under the supervision of the City. Neither City nor City Contractor shall be considered an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. City retains the right to perform similaror different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on :behalf of City or; City Contractor shall at all times be under City's exclusive direction and control.. City shall pay, or, as applicable, shall` ensure that City Contractor pay, all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of. Services and as required by law. City, or, as applicable, City Contractor, shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not;: limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.16.2 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, City certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code. sections' 1720 et .. seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title ;8, Section 16000 et seq.. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage' rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by; the Prevailing V1/age Laws, and if the total compensation is: $1,000 or more, City agrees to ensure that City Contractor fully :complies with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City `shall .provide City Contractor ' with a : copy , of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the Commencement of this Agreement. City shall make copies of .the prevailing rates of p,ages. needed to execute the per diem wfor craft, classification or type of worker Services available .to :interested parties upon request, and shall ensure copies. are posted at the project site. City shall defend, indemnify and -hold the Commission, its .. elected official's,. officers, employees and ag agents free -and harmless from any claims, liabilities, .costs, penalties .or: interest, arising out of any failure or alleged failure t :.. comply with the.. Prevailing Wage. Laws,: 3.16.3 : Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a`legal day's work, and: the time of service of any worker' employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight RVPUBVI HANE\727063.4 6 101 • • hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless City, City Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. City shall ensure that City Contractor forfeit to City as a penalty, $50.00for each worker employed in the execution of the Project by the City Contractor, or by any subcontractor, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California 'Labor Code, unless City or the Services are not subject to the Eight: . Mom Law. 3.16.4 Assignment or Transfer. City shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directlyor by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so. shall, be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by, reason of such attempted assignrnent, :hypothecation or transfer. 3.16.5 Subcontracting, . City shall subcontract:. the Services - described in this Agreement in conformance with its public bidding requirements. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to :all applicable provisions of this Agreement. 3.17 Indemnification. City shall indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, .consultants, employees and volunteers free and . harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in ;law or in equity, to property ° or persons; including wrongful death., in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of .,the City, its officials, officers, - employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or ; in connection with the performance of the. Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. City shall defend, at City's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal 'proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers; agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. City shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials', officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. City shalt reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. City's obligation to indemnity _ shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, :officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. RVPUB\HSHANB\727063.9 7 102 3.17.1 City shall, in its agreement with City Contractor, require Cit Contractor to inden-nify and defend Commission and hold the ,Commission, its directors, 'officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons,' including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions;' or willful misconduct of City Contractor, its officials, officers, emploYees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services or the Project includingwithout limitation, the payment of all consequential _damages, attorneys fees and .other related ':costs and expenses, as shall ` be further set forth in the indemnificationprovision of : City's agreement with City Contractor. 3.18 Effect of Acceptance. The City shall be responsible' for the professional quality, technical accuracy and the coordination of any Services :provided to complete the Project: The Commission's review, acceptance or funding of any Services performed by the City, City_ Contractor 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 the Commission, in accordance with applicable law, for all damages: to the Commission , caused by the City's negligent performance of this Agreement or supervision of any, Services provided to complete the Project. 3.19 Limited Scope of Duties.. The Commission's duties and obligations under this Agreement are limited to those described herein:. The Commission has no obligation with respect to the safety of the Project site. In addition, the Commission shall not be liable for any action of City, the City Contractor or;, any other. City consultants or subconsultants relating to the condemnation of property undertaken by City for the Project or for the construction; of the Project. 3.20 Insurance. The City shall require all .persons .or entities 'hired to. perform Services on the Project to obtain, and require their subcontractors to obtain, insurance of the types and in the amounts describedbelowand satisfactory to the Commission and City. Such insurance shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement, or until completion of the Project, whichever occurs last.. 320. 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 Projector be :noless than two times the occurrence limit, Such insurance shall_ (a) Name: Commission and . City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants as insured with respect to performance of the RVEVI3 HSHANE\727©63.4 8 103 • • services on ,the Project and shall contain no special , limitations on the scope of coverage or the protection afforded to these insured; (b) ,Be primary with respectto any insurance or self insurance programs covering Commission or City, their officials, officers, employees, agents, and consultants; and. ' (c) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. 3.20.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance. Business automobile. liability insurance or equivalent forrn 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. 3.20.3 Workers' Compensation Insurance. VVorkerS' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000.00 each accident. 3.21 Safety. City shall ensure that City Contractor executes and maintains its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out the. Services, the City shall ensure that City Contractor is at all times in compliance with all. applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be Performed. Safety precautions as applicable shallAnclude, but shall not be Limited to: (A)' adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, . confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equiprent and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate: facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.22 Payment of Funding: 3.22.1 Funding City shall receive funding, including authorized reimbursements, for Services described in this Agreement in accordance with Exhibit "8" attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by . reference. The total funding amount shall not exceed Twenty -Seven Million Two Hundred ` Eighteen Thousand Dollars 027,218,000.00) without written approval of Commission's Representative ("Total Funding _Amount"). The Commission shall pay the City within four to six weeks after receipt: by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion ofaninvoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 3.22.2 Payment of Funding. City shall submit a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed by City Contractor. The statement shall RVPUB`MHANE`727063.4 describe the amount of Services and materials provided since the initial commencement ;date, or since the start of the subsequent billing ,periods, as appropriate, through the date of the Statement. Charges specific to each construction schedule milestone shall be listed separately on an attachment to each statement. Each statement shall indicate payments to any DBE subcontractors : or materials by dollar amount and as a. percentage of the total invoice. Eachstatement shall .include 'a: cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the City's Project Manager or other authorized officer. i 3.22`.2.1 Final Acceptance by City. City shah provide to Commission, with ;its final invoice for payment, a copyof City's, written notice of acceptance and certificate of completion of the Services.` 3.22.3 Reimbursement .for Expenses. City shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Representative. i 3.22.4 Change'. Orders. Any change orders in excess of ten . thousand dollars (=$1 O,000) must be reviewed and approved in writing by Commission and City: 3.23. Prohibited interests. 3.23.1 Solicitation. City maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona ,fide employee working solely for City, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, City warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide'. employee working solely for City, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting` frorn the award .or making of this Agreement. For breach or: violation of this warranty, the .Commission shall have the right to rescind this .Agreement without liability. , 3.23.2 Conflict of. Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee_ of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission,: shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any Present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the City, o personnel .currently; on the payroll of the Commission shall :not, be permitted, in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the City of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior .to the date of execution :of this Agreerent, .where this employment . is caused by and. or -dependent upon the City securing this or =related Agreements with the Commission, is: prohibited. RVPUB\HSHANE\ 72 7463 .4 10 105 • 3.23.4 Accounting Records. City shall . maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall -be clearly identifiable. City shall allow a representative of the Commission during normal business hours toexamine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any andall ledgers and books of account, invoices; vouchers, canceled checks, and any other records or documents createdpursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be retained: by City for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. 3.23.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. City represents that it is an equal opportunity ,employer and it shall not discriminate against any contractor, subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be lirnited to; all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.23.6 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement 'shall- not. prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise' qualifiedemployees as indentured apprentices on the work performed ;hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. ' Every qualified apprentice shall be aid the standard wage aid to .p g � p apprentices under the regulations of the Craft or trade in Which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or tradeto which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code section 1777.5 applies to the Services; City and any retained contractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving City :or any retained contractor for the ,employment and training of apprentices. Upon .issuance of this certificate, City and any retained contractor. shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with City Contractor, and City shall include such clause in its agreement with City Contractor. 3.24 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall,be -in Riverside. County. 3.25 Attorneys' Fees. If either party comrnences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this RVPUB\HSHANE\727063..9- 106_. Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover.: from the losing ;party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 3.25 Time .of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.27 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. i 3.28 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be: given to the respective parties of the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose Crrv: City of Riverside Public Works Department 3900 Main Street, 4th Floor Riverside, California 92522 Attn: Thomas J. Boyd, City Engineer COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation .Commission 4080 Lemon Street,_ 3'd Floor Riverside, CA 92501: Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred,:. regardless of the :method of service. y 3.29 - Conflicting ;Provisions.. in the event that provisions of any attached 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 ` concerning the performance of the Services. 3.30 Amendment, or Modification. No supplement, modification', or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed .by both Parties. 3.31 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all priornegotiations, agreements or understandings. 3.32 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement isdeclared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court :of competent jurisdiction,, :the. remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. RVPUB\HSHANE\727053.4 12 107 • • 3.33 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: /cif vg=� Terry Henderson, Chair Signatur APPROVED AS TO FORM: 13y: i Best, Best & Krieger UP General Counsel O:\Cyco m\W PDocs11:10081P005100078474.130C 08-2856R8S 2/8/07 RVPUB\HSHANH\727063.4 13 108 Michael J. Beck Name Assistant City Manger Title ATTEST: City CI APPRO D AS ' O FORM: Bv: eputy City A orney • EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES The project will replace the existing freeway and railroad overpasses on La .Sierra Avenue at State Route 91 and the BN & SF Railroad with new six -lane bridges with dual left turn lanes at the freeway on ramps. The freewayon and off ramps will be: widened to three lanes and will retain a diamond configuration. The project will also . widen La Sierra Avenue to six lanes between Indiana :.` Avenue . and Diana Avenue/Montlake Drive. The proposed improvements will be consistent -with the improvements underway: with the City's La Sierra Avenue Widening ° Project between Indiana and Cleveland Avenues and .existing improvements :on the north.': RVPUBVISHANE`727063.4 Exhibit A 1"09 EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSABLE PROJECT SERVICES Project Services subject to Commission funding under this Agreement include .Project construction costs, including change. orders to the construction contract approved by. the City and the Commission, in an amount not to exceed the Total Funding Amount. The Total ;Funding Amount shall not include City costs attributed to the preparation of invoices, billings and: payments;: City fees attributed to the :processing .of the Project, and expenses for items of work not included with the Services in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement RVPUB\HSHANB\727063.4 [Exhibit "B" continued on following page] 110 • SR 91/LA SIERRA INTERCHANGE PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES Committed Funding CMAQ $2,057,000.00 City Funds $403,000.00 Impact fees $328,210.00 Measure A $15,460,000.00 TUMF $15,840,000.00 $34,088,210.00 Costs PA&ED $3,100,000.00 RW $1,500,000.00 Construction $36,343,000.00 Contingencies $1,870,000.00 SUpplemental.Work* $380,000.00 COZEEP (CHP) $592,600.00 FWSP $52,000.00 Public Awareness $10,000.00 Const Eng $3,000,000.00 $46,847,600.00 Funding shortfall Adams Street City Funds surplus funding $12,759,390.00 $11,758,000.00 $1, 000,000.00 -$1,390.00 'Per Caltrans, Irrigation repair, storm water control, storm water sampling Total Measure A request $27,218,000.00 RVPUB\HSHRNB\727063.4 111 AGENDA ITEM 9 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRAIVSPORTA T/ON COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007- TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Delivery Director Mark Massman', Bechtel Project Manager Gustavo Quintero, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill for the Preparation of a` Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-05, Amendment No 5 to Agreement No. 02-31-043, with CH2M Hill based on the negotiated project scope, schedule' and cost that is attached to this agenda item for a not to exceed amount of $9,964,941 for the development of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the realignment of SR-79 in the vicinity of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment for non cardinal changes to the scope of work for a not to exceed total contract amount of $25,318,092; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Initial Contract. At its February 13, 2002 meeting,' the Commission approved Agreement No. 02=31-043 with :CH2M Hill. The scope of work for this contract included preliminary engineering services for the preparation of a PR/ED for the SR-79 realignment project. The authorized amount for Agreement No. 02-31-043 was $1,994,497 and a contingency amount of $200,000 for a total contract amount of $2,194,497. The anticipated contract duration was 60 months. Agenda Item 9 112. Amendment No.1 At its January 12, 2005 -meeting, the Commission approved 'Amendment ' No. '1 (Agreement No. 05-31-532) for $13,158, 654 bringing the total contract value to $15,353,151. Amendment No. 1 included new tasks to be, completed that ;were not contemplated after the completion of the project study . report ('PSR). Significant work had been completed between the time oftheinitial contract award and -this first amendment. Staff had reached agreement with the, resource -agencies on the final purpose and need for the project, final -project .criteria and alternatives selection, which allowed staff to move the SR-79 realignment project into the - formal PR/ED phase, Several public information meetings on the project .were 'held during this period. However, significant work remained because . of the intense development ;pressure in the project area and the presence of a sensitive vernal pool complex along the city of Hemet's locally preferred alternative alignment., Contract time was extended 24 months. When the technical studies were launched, the resource agencies requested ` that additional build alternative(s) be included in the environmental .document so that several paths through each area would be evaluated. Frorn this request, additional segments and the mid -western alternative were added to the project to create a more robust suite of alternatives to broaden the choices available in the alternative selection process and to include several avoidance alternatives, to the sensitive vernal pool area.. Amendment No. 2 On September 20, 2005, the Executive Director executed Amendment. No (Agreement No 06-31-516) for $331,100 from contingency to update aerial mapping and conduct cultural studies. This amendment did not increase the not to exceedamount of $15 353,151 ` nor grant a time extension of the contract. Amendment No. 3 At its March 8, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved Amendment No. (Agreement No. 02-31-043-03) that authorized the use of $1,807,873 identified as project contingency. In addition, the Commission also approved :the reallocation of. approved tasks in theamount of $1,438, 279. The total reallocation of funds approved by the Commission for Amendment No. 3 was for $3,.246,152. ,This amendment did not increase the . not to exceed value of ,$`15,353,-151 . nor, grant: a time extension of the contract. Agenda Item 9 113 • decision (ROD): Amendment No. 4 On March 21, :2007, the Executive Director executed Amendment No. 4 (Agreement. No. 02-31-043-04) for $682,510 from the contingency to continue work on the technical' field studies. This amendment did not increase the not to exceed amount of $15,353,151 -nor grant a time extension of the contract. Requested Action The project. continues, to conduct the requisite technical field studies and work with the.. local land use agencies to accommodate anticipated development. The results of the technical studies and feedback from the cities and county of .Riverside have provided assistance in finalizing the alignment alternatives (Attachment 1). The city of Hemet (City), worked diligently with staff to address the resource agencies concerns about :potential impacts to the vernal pool complex. As such, the City recently removed the eastern alignment as the City's preferred alternative. This decision allows staff to remove the, eastern alignment from the . most sensitive vernal pool areas and puts the Commission closer to reaching agreement on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The scope of service that was originally negotiated in Amendment No. 1 must now 'be adjusted to address the final alignments-_ for inclusion . in the PR/ED documents. This includes the continuation of required field studies- on the mid -western alternative. as well: as additional engineering efforts. An amendment to the projectis necessary to add new tasks that were not. identified and included in the original Agreement No. 02-31-043 and the four amendments as well as to extend the contract time to 2010. This amendment is scope to project completion and will allow staff to prioritize a phasing approach for the delivery of the project .in conjunction with the' 10-Year Delivery Plan that currently has been developed. Following is a list of the identified tasksto take the project to the record of 1) New Scope Not Previously 'Included in Previous Actions Geotechnical investigations in the hills south of Florida Avenue, traffic analysis , for : new construction staging options, ;additional utility coordination due .to extensive new developments, surveys for Golden Eagles, a separate General ,Wildlife focused survey report, an Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) equivalency analysis, Agenda Item 9 114 permitting, Phase II cultural resource field studies and reports, route' adoption and obtaining a final ROD. The associated cost, for these. tasks is approximately $4,302,790 and it will take approximately 24 months to complete. 2) . Scope Associated with Extension of Contract Time The extension of the duration of the project to April 30, 20,10 will require 38 additional months of project management, , meetings and coordination activities. This schedule extension `: is necessary to account for time spent on alignment 'refinements and 4 working: on avoiding the most sensitive environmental constraints around the Hemet -Ryan Airport and the San Diego Canal in the = Hemet area: . The associated cost for these tasks ` is : approximately $1;'365,063 and it will take approximately 36 months to finalcompletion of the project: 3)Scope Associated with Performing Additional: field Work The addition of the mid -western build alternative to the project° requires additional biological and cultural ` surveys in new areas` not previously surveyed. This task requires additional field survey efforts, data acquisition and management, as well as property owner coordination. The associated cost for these tasks is approximately $1,039,855 and it will take approximately 12 months to complete. 4) Scope Associated with 'Revision of Analysis and. Technical' Reports - After the approval of Amendment No 1.4, technical reports were., initiated with the old suite of project build alternatives 'based on the initial preliminary agreement. After the updated preliminary agreement was attained to include the new mid -western build alternative, a revision in the project description, technical studies, and environmental . document is now required. This task will ,provide funding to revise these materials to be consistent with the new project description. The associated cost for these tasks is .approximately:.,$3,257,233_ and` it will take approximately 36 months to final completion of -the project. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 5 with .CH2M'Hill . for the .continuation of the engineering effort to obtain a PR/ED for. the .realignment of SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. A: scope of work and cost summary for the SR=79 realignment project are attached that will take the project to the ROD of the PR/ED phase of work. The .total SR-79 realignment project cost for the proposed scope of work for Amendment No. ,5 is $9,964,941..: This will bring the total project not to exceed contract.. amount to $25,318,092. Agenda Item 9 115 • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $9,964,941 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: Yes GLA No.: 210 72 81101 P3003 FY 06/07 $1 million FY 07/08 $4 million FY 08/09 $4,964,941 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \l/tbur4toil - Date: 04/02/07 Attachments: 1) SR-79 Realignment Map 2) Scope of Services and Cost Proposal 3) Amendment No. 5 Cost Proposal Summary 4) Direct Costs 5) Detailed Costs Agenda Item 9 116 P�€�rKb Jr . d1!i111 a ui 11,,1l.i MAStataRoute7MPDF1Pioposed Comdar 3 Elimination Jan 2007.pdf 01/17/2007 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 State Route 79 Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road Scope of Services and Cost Proposal for Project Report and Environmental Document Prepared for Riverside County Transportation Commission 118 March 2007 Submitted by 2280 Market Street, Suite 200 Riverside, Califomia 92501 • Contents Task 1.0 Project Management 1 Task 1.1 Project Management 1 Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings 2 Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings 2 Task 1.4 Other Meetings 2 Task 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings 3, Task 1.6 Progress Reporting and Invoicing _3 Task 1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 4 Task 1.8 Landowner Access 4 Task 1.9 ` GIS :Data Management. 4 Task 1.ES Environmental Streamlining Application - 5 Task 1.10 Project Website. 5 Task 2.0 NEPA/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks Task 2.1 Purpose and Need 7 Task 2.2_ Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection 7;. Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection 7 Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives 7 Task 2.5 Final EIS,Preferred /LEDPA Project Alternative 8 Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) 8 Task 3.0 Engineering 10 Task 3.1 Location Hydraulic Study 10 Task 3.2 Storm Water Data Report 10 Task 3.3 Drainage. Studies 11 Task 3.4 Utility Coordination 11 Task 3.5 Geotechnical 11 Task 3.6 Traffic, Analysis 11 Task 3.7 Conceptual Landscape Plan 12 Task 3.8 Stage._ Construction Concepts and- TMP 12 Task 3.9 Alternative Refinement 13 Task 3.10 Cost Estimates 13 Task 3.11 Value Engineering 14 Task 3.12 Draft Project Report 14 Task 3.13' Aerial Mapping 14 Task 3.14 Final Engineering 14 Task 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies 14 Task 3.16 Right -of -,Way Requirements 15 Task 3.17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets 16 Task 3.18 Geometric Approval Drawings (Optional Task) 17 Task 3.19 Final Project Report 17 Task 4.0 Project Alternatives Description 18 Task 4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports 18 J Task 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document 18 Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports 20 Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment 5.2 Relocation Impact Document/Statement 30 .3` Visual Impact Assessment 31 5.4 Cultural Resources ' 32 5.5 Paleontological Inventory/,Evaluation Report 36 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report 38 57 Water Quality Assessment Report . 38 .8 Initial Site Assessment 39 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report 40 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis - 41 5.11 Natural Environment Study 44 5.12 Biological Survey Reports 47 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis 50 5.14 Corridor Video Survey 52 5.15 Cultural Resources Phase 2 Site Testing (OptionalTask) 52 ' Environmental Document _ 55 61 Technical Section Updates 55 6.2 Administrative Draft EIS/EIR 55 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation 55 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation 62 6.5 Public Involvement 63 6:6: Final EIS/EIR 65 6.7 Project Approvals 69 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan 71 6.9 Route Adoption 71 6.10 Notice of Determination and Record of Decision 72 Task Task 5 Task Task Task Task Task 5 Task Task Task Task' Task Task Task Task 60 Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task Task 120 • Task 1.0 Project Management This Scope and Cost Proposal was prepared for the State Route (SR) 79 Project (Project) from Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road. This proposal includes activities for the '' preparation of the Project Report (PR) and Environmental Document required for Project approval: This Scope document is intended to replace the existing scope between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and CH2M HILL. This proposal includes task activities over the next 37 months and covers the period from April 2007 to April 2010. The cost estimate for the following tasks is,based on the process requirements for this phase of the Project. It is understood that as this process proceeds, new Project issues will be identified that will need to be addressed. The additional level of effort for these new issues, may or may not be included within each task of this proposal CH2M HILL will provide regular progress reports with the status of each task and will notify RCTC if the level of effort for a given task has the potential toexceed the estimated cost. This information will be provided to RCTC as part of Task 1.6, Progress Reporting and Invoicing. This scope and cost proposalis based upon the suite of alternatives that are shown in the Project Alternative Segment map January 2007 and attached to this. proposal. It is also based on the Draft Project Description dated February 26, 2007, that has been submitted to RCTC .. and Caltrans for review. As described in the Project Description, the design to be utilized in this scope includes consideration of fourteen Project segments, two alternative .corridors - containing two 'Build alternatives, two utility relocation areas, and a few hydrology easements. Eachof the .two .Build alternatives being addressed is composed of different combinations of the Project segments (A through N) .identified for the Project based on the City of Hemet Resolution from-1/30/2007. Any changes to the Project as defined in the February 26, 2007, version of the Project Description are not covered by this scope of work and accompanying cost proposal. In addition, any Freedom of InformationAct, subpoena, or litigation activities are not included in this scope of work. Task 1.1 Project Management As the prime consultant, CH2M HILL will modify subcontracts with subconsultants and direct and coordinate their work. Prirne contract terms and conditions will be incorporated into the subcontract agreements, as required. CH2M HILL .will be the primary contact for RCTC. Under this task, CH2M HILL will also address contractual issues with RCTC as necessary. CH2M HILL will maintain the Project files. This task will also cover general management activities associated .with completion of the PR, Environmental Technical_ Reports, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Document (ED), and other work activities conducted as part of this scope of services. 121. 7-1 Assumptions • ° The previous scope, plus Amendments 1 through 4, covered Project task activities from April 2004 to March 2007. The time period for this amended scope of services and cost ` estimate covers Project task activities from April 2007 to April 2010. Task 1.2 Project Development Team 'Meetings Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings will be held atRCTC in Riverside. The purpose of these meetings will be to discuss and resolve Project issues and coordinate activities required for the preparation of the PR and ED. Agendas will be prepared and distributed prior to the meetings. Meeting minutes will .be prepared and distributed within 10 working days of the meetings. It is assumed that there will be a total of 37 PDT meetings during the duration of this contract. The PDT meetings will be preceded by a Trend meeting one day prior to each PDT meeting. At the Trend meetings, CH2M HILL will present budget status and update RCI C :on contractual issues and also any other issues that are affecting;the scope, schedule, and, budget for this contract. It is assumed that there will be a total of 37 Trend meetings during the duration of this contract. Task .1.3 Resource Agency Meetings Meetings will be held with various resource agencies involved in the Project. These may include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States_ Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California:' Department of Fish and Game;(CDFG), and the Regional Water. Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For the purposes of this scope of services and cost estimate; it is assumed that a total of 20 _ resource agency meetings will beheld through the duration of this contract to facilitate coordination of the PR and ED. :Assumptions • Final Agreement approvaland printing fees are included in this task: • Once Final. Agreement is received, the Project Alternatives Description text and figures will be incorporated into the Draft EIS/EIR, and will not require additional content or organization changes., • The; cost: of printing each individual technical report is estimated`to be $200 • A total of 28 copies are included for agency review. Task 1.4 other Meetings Individual meetings will be held with various agencies and the: public involved in the Project. The meetingscoveredunder this task are large meetings where formal presentations are required. These may include presentations to City Councils, Planning Commissions, RCTC Board, County Supervisors, or other entities. 122 Question and Answer (Q&A) sheets and other Project announcements will be prepared and distributed to provide general updates to the public, or in association with certain designated meetings that will be attended by the public. An existing Stakeholder Mailing List will be maintained and updated to support distribution of Project Q&A sheets and . announcements. Distribution methods will include direct mailings and/or electronic mail (e-mail). Assumptions • It is assumed that 20 of these meetings will be required. • The Stakeholder Mailing List is expected to be updated no more than 3 times per year, based on updated contact information received through the Project website'and public meeting attendance. • The Stakeholder Mailing List is notfexpected to exceed a total of 2,000 entities. • Project newsletter,distribution, direct mail announcements, and e-mail announcements are individuallyassumed' to occur a maximum of two times per year. Task 15 Stakeholder Meetings Coordination with various stakeholders is anticipated to occur outside the scheduled PDT, resource agency, and other meetings. This coordination is anticipated to occur in the form of emails, telephone conference calls, or focused meetings. This coordination is anticipated to include various public and private entities, including the following: • Municipal Water District _ • Riverside County Flood Control, City of Hemet • City of San Jacinto • County of Riverside • Local developers • Soboba and Pechanga Native American Tribes • Riverside Transit Agency • Hemet -Ryan Airport It is assumed thata total of 40 of these meetings will be required during the entire duration of this contract. Task 16 Progress Reporting and Invoicing. Progress reports will be prepared and submitted every month with a brief narrative describing the work accomplished duringthe reporting period and discussion of outstanding issues and action items. The reports will also include any concerns or significant issues with recommendations for appropriate actions. The progress "reports will correspond to the accounting cycles used for the preparation of invoices to facilitate Project oversight. ,Invoices will be prepared and include costs to date and percent complete. A total of up to 37 progress reports are anticipated: CH2M :HILL will develop and maintain a 123 detailed schedule for the Project using Primavera and update it monthly, as needed. Earned value reports and cash flow charts will be prepared for presentation at the. Trend meetings. Task 1.7 Quality AssurancelQuality Control CH2M HILL's quality assurance/quality control program will be implemented and maintained throughout the _Project to ensure compliance with RCTC, California :Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Federal Highway Administration (FHVVA) guidelines in addition to ensuring technical and product quality. The Project Manager and senior staff will review deliverables prior to submittal. Task 1.8 ` Landowner Access Private property access is required to conduct field surveys as part of the environmental; analysis for the Project. CH2M HILL will assist RCTC, and those entities that also assist RCTC; with the identification of landowners for parcels within the Project study area requiring field surveys. This task will include the maintenance of a GIS-based database to track the status of landowner access approval and property access: issues, within the Project study area and the preparation of written letters requesting private property access: This task will also include tasks to notify landowners of field activities. This includes distributing via. FEDEX letters notifying owners of upcoming surveys, coordinating appointments for those owners that want to attend our work, and for coordinating animal, keys for locked gates, and fences. As the majority of field surveys have been completed for the Project, a reevaluation of. current land ownership by evaluating the County database will not be conducted. The following effort is included in this task: • 2007 survey: One visual resources field trip, wet season fairy shrimp'surveys, `and Cultural Resources Extended Phase 1, mammal corridor analysis; wetland field verification with USACE (1 trip) 2008 survey: One team field visit • 2009 survey: One team field visit • 2010 survey: No landowner access services An additional court order is not anticipated to be required. Task 1.9 GIS Data Management A Project Geographic Information System (GIS) database has been _developed by CH2M HILL to 'include information regarding Project description engineering information,"; land use, biological resources, and other data specific to the Project. CH2M HILL will develop and host an internal secure web -based data management system to allow CH2M HILL staff .and subconsultants use of Project GIS/rnicrostation data to facilitate the analysis for the preparation of both the environmental documents and Project Report. 124 Assumptions • Updates to the Project data based on the revised engineering alternatives will be included. in this task for 2007. Data updates are not included in 2008, 2009, ,or 2010. Project data will not be expected to be needed to be updated for the Final ED. • GIS management. activities include, cumulative projects database, data tracking, landowner access database, County GIS coverage .database, all field survey data, data QA/QC and processing and orgariizing engineering data used for technical studies. No newaerials will be flown for the Project. • No new aerial products will be purchased., • This task is planned to support all Project tasks, and all products will provide data and mapping to all Project team members. This task supports all disciplines of the Project team. No individual deliverables (reports) from this task are included. " • Rental of a global positioning system (GPS) unit and a four -wheel -drive vehicle is anticipated for each site visit. No software or equipment will be purchased for this task.. Task 1.ES Environmental Streamlining Application This task is completed. No additional funding is requested. Task 1.10 Project Website CH2M HILL will support the maintenance of the external Project website (www.sr79project.info) by providing Project -related information in the appropriate electronic format for easy upload conducted by Geographies, a firm under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Materials anticipated to be appropriate for posting on the Project website include Project text, Q&A Sheets, meeting notices, Project updates, and Project -related documents. All website materials will receive RCTC approval prior to being posted on the website. . 125 5 Assumptions • 2007: Two website updates are included 2008: Two website updates are included 2009: Two website updates are included • 2010: One website update is included Final documents completed for the Project will be updated during these scheduled' updates. • Website development is not included in this task. No new functions will be provided on the current website.: No expenses are included in this task. • CH2M HILL`will not host the website or develop,electronic website ..pages 126 Task 2.0 NEPA/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks These tasks will support obtaining required approvals per the. NEPA/404 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Task 2.1 Purpose and Need This task is completed. No additional funding is requested: Task 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection This task is completed. No additional funding is requested. -Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection This task is completed. No additional funding is requested: Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose andNeed, Criteria, and Alternatives : This task will support obtaining final agreement from USAGE, EPA, USFWS, Caltrans, and FHWA on the following: • Purpose and Need • Project alternatives to be evaluated in the technical reports and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Assumptions • No budget is requested for this task. • The Project description prepared in 2007 will be submitted for approval of this milestone. • No engineering design changes to the proposed Build Alternatives to the Project description will be required. • No additional information or detail on Project construction or phasing will be required. • The Purpose and Need is considered final and will not be updated. • No independent document will be required to be prepared for this approval. • Coordination with the required agencies will be included under the Resource Agency Meeting Task. 127 . Task 2.5 Final EIS- Preferred 1LEDPA Project Alternative This task will support the identification of the Final Preferred Alternative/Section'404 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). This task will occur during ,. the development of the Final EIS/ EIR for the Project. Assumptions No budget is requested for this task. No independent document will be required to be prepared for this approval. • The. DraftFinal ED will document the Preferred/'LEDPA:Project Alternative: The selection of the Preferred/LEDPA Alternative for the Project will not be disputed as presented in the Draft Final ED. • . The Project description and construction information will be considered • complete as presented in Final Agreement: No changes to the Project description will be included: • The Purpose and Need is considered final and will not be updated. • Coordination with the required agencies for Final Agreement approval will be included under the Resource Agency Meeting Task. Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) It is intended that the FinatAgreement for the Project will include a response from the USACE that Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) for the: Project will be obtained based on the removal of Corridor 3 from the Project. As such no work for this task is expected. Assumptions • No budget is, requested for this task. • No independent document will be required to be prepared. for this approval. The February 26, 2007, Project description is considered sufficient toe document' compliance with Section 404(b)(1). Coordination with the required agencies will be included under the Resource Agency Meeting Task. • The alternatives analysis and development for the Project will not be disputed as completed for the Project as of February 26, 2007. • The Project description and construction information will be considered complete as . presented in Final Agreement. No new, Project description changes will be included for this approval. The Purpose and Need is considered final and will not be updated: 128 • • • • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not included in the Project NEPA/404 MOU process. Coordination or approval from these agencies is not expected to be required and, as such, is not included. 129 9 Task 3.0 Engineering These tasks include the preliminary engineering activities required for the preparation of, the Project Report and the Environmental: Document.` • Task 3.1 Location Hydraulic Study The Location Hydraulic Studies have been prepared in accordance with Ca'trans guidelines and includes completion of the Ca'trans Location Hydraulic' Study Form. The remaining work under this .Task is to complete revisions and updates to the Location Hydraulic Studies that may be required as a result of changes to the build alternatives: This Task includes the following: 1. Preliminary hydraulic studies for major water courses parallelingor crossing the Project alignment alternatives will be -completed for the existing and proposed conditions to determine impacts to the foodplain, including any longitudinal encroachments, and to determine the preliminary findings for drainage structures required to pass the 100-year flow. Culverts and bridges will be evaluated as potential Project design elements. The hydraulic calculations will be based on the HEC-RAS analysis or other appropriate method. 2. The information from these studies will be summarized in the Location Hydraulic Study . Form for each major crossing. Assumptions • Four Location Hydraulic Studies have been completed and they will be updated to be consistent with the March 2007 Project Description. • Information collected in support of the Location Hydraulic Study will be used to identify hydrology and hydraulic impacts in the Floodplain Evaluation Report prepared under Task 5.6 of this scope of services and cost estimate: Task 3.2 Storm. Water Data Report Building on information gathered as part of the Storm Water Quality Assessment, a Storm Water Data Report will be prepared in accordance with the latest version.of the Caltrans Project. Planning and Design Guide. The Storm. Water Data Report will include a. Project description, define site data and storm water quality design issues, discuss :any RWQCB agreements, describe proposed temporary pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used during the Project construction, describe proposed permanent treatment BMPs to be used on the Project, provide construction cost information and identify locations where drain inlet stenciling is required: Attachments as outlined in Appendix E of the Project Planning and Design Guide will be prepared. The Storm Water Data Report will be 10 prepared based upon the March 2007 Project Description. Sufficient budget was included :in. Amendment 4 for this task. No additional budget is being requested in Amendment 5. Task 3.3 drainage Studies Based upon the preliminary roadway design and the Location Hydraulic Study for the Build alternatives, conceptual drainage studies and design have been completed The remaining work; under this Task is to complete revisions and updates to the Drainage Studies ;to be consistent with the March 2007.Project Description. Theconceptual drainage design includes determination of locations for. potential :treatment BMPs to treat onsite flow and determination of locations for culverts and roadside ditches to convey offsite flow. This information is to be included in the Storm Water Quality Data report. A draft drainage report will be prepared, including Conceptual.,13MP and:Offsite ,. Drainage Plans. Task 3.4 Utility Coordination This task is completed.. No additional budget is requested under Amendment 5. Task 3.5 Geotechnical Ninyo and Moore will perform geotechnical tasks per the attached proposa CH2M HILL providing oversight and QA/QC. Task 3.6 Traffic Analysis The scope for this task under. Amendment 5 consists of the following two items. 1. Traffic Analysis of Northern Segment - Kimley-Horn will evaluate the traffic conditions associated. with constructing only the northern segment of the project from Florida Avenue to the north. The analysis will develop Year 2035 ADT volumes and morning and afternoon peak hour turn movement forecasts for up to 25 intersections in the corridor, evaluate peak hour level of service at those intersections, and document future forecast volumes_ on the proposed SR 79 alignrnent. CH2M HILL will provide oversight and QA'/QC. 2. Staging Analysis - Kimley-Horn will evaluate the traffic impacts associated with each stage of construction for the Project. Traffic forecasts ,will be developed for two scenarios, with up to seven stages in each scenario. For each stage the -analysis will develop Year 2035 ADT volumes and morning and afternoon peak hour` turn movement forecasts .for up to 25 intersections in thecorridor, evaluate;peak hour ; level of service at those intersections, and document, future forecast volumes on the proposed SR 79 alignment. CH2M HILL will provide oversight and QA/ QC 131 Task 3.7 Conceptual Landscape Plan Purpose Determine the type of planting material, erosion control, and. irrigation "system req irement for various typicalcorridor locations. Methodology Prepare a conceptual landscaping plan for various typical corridor locations such a • cut and fill slopes, bridge approaches, BMP sites, and possible median locations where a sp it'profile section exists. This plan shall determine the type of planting material, erosion, contr 1, and irrigation system requirements. Deliverable • Conceptual Landscape Plan and cost estimate Task 3.8 Stage :Construction Concepts and TMP Purpose To identify opportunities for staging the .construction of the Project to meet constru tion funding constraints. Methodology Due to construction funding constraints the Project will probably not be constructsas one construction project. It is more likely that limited funding will become available, re • uiring that the realignment of SR 79 be .constructed in stages. The concepts for constructio staging will need .to be discussed and addressed in the final ED to determine the impacts o the local circulation system. Staging concepts will be developed based upon three diffe -nt funding scenarios, which will be obtained from the RCTC. These concepts will be a alyzed and presented in the PR for each of the four Build alternatives. Concepts for the pos . ible future expansion of the facility will also be prepared. This task also includes the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the roject. The TMP will be prepared per Caltrans Headquarters` TMP Guidelines (July 2001). ey sections will include existing traffic conditions, a description of the construction acti ities, expected construction impacts (with a :brief description of conceptual staging plans) traffic handling strategies and requirements, TMP strategies (public awareness, motorist information, incident management, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) s ategies, and alternate routes), contingency plans, and implementation and monitoring. The MP will include a high-level cost estimate. CH2M HILL will attend up to five (5) meetin;s with affected agencies and other groups to discuss the TMP for the Project. A draft and fi al version of. the TMP will be prepared. Deliverables • Stage construction concepts and cost estimates to be included in the PR • Traffic Management Plan. 132. 12 Assumptions • In the event that a construction staging plan that is different than the one described in the March 2007 Project Description is adopted, this scope and cost proposal does not; include budget to implement that change. Task 3.9 Alternative Refinement Purpose To continue the refinement of the fourteen Project segments and four .Build alternatives: ` based upon comments received from stakeholders through the Project development process. Methodology The design as presented in the March 2007 Project Description is suitable for presentation in the Draft Project Report. The continued engineering work under this, task is to: support discussions with various stakeholders that might require revisions to project design. Concept plans will be developed at each of the seven MWD canal crossing locations and presented to MWD for their review and input. Ongoing coordination: with developers and property owners will continue. CH2M HILL will prepare exhibits showing the impacts to individual properties at the request of ROTC, the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and the County. Roadway design work will continue to support the preparation -of the Advance: Planning Studies described under Task 3.15. Deliverables • Design drawings for the Build alternatives that can be used for analysis during the Draft Project Report and Draft EIS/EIR development Task 3.10 Cost Estimates Purpose To develop cost estimates for each of the four (4) Build alternatives for comparison, leading to the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Methodology Using the templates and guidelines from the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), cost estimates will be prepared for the seven Build alternatives. For the Draft PR, cost estimates will be prepared for the seven' Build alternatives utilizing the "Draft' Project Report Cost Estimate" guidelines described in the Caltrans PDPM. For the Final PR, it is assumed that the Preferred Alternative will have been selected. One' cost estimate will be prepared, following the guidelines under "Project Report Cost Estimate' in the Caltrans PDPM. Deliverables Four Draft PR -level cost estimates for the Draft PR and one (1) PR -level cost estimate for the Final PR 133 13 Task 3.11 Value Engineering This task is completed.'No additional funding is requested. Task 3.12 'Draft Project. Report Purpose To prepare a Draft PR that meets RCTC requirements and Caltrans standards. Methodology A Draft PR will be prepared, which will present four alternatives from different combinations of the fourteen Project segments. The PR will be prepared in accordance with current Caltrans format requirements for PRs. The Draft PR will be prepared to present the seven alignment alternatives on a comparable basis and to obtain approval for public circulation of the Draft Environmental Document. The Draft PR will be. submitted for review and comment`to RCTC, Caltrans, and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto. CH2M:HILL anticipates one review .meeting to discuss comments. Caltrans will perform FH VA coordination. Deliverable • Draft PR (50 printed copies) Task 3:13 Aerial Mapping This task is completed. No additional funding is requested. Task 3.14 Final Engineering Following the public review and comment of the Draft ED, the Preferred Alternative will be selected. Additional refinement will be made as needed to the design of the Preferred Alternative for the final PR. This task encompasses the general engineering work thatwill be needed to finalize the design concepts for the Preferred Alternative to.support the preparation of the Final PR. This task will also include. responding to comments from the Draft PR and Draft ED as they relate to :making revisions to any of the other alternatives that will still be presented in the Final PR. Task 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies Purpose The purpose of the APS plans is to develop a preliminary structure design for the purpose of establishing reliable cost estimates as part of the PR for the state highway Project. 134 14 Methodology There are a number of guidelines and :procedures by Caltrans. on the. preparation of APSs. In; general, the preparation of the APS shall follow the Caltrans Memo to Designers 1-8. Additional guidelines are provided by Caltrans - Office of Special Funded Project (OSFP) Information: and Procedures Guide, dated August 2001. In order to establish a high reliability for the proposed design and the cost estimates, the design team for the:APS plans must review a number of design parameters that may impact such. design,. A list of the design parameters may include the following: • Preliminary roadway design -alignment and profiles • Preliminary surveyed information on critical controls =:vertical clearance and lateral clearance Preliminary staging plans and detour plans (on and off the structure Utility survey and location maps Route concept and future widening plan • Special railroad requirements • Special foundation requirements, including scour critical work Special aesthetic treatment • -Environmental mitigation that may affect the structure type selection A total of ten APSs will be prepared as part of the Draft PR. The ten bridges are the. following: Sanderson Avenue Overcrossing on Segment M Esplanade Avenue Interchange Bridges (four for Segment Stowe Road .Undercrossing on Corridor 2 After the preferred'alte'rnative is selected, APSs will be prepared for the remaining bridges on; the preferred 'alternative. These will be included in the Final PR. It is assumed that ten more APSs will be needed for the: Final PR. Deliverables • APSs for the above -mentioned bridges Task 3.16 Right -of -Way Requirements This task is complete. No additional budget is requested under Amendment 5. 135 Task 3,17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets Purpose To estimate the right-of-way acquisition costs for each of the four Build alternatives for inclusion in the PR. 'Right of Way Data Sheets list the estimated cost of acquiring the right of way of each impacted parcel. It includes such costs as the value of the property taken, excess land damages, loss of goodwill,: major rehabilitation, utility relocation, relocation assistance payments, clearance/ demolition, title and escrow, and condemnation costs. The DRID/DRIS is required for all projects that displace persons, businesses, or farm or non-profit organizations. Its purpose is to assess the possible relocation impact an alternative might have on those displaces. The assessment will follow the requirements in. Ca'trans' Environmental Handbook, Volume 4 and provide documentation specified for by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The early right of way studies will entail the following tasks: • Perform a field inspection of each short-listed alternative. • Ascertain number of parcels Determine types of improvements Identify possible problem areas (i.e., mobile .homes, functional replacements, historical sites, etc.) •. Estimate family sizes on residential relocations • Compile information on neighborhood characteristics, Determine price ranges for land and improvements Determine alternative housing available Determine minority percentages, etc. Compile a ROW cost estimate for each alignment Prepare a conceptual relocation study . • Prepare a land use map Deliverables: • ROW Data Sheets for all alternatives in Draft PR • ROW Data Sheets updated for selected alternative in Final PR 136 16 Task 3.18 Geometric Approval Drawings (Optional Task) Purpose To obtain Caltrans geometric: approval of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the preparation of the Final PR. Methodology GADs will be. prepared for the Preferred Alternative. GADs for r the other. Build alternatives ; will not be prepared: The GADs for the Preferred Alternative will be prepared,in accordance.: with Caltrans guidelines. They will show horizontal and vertical alignments forthe mainline and all ramps. Profiles with superelevations will also be shown for the -mainline and all ramps. Preliminary striping will be shown to depict the number of lanes at each intersection. Deliverables • One set of GADS for the ultimate construction of a freeway for. the Preferred Alternative,.. for approval by Caltrans Assumptions • The budget for this task has been placed into contingency. Task 3.19 Final Project .Report Purpose To incorporate comments from the Draft PR and prepare a Final PR. that will recommend formal Project approval. Methodology CH2M HILL will review and incorporate comments from the Draft PR and prepare a Final PR for review by ROTC, Caltrans, and the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto It' is assumed that only minor adjustments to elements of the Preferred Alternative will be:required CH2M HILL anticipates two review meetings at this stage. Deliverable Final. PR (50 printed copies) • Electronic Copy of Final PR 137 17 • Task 4.0 Project Alternatives Description Task.4.1 Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports This task is not included as the draft Project description was previously completed: No additionalfunding is requested for this task. Task 4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Document A comprehensive Project alternatives description will be developed to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternatives in;the Environmental Technical Reports and the ED. The Project alternatives description will be based on Corridors 1 and 2 of the November 2006 PDT Meeting. The Project alternatives description will include four (4) Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative. The discussion, of Build alternatives will identify common and unique design features between alternatives. Deliverables The deliverables for the Project: Alternatives Description will include a separate bound report with three submittals, as listed below. The deliverables are the following: • Draft Project Alternatives Description for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 1) (This task was completed on February 26, 2007.) • Response to comments in table format • Coordination on comments (meeting/email/conference call) • Revised Project Alternatives Description in track changes for:submittal to RCTC and Caltrans" to document agreed upon revisions (Submittal 2) • Final Project Alternatives Description with track changes from submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 3) The format and number of copies for each submittal are provided below: Submittal 1: • Two hard copies and two CDs of the Draft Project Alternatives Description for submittal to RCTC • Three hard copies and three CDs of the Draft Project Alternatives Description for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: 138:. 18 Two hard copies arnd two CDs of the Draft Project Alternatives Description for submittal to RCTC Three hard copies and three CDs of the Draft Project Alternatives Description for. submittal to Caltrans Submittal 3: Two hard copies and two CDs of the Final Project Alternatives Description for submittal' to RCTC Three hard copies and three CDs of the Final Project: Alternatives Description for submittal to Caltrans Assumptions, The Project Alternatives Description will present a maximum of four" (4) Build alternatives (Corridor 1: Build Alternatives 1a and 1b, Corridor 2: Build Alternatives 2a and 2b); along. with the No ,Build alternative. 'Changes to the Build Alternatives will not occur or be incorporated for any reason. ,Engineering design updates are not included in this task. Theanalysisfor the Project will occur by segment, w:ith,summary tables,-for;,each. alternative. -• The cost of printing each individual document is estimated to be $200 • Only one set of comments will be received from each agency (Caltrans and RCTC): • All comments are expected to. be addressed within the 30-day .review period. No comments will be received after the Revised or Final Project Alternatives Description is submitted. Only RCTC and Caltrans District S will approve the,Project Alternatives Description. The Final Project Alternatives Description will be provided to FHWA, EPA, USAGE, and USFWS to review as part of the Final Agreement task. It is .expected that these agencies will not require edits that alter the presentation or discussion of the Project Build alternatives in the Draft EIS/EIR. Coordination related: to federal agency.review of the Finale Project Alternatives Description is included in the rResource Agency Meeting task. 139 Task 5..0 Environmental Technical Reports. Task 5.0 replaces Task.3.0 in the original contract: Environmental Technical Reports will be prepared consistent with the requirements of the. NEPA and the CEQA,,.as well as related environmental statutes and regulations, including Caltrans and FHWA" guidance. The Environmental Technical_Reports will be prepared to cover'statutory documentation requirements (e.g., to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [36 Code of Federal Regulations...{CFR) 8001 and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act [49 United States Code {U.S.C.} 3031. The Environmental Technical Reports will also identify, evaluate, and analyze potential environmental impactsof the Project Build alternatives, and the No Build alternative to provide the basis for the analysis and findings, in the joint Earequired for Protect approval (described in Task 6.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate). The following Environmental Technical Reports will be prepared in association with the Project: • Community Impact ,Assessment (Section 4(f)) • Relocation Impact Report • Visual Impact Assessment • Area of Potential Effect Map (APE) • Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR) • Archaeological Survey Report (appendix to HPSR) • Historical .Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) (appendix to. HPSR) • Extended Phase 1 Testing Report (appendix to HPSR) • Joint Paleontological Identification Report/ Paleontological :Evaluation Report PIR /PER) --. - • Paleontological Mitigation` Plan (PMP) • Floodplain Evaluation Report • Water Quality Assessment Report • Initial Site Assessment • Air Quality Technical Report • Technical Noise Analysis • Natural Environment Study • Wetland Delineation Report • Biological Survey Reports (species surveys including burrowingowl,rare plants, riparian birds, vernal pool fairy shrimp; mammals, general wildlife) • MSHCP Equivalency Analysis Environmental Technical Reports will generally include the following sections: 140 Introduction. This section will identify the purpose of; eachtechnical report and include a.standardized statement of purpose and need for the Project and Project alternatives description (developed as part of Task 4.0 in this scope of services and cost estimate). Regulatory Setting. This section will provide a discussion of the regulations that govern the analysis of potential environmental impacts with respect to the specific resource area covered by the technical report. Affected Environment.. This section will describe the physical environmental conditions in the region where the Project will occur as they exist at the time that .the Notice of Intent and Notice of Preparation was published/:posted for the Project. The affected environment will set the baseline physical conditions by. which 'a determination can be made about ;a Project impact. Environmental,Consequences (including permanent and teinporary impacts). This section will -discuss the impacts of each Build alternative and the No Build alternative. The assessment of impacts will include a discussion of direct and indirect impacts under two separate discussions: permanent (long-term) and temporary (short-term) impacts. ; The Environmental Consequences section will involve the identification of evaluation. criteria for specific disciplines to help determine whether the impacts identified under NEPA are considered to pose a substantial impact to the resource area covered by the technical report. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. This section will idea measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts identified in the Environmental " Consequences section. if the implementation of a mitigation.. measure is determined to cause an impact in addition to the impact of the Project alternatives, the discussion of the mitigation measure will include a discussion of the resulting impact.: Unavoidable, Adverse Impacts. This section will describe any impacts that cannot be avoided through Project redesign or the implementation of ration 'measure's. Cumulative Impacts. This, section will describe impacts resulting from the combination of potential Project impacts with impacts from other past :present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The assessment of cumulative impacts: will address impacts that are individually minor, but collectively substantial California Environmental Quality: Act Evaluation. This section will :analyze potentially ' significant Project impacts under'CEQA based on the Appendix G; Environmental Checklist questions. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts identified under CEQA to a less than significant level will be identified. Summary of'Agency/Public Consultation and Coordination. This section will, summarize consultation and coordination activities conducted,during the preparation'of the technical report. Meetings, workshops, and telephone%conference•callswill be included and agency representatives and public individuals involved will be .identified. Each consultation/coordination entry will include a description of the coordination _ conducted to date. 141 21 • Mitigation and, Monitoring Commitments. This section will provide a table summarizing the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitmentsassociatedwith each mitigationmeasure identified in the Environmental Consequences section of the technical report: List of. Preparers. This section will identify,the credentials of all personnel (individuals, firms, or' agency [ies]) responsible for the preparation of the technical report. References. This section will identify the source of outside materials used to prepare the technical report. The references list should include books; journal articles, reports, correspondence (including e-mail), phone, and website sources. Deliverables The deliverables for each of the Environmental Technical Reports will include a separate bound report with three submittals; as listed below. The deliverables are the.following: Draft Technical Report for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 1) • Response to comments in table format • . Coordination on comments (meeting/email/conference call) • Revised_ Draft Technical Report in track changes for. submittal to RCTC and Caltrans to. document agreed upon revisions (Submittal 2) • Final Technical Report with track changes from .submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 3) The. format and number of copies for each submittal are .provided below: Submittal 1: • Two hard copies and two CDs of each Draft Environmental Technical Reporttfor submittal to RCTC. • Two hard copies and two CDs of each Draft Environmental Technical Report for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: Two hard copies and two CDs of each Revised Draft Environmental Technical Report in track changes for submittal to RCTC • Two hard copies and two CDs of each Revised Draft Environmental Technical Report in track -changes for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 3: • Two hard copies and two CDs of each Final Environmental Technical. Report. for submittal to RCTC. • Two hard copies and two CDs of each Final Environmental Technical Report for submittal to Caltrans 142 Assumptions • The cost of printing each individual technical report is estimated to be $350. A total of 18 copies are included for agency circulation. The Environmental Technical Reports will not be included as technical appendices m ED. • Submittal 2 will only include those pages that have changed from comment, if required. They will be attached to a response to comments table. A complete reprint of the entire document is not included. • A separate, stand-alone Energy Report is not required. A section will be included in .the EIS/EIR to address energy (see Task 6.0 Assumptions). A.separate stand-alone Coastal Zone.Impact Report is not required. The Project is note located within the coastal zone. A single analysis of the Hemet General Plan will be included It will be up to RCTC to determine the version that is included in the technical reports. This version will be the same that is used in the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. An update to the Project materials.. " based on any changes to the Hemet General Plan is not included. It is assumed that each Environmental Technical Report will analyze:a maximum of four (4) Build alternatives (Corridor 1: Build Alternatives 1a and 1b, Corridor 2: Build Alternatives 2a and 2b), along with the No Build alternative. Changes to the Build Alternatives will not occur or be incorporated for any ,reason m Environmental Technical Reports. • The analysis for the Project will occur by segment, with summary tables for each alternative.: • The Environmental Technical Reports` for the Project have been streamlined to be easily. incorporated .into the ED, which avoids unnecessary additional or duplicative effort. Changes to the templates previously reviewedand approved by Caltrans District 8 are not included. Re -writes of text in the technical reports or EIS/EIR because of a change to format are not included in this scope of services and cost :estimate. • Field visits conducted in support of the Environmental Technical Reports will require rental of'a four -wheel -drive vehicle for safety reasons. , Only one set of comments will be received from each agency (Caltrans and RCTC) for each Environmental Technical Report. All comments are expected to be addressedwithin the 30-day review period. No comments will be received after the Revised or Final Draft Technical :Reports are submitted. Only RCTC and'Caltrans District 8 will approve each technical report, with the exception of the wetland .delineation document. The wetland delineation_ will also be reviewed by USAGE, CDFG, RWQCB, and EPA. 143 • All figures will be prepared without the word "Draft" or "Draft - Not for Public Circulation This new approach will help to conserve budget on the GIS task. Assuch, draft GIS figures in the Draft. Environmental TechnicalReports could also be used ,as final figures in the Final Environmental. Technical Reports. • Revisions. to the technical reports will not be required by comments made from FHWA or any other participating agency.., • Submittal of the Environmental Technical.Report,to Caltrans Headquarters, USACE or FHWA (or any other Cooperating or Responsible Agency) will notresult in any comments or required revisions. Their receipt of these reports .is only to aid in the review of the ED. • The "Existing Condition Baseline for the Project has been determined to be January 30, 2007. This will not be updated for the Environmental Technical Reports or the ED. The biological survey baseline will be described as having occurred when the survey was conducted. • Revisions to the technical reports will not be required after they are finalized. • Revisions to the technical reports will not be required if new information is acquired_ during the development, review, or finalization of the EIS/EIR. • Travel to the Project site will require, 5 trips for the Community Impact Assessment, 2 trips for the Visual Impact Assessment, 2 trips for the Air Quality Report, 6 trips for the Natural Environment Study, 5 trips for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Report, 8 trips for the EIS/EIR preparation, and 10:trips for Water Permitting and "Coordination. Task 51 Community Impact Assessment The Community Impact Assessment will address the following eight resource areas: • Land Use • Growth • Farmlands/Agricultural Lands • Community Character and Cohesion • Relocations • Environmental Justice Economics • Utilities/Services In addition, Section 4(f) resources will be addressed in an evaluation attached as an appendix to the Community Impact Assessment. Subtask 5.1.1 Land Use The land use section of the Community Impact Assessment will addressthefollowing topic areas: 144 • 24 Current land uses in the city(s), county(s), or region(s) that are in proximity to the Project study area, based on local General Plan, California Department of Water Resources, or other accepted source for obtaining land use acreage estimates. One site visit will be needed for this task. In addition, developable land and zoning of land within the Project study area will be identified, and a jobs/housing balance discussion will be presented. Cross-references to the Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. The'Project's' consistency with applicable federal, state, regional, and local .plans, including transportation 'plans (Regional Transportation Plan [RTPs]: and Regional Transportation' Improvement.. Program [RTIPs]), regional growth plans, habitat. conservation plans, City and County general and community plans, coastal zone management plans (statewide and/or local), and wild and scenic rivers. Parks and recreation, "including equestrian trails, recreational bikeways, and other recreational trails in the Project vicinity. The current San Jacinto "Planned Land Use will be used in the analysis. The draft Hemet Planned Land Use will be used in the analysis. This section will not be updated' with each revision to the Hemet Planned Land Use section. The analysis will be conducted only once for the Project. RCTC will determine the version to use. Subtask 5.1.2 Growth The Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will address the relationship': between the Project and growth within the Project area in terms of facilitating "planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. The analysis will consider data regarding economic, social, political, and environmental factors. Cross-references to the :Land ;Use section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Assumptions " Existing population data, historic growth trends, population forecasts, a list of planned./approved projects in the Project area, maps depicting. current "land" uses, and maps depicting planned land uses will be readily available for the Project area. • A site visit will riot be conducted for this task. Subtask 5.1.3 Farmlands/Agricultural Lands NEPA and the'Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (USC 4201=4209, and. its regulations, 7 CFR Chapter VI Part 658), require the lead (federal) agency to coordinate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to examine the effects of farmland conversion before approving any federal action. Coordination with the NRCS will be conducted to assess farmland/ agricultural land in the Project area. This task ,will include the completion of a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD 1006. The rating form provides a basis for assessing the extent of farmland impacts relative to federally established criteria. A " determination as to whether the Project location has farmland that is subject to the FPPA will be requested .from NRCS and discussed in the Community Impact Assessment. 145 Coordination with local agriculture commissioner and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will also be conducted as appropriate. According to CEQA GuidelinesSection 15206 cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for parcels exceeding 100 acres is considered to be "of statewide, regional, or: area -wide significance," and .thus subject to additional noticing and, review requirements under CEQA. The Williamson Act of 1965 is the state's'principal .policy for the preservation of agricultural and open -space land. The main purposes of the Williamson 'Act are to preserve agricultural land and: to encourage open space preservation and efficient urban growth. Williamson Act lands are classified as prime or non -prime. These lands can also be considered as Open Space of Statewide Significance. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Identification of impacts on agricultural lands and on Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Project area • Identification of Williamson Act contract lands in the Project area: • Identification of Farm Units in the Project Area • Identification of Farm Facilities and Infrastructure in the Project Area • Identification of the percentage of the county's .total prime farmland that will be lost or affected by the Project • Identification of the percentage of Farmlands in the Project area that will be converted to Non -Agricultural Use": as a result of the Project. • Completion of a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating' (Form AD-f 006) for inclusion in the -Community Impact Assessment. • Coordination with local agriculture. commissioner, USDA and/or the MRCS, as appropriate • Identification of alternatives that will reduce or avoid impacts to farmlands Assumptions • No timberlands will be impacted. Subtask 5.1.4 Community Character and Cohesion The Community Character and Cohesion section of the Community Impact Assessment will address the Project community's character ("setting") and thecohesiveness of the community and/or segments within the community. The analysis will be based upon the . development of a community profile, which will summarize .the social and economic characteristics of the area where the Project will be built. Developing a community profile will include defining community boundaries and neighborhood or subdivision boundaries, locating businesses, homes and activity centers of potential impact, especially .those bordering Project alternatives and near interchanges, anddetermining demographic characteristics; economic base, location of community facilities, and: other relevant characteristics for the Project area. Areas of the Project community that have elderly 146 26 persons, disabled persons, transit -dependent individuals and minority: groups will be . specifically. considered. Key issues that will be considered as part of this task include the following: Increasing or decreasing public access Dividing neighborhoods Separatingresidences from community facilities Changes in quality of life Increasing urbanization or isolation Cross-references to the Growth section of the Community Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Subtask 5.1 5 Relocations: The Relocations section of the Community Impact Assessment will describe the existing types and numbers of housing and businesses within the Project area and address the Project's potential to displace them. The availability of alternate sites to accommodate those potentially :displaced will also be discussed. The Relocations section of the Community Impact Assessment will be based upon a separate, stand-alone technical report, the Relocation Impact Report, discussed in Task 5.2 of this scope of services and cost estimate. Subtask 5.1.6 Environmental Justice All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit,or land)'inust comply with Executive Order (EO)12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice, in Minoru Populations and Low -Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11 1994. This EO directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to iden and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable'and permitted by law:The Environmental Justice section of the Community Impact Assessment: will address -low-income and minority populations within the Project area. Cross-references . to the Growth and Economics sections of the Community, Impact Assessment will be made as appropriate. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following • Identification of any minority or low-income populations in the Project area • Discussion of the beneficial and adverse impacts on the overall population and on minority and low-income populations or communities • Determination of whether impacts identified are "disproportionate" ' on the basis of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) Environmental justice Guidance Linder the Environmental Policy Act of December 10,1997 Coordination 'with :other resource areas will be requiredin order to identify the existence' of any significant impacts after all mitigation measures have been implemented 147 27 Assumptions • The 2000 Census data will be used to characterize the Environmental Justice population: • Data will. be: summarized along each Project alternative for all census blocks within 1/4- mile of the alignments. . Subtask 5.1..7 Economics The Economics section of the Community Impact Assessment will address regional employment and unemployment levels; work force availability, location and size; and employment centers likely to experience growth. The population of the community and region will also be considered, together with reasonable growth rates, within the Project area. Cross-references to the Growth, Relocations, and Environmental Justice: sections of the Community Impact. Assessment. will be made as appropriate. Key tasks -that will be conducted include the following: • Incorporate demographic information from population analysis and obtain information from published sources regarding recent trends and projected changes in the labor force, unemployment rate, and income levels in the Project area. • Describe the economic base of the region and document any relevant employment policies in the plans of the affected jurisdictions. • Document the tax structures of the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet and the County of Riverside, and analyze the potential for fiscal impacts to those jurisdictions. • Estimate the potential loss of tax revenues associated with right-of-way acquisition: and displacements using parcel information developed in the Relocation analysis and tax information from the Riverside County Tax Assessor's office. The, results of the analysis will be comparisons of the initial property tax impacts of each Project alternative. . Estimates will be prepared by the city and compared,to total tax revenues for each city to give perspective to the rnagnitude of the initial property tax impacts of the Project to various jurisdictions. • Assess the potential for property value impacts associated with the Project qualitatively on the basis of the effects of similar projects elsewhere. The assessment will rely on literature search results of similar projects after Project implementation. -This analysis will be coordinated .with the analysis conducted for the Relocation Impact Report., • Analyze the potential for impacts to businesses bypassed by the Project alternatives. The types of businesses that will be bypassed by the. Project will be .documented, .with particular attention paid to those businesses that might be heavily .dependent on sales to pass -by customers. The following factors will be used to assess, :the potential economic effects to communities due to bypass: I. population of the community 2. ;nature of local economic base 3. type/location of businesses 4. percent of traffic dependent retail 5. ~ type of existing highway 148 6. average daily traffic (ADT) 7. origin/ destination of traffic 8. distance to other cities and towns Businesses will be identified as either (1) typically traffic dependent, (2) .typically not traffic_ dependent, and (3) variable traffic dependent. • Evaluate the secondary (indirect and induced) economic impacts from construction -on Riverside County. The secondary economic impacts will be evaluated using an IMPLAN Input -Output analysis model and will require data on: (1) number of construction workers, (2) duration of construction, (3)construction workforce payroll and (4) percent of construction workers likely to come from within Riverside County. • ` Evaluate the availability of the construction workforce, location and size of workforce . needed for Project construction. This will require data on: ;(1). construction workforce by skill/trade category and (2) by month over the duration of the Project. Assumptions ' The economic analysis will be conducted for each completeProject alternative (as opposed to an analysis of each individual roadway segment) because of the nature of the economic, impact 'assessment. . • Two site visits will be required to determine businesses. that are likely to be impacted by the Project. Subtask 51.8 Utilities/Services The'Utilities/Services section of the Community Impact Assessmentwill'address utility systems that serve the. Project area, including water, sewer; natural gas, 'electric power, and telecommunication systems. Public services will also be addressed including law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services, schools, libraries, and solid waste disposal facilities. Coordination with the efforts described under engineering Task 34 will be conducted to collect the appropriate existing and future planned utility information necessary for this analysis. Subtas'k 5.1.9 `Evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues The evaluation of Section 4(f) issues will be included as an appendix to the -Community Impact Assessment and will address the Project's potential to use publicly `owned, land from a public park;'recreational area of national, state, or local significance; wildlife or waterfowl refuge; or historic site of national, state, or local' significance.' In accordance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and subsequent guidance, this evaluation will identify and describe the Section 4(f) resources within theProjectstudy area. It will investigate the effects that the Project alternatives will have on these resources. It will investigate avoidance opportunities and well as measures to minimize harm. Finally, the . evaluation will present an analysis of its findings, focusing on the decision -making criteria associated with Section 4(f):' are there any prudent and feasible alternatives to the use of a Section 4(f) resource and has all planning to minimize harm been conducted., 149 Assumptions An evaluation of Section 4(f) Issues will be incorporated as an appendix of the Community Impact Assessment. A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identifythe relationship of the alternatives to the Section 4(f) property. • The following items will be included in the evaluation. • Size (acres or square feet) and location (maps or other exhibits such as photographs, sketches, etc.) of the affected Section 4(f) property. . • Ownership (city, county, State, etc. -e o. Section 4 roe tY ) and type f .. (f } property rtY (Park, recreation, historic, etc.). Function of or available activities on the property (ball playing; swimming, golfing, etc:) on the portion of the property that is being impacted. . • Description and 'location of all existing and planned facilities (ball: diamonds, tennis .courts, etc.). • . 'Access (pedestrian, vehicular) and usage (approximate number of users/visitors, etc.) will be determined if a property is a 4(f) resource and it is being impacted by the Project. Will determine if property is publicly owned or not. Discussion of impacts to the Section 4(f) resource. • Discussion of avoidance and minimization measures previously considered or applied to the Section 4(f) resource. • Discussion of any coordination related to the Section 4(f) resource. • Preparation of a separate Section 4(f) Evaluation report is not included:This appendix to the CIA will be appended to the EIS/EIR for the Project. • The only Section 4(f) resource to be analyzed in this effort is historic properties. A total of 1 is included. • It is assumed that if a Section 4(f) resource will be impacted -by the Project that FHWA will determine that 1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of Section 4(f) resources, and 2) .all possible planning has been taken to avoid the use of a 4(f) property or to minimize harm to any 4(f) property affected by the Project, thereby not requiring any revisions to the Project Build alternatives. Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Document/Statement This task will be performed by Epic Lands, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. The Draft and Final Relocation Impact Document/Statement will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines and the "Uniform Act". 30 For the draft statement the tasks will include research and a site visit, but no interviews or surveys of the potential displacees, for each of the reiterations. The final statement will include additional tasks of mailing letters to the displacees an gathering responses. Meetings may need to be held to mitigate some of the issues raised by the responses. Complex relocations, say for dairy farms, mobile home parks, and cemeteries, require careful consideration and may expand considerably the need for in-depth research. The reports will include the number and type of: • Residential Displacements • Multi -Family Displacements • business/Nonprofit Displacements Farms/Agriculture Displacements The report will discuss: The potential for last resort housing and the current and anticipated ayailabili relocation resources Any relocation problems specific to this Project and the alternatives, along with suggested solutions/mitigation solutions to those problems • Potential sequencing or foreseeable relocation difficulties of unusual or difficult displacees These reports will use existing available information in the market including professional services, R.E. Brokers, publications, studies, and government resources. Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects provides guidance on how to conduct a visual assessment for federal or federal -aid highway projects. Key tasks that will be conducted include the following: • Definition of the Project setting and viewshed Identification key views for visual assessment and visual simulations Analysis of existing visual: resources and viewer response . Analysis of visual resources/character to determine attributes such as line, form, color,_ texture, dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity • Examine attributes such as vividness, intactness, and unity. . Creation of visual simulations (before and after the Project) to depict the visual appearance of Project alternatives and the No Build alternative: 151 31 • Qualitative/Quantitative analysis of visual impactsof each Project alternative, as compared to existing conditions and the No Build alternative The. Visual Impact Assessment will also discuss whether the Project has the. potential to affect an officially designated scenic highway or corridor or an historic resource. Visual impact Assessment Assumptions • The following items will be developed as part of the PR, engineering Task 3.0 to support preparation of the visual simulations: (1) a three-dimensional model -of the alternative. Project alignments; (2) plans showing the Project layout; and. (3) Project elevation drawings, dimensions of Project features, and grading plans including contours. • _ Only one round of comments to all visual materials is included. • A total of 32 simulations are included. • A total of 7 design concepts are included., Task 5.4 Cultural Resources This task will be performed by Applied Earthworks, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. The following tasks will be completed for the Cultural Resources task: Resource Identification and Preliminary Evaluation Agency Coordination. Applied EarthWorks, Inc. { E) will continue to coordinate with CH2M HILL, Caltrans, FHWA and SHPO throughout the execution of all tasks. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this Scope of Work complies with the requirements of these Agencies for reporting, staff qualifications, methods, and documentation, while adhering to the proposed schedule. The work plan and reporting detailed in the Ca!trans Environmental: Handbook (Volume 2) Cultural Resources (Draft January, 2004), as well as updates posted on the Ca'trans website will be used to direct the work effort. In addition, work will be conducted in accordance with the January 2004 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic. Preservation Act, as it Pertains to .the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California. Included within this task are up to 12 annual meetings at the RCTC office. APE Map. Study Area maps wereiused initially for purposes of identification and evaluation efforts for the State Route 79 Project. A Study Area is used when project engineering is not specific enough and allows for planning flexibility ,prior to determining the APE. However, an APE map will be required for the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). In consultation with RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA; 7E will continue to develop and refine the APE map that will define the area that will be considered for identification and evaluation :efforts... -152 32 Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. 7E Will continue to coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA, in the Native American consultation: process: FHWA has the ultimate responsibilityin'Native American consultation. 7E understands that the federal government; has a unique: relationship with federally recognized tribes. 7E will also continue to consult with interested parties including non -federally recognized Native American groups, and local historical and archaeological societies. During archaeological site evaluation and treatment planning, 7E will contact interested parties via letter; follow-up phone calls, coordinating and attending up to three meetings with such groups, documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments, as appropriate. 7E will also coordinate with Ca'trans to arrange for Native American monitors during subsurface excavations at prehistoric sites. Archival and Historic Research.; YE will continue archival and: historic research for the SR 79 Project in order to provide a prehistoric and historic. context. This research and context will guide the evaluation of all culturalresources. Research will be -conducted in repositories in Riverside County, including the offices of the Riverside, County Assessor, Recorder, and Department of Public Works; the University of California, Riverside California History Room, City .of Riverside Public Library; Riverside County Historical Commission; Riverside County Archives Commission; the San Jacinto Valley Museum; and any others as appropriate. Archaeological and Architectural Field Survey of the Study Area. 7E has surveyed approximately 96 percent of the parcels within the current APE. Additional surveys would be conducted as access becomes available to the remaining parcels. YE will coordinate closely with right-of-way and land acquisition specialists to ensure that surveys are conducted only on properties where access is permitted. Any additional survey will include identification of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites as well as built environment resources (structures, bridges, 'roads, etc.). The sites will be mapped using sub meter GPS equipment and recorded, using State Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR-523 Series). Only areas where the ground is visible will be surveyed; areas obscured by asphalt or concrete will not be surveyed. For areas that were ; ,adequately surveyed in the last 10 years 7E will revisit and update site records as necessary. 7E-historians/architectural historians will identify the presence of any architectural resources built „more than 30 years ago, but less than 45 years ago. In accordance with the . 2004 Programmatic Agreement,`a Professionally Qualified Staff .person (PQS) will determine whether any of these resources may be exempted from evaluation.: The level of effort expended on research for, the architectural resources that require "evaluation will be commensurate with their potential for significance. Since built environment resourcesare; evaluated in this task, all evaluated buildings will be recorded on DPR 523 forms (Primary` and Building; Structure, Object Records), except for those that have been'so' altered as to appear` less'than_30 years of age, or those that have been moved within the past 50 years. The only properties less: than 50 years of age to be recorded will be,those that have achieved..'. exceptional significance within the last 50 years. Extended Phase I Archaeological Survey. Many of the prehistoric archaeological sites within and immediately adjacent to the APE have been classified as prehistoric milling slicks. Such sites do not contain any associated surface artifacts'and typically indicate that use of the site was not intense and usually cannot be dated; therefore, they do not have 153 much potential for significance. For these milling sites, .E will conduct an Extended Phase I Archaeological.Survey: r J • The purpose of the survey will be to determine whether or not a subsurface component of the site is present or absent: If there is a subsurface component, then it mayneed to be evaluated. If there is no subsurface component of the site, then further evaluation will not be necessary. AnExtended Phase I Proposal will be completed and approved by Caltrans/FHWA and.SHP°.. Shovel test pits (STPs). would be used to determine the presence/absence of a subsurface archaeological deposit; a minimum of 4 S Ps would be proposed for each milling outcrop at each site. For purposes of .cost estimates, it is anticipated that 14 sites cou, d be evaluated using Extended Phase I. Reports. Following the resource identification efforts, JE will prepare the. Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the Extended Phase I Report, and a Historic Resources Evaluation Report (FIRER) that report the results of the survey efforts. Contents of the reports .will be coordinated with Caltrans/ FHWA. These three reports will ultimately be appended to a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master compliance document for the identification efforts, NRHP eligibility evaluations (see Evaluation, below), and compliance issues. AE will also prepare two separate survey reports to, document the archaeological and built environment findings of surveys conducted within the Study Area, but which are now outside the APE: Finally, AE will prepare a separate Cultural Resources Technical section for the EIS/ EIR. Archaeological 'Survey Report (ASR). The ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the environment, ethnography, history, and prehistory, description of identified prehistoric and historical archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. The ASR will also contain a bibliography, preparers' qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms, and any otherdocuments that may necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. A separate survey report will be prepared to document the surveys that were conducted within the Study Area but which are now outside the APE.. This report will not require,Caltrans/FHWA review or approval. Extended Phase I Report. The Extended Phase I Report will document efforts of the shovel testing conducted at up to 14 milling sites. This report will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory, description of the prehistoric archaeological resources, ,and findings and conclusions. The Extended Phase I Report will also contain a bibliography, preparers' qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously, prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. ' Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment resources. The HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methodsan historical overview, description and significance of identified historic built environment cultural resources, and findings and conclusions. The HRERwill also contain a bibliography,, preparers' qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms, and any other documents that may, be necessary such as maps, figures, and previously prepared resource records. Preparation of one HRER is . 154 anticipated; however, the complexity of resources, degree of effect, .and phased evaluation of resources along segments of Project alternatives (see Evaluation, below) may require a . separate supplemental HRER or Archaeological Evaluation Report after the ROD (Task 5.15) , A separate survey report will be prepared to document the built environment resources' that were documented within the Study Area, but which are now outside the: APE. This report will not require Caltrans/-FHWA review or approval. Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision making, and serves as compliance documentation for federal undertakings and CEQA. The HPSR documents completion of the identification phase, evaluates' National Register eligibility of resourceswithin the APE, and, as appropriate, a. Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or No. Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions." Normally, the I-IPSR is completed after completion of all studies` to evaluate NRHP-eligibility. In the case of the SR79 Project, schedules may dictate that an HPSRbe completed before ;site evaluations have been undertaken; the HPSR would assume that most sites in APE (based solely on surface observations and archival research) are eligible for NRHP listing. The HPSR would present a summary of findings, document • public participation (including Native American consultation), describe properties identifiedand their significance/eligibility for the National Register, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole: The HPSR would have a location map, Project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The .HPSR. 'will contain the following attachments as appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended - Phase I Survey Report, the Historic Resource Evaluation Report, and letters, from any concerned or interested parties. Cultural ;Resources EIS/EIR Technical Section. The cultural resources technical sectiorrof the EIS/EIR' will: describe the Project and both the federal and state "regulatory setting.. It will review the existing archaeological and historical resources and the methods of archival and field studies: The technical report will discuss Project impacts and offer recommendations for, avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. An .evaluation for the CEQA wilrbe provided in : a separate chapter. Development of a. Determination' of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for the Studied ` Resources. 7E would work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for all identified resources. This would likely presume NRHP eligibility of several archaeological sites that have not been fully evaluated. The Finding: of Effect would be based on successful development and negotiation of a Project Memorandum 'of Agreement detailing cultural resources treatments prior to. and .during construction. Development of a Memorandum of Agreement. If it is found that NRHP-eligible resources., will be affected by the Project, compliance with Section 106 .of the National Historic Preservation Act requiresa'Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between FHWA and the SHPO (and possibly other parties such as Native American tribes). The MoA would set" forth strategies, "procedures, and schedules for mitigating adverse effects to significant resources. In this case, because final site evaluations will not, have been completedfor archaeological sites, the MoA will have two separate elements.. For archaeological sites, the: 1VIoA will merely establish a schedule, for later completion of the Section 106 process; including site evaluations, subsequent review of NRHP-eligibility; and findings of effect. 155 35 will establish timelines for those evaluations and reviews. Secondly, for built environment resources, -the MoA will detailproposedtreatment for individual significant built environment resources that would be adversely affected by the Project. Treatments could" include detailed documentation and photography of standing structures,: landscape screening of visual impacts, or the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) 1E would assist in developing the MoA document inconsultationwith ROTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and SHPO. ] Assumptions • All technical report reporting work will be completed in 2007. • A phased approach to Section 106 compliance will be adopted by FHWA and Caltrans. • Phase 2 testing and reporting would be delayed until after the ROD and ROW acquisition. • If Phase 2 testing is required for the Project, then Task 5.15 would require authorization. • No additional changes will be _made in the Areas of Potential Effect that would require additional surveys or changes to maps and reports. • No additional changes will be made to the Caltrans Guidance to Consultants (subsequent to the February 15, 2007 changes to the HRER) that will require changes to reports and maps. Clarification or alternative guidance provided by Caltrans staff will not be subsequently reversed. Parcel access for purposes of conducting Extended'Phase 1 fieldwork will enable that field effort to be conducted continuously, so that crews can move from site to site without interruption. • A Memorandum of Agreement for archaeological sites will presume NRHP-eligibility of those resources prior to evaluations. - The MoA would: merely defer. Section 106 compliance and set forth a schedule for that process. It would not explicate a complete' site treatment plan for archaeological resources. Task 5.5 Paleontological Inventory/Evaluation Report This task will be performed by Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc. (PEAI), under subcontract to Applied Earthworks, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. The scope of work below is for preparing a paleontological identification report/paleontological evaluation report (PIR/PER), corresponding EIS/EIR sections, and'a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP). Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) • • The results of the field survey and data searches will be used to compile a combined . paleontological identification and evaluation report (PIR/PER) for the Project area by corridor and rock unit. A GIS=generated paleontologic resource sensitivity map that depicts the rock units underlying each segment will be generated. The sensitivity of each rock unit 156 - 36 and of the corresponding interval of each segment it underlies will be assessed, based on the number of fossil sites the rock unit has produced in the Project area :vicinity. The locations of any fossil site .in the corridors will be plotted on the map. The PIR/PER report will also include sections on environmental setting, impacts, and evaluation. The rocks units portrayed on the map as being exposed iri the corridors will be the basis for describing the environmental setting of the Project area. The environmental setting of the Project area will include a paleontologic resource inventory for each rock unit. The inventory, in turn, will provide a listing of the taxa that each rock unit has produced in - the Project area and vicinity, and of any fossil site that occurs in the corridors. The potential for fossil sites being encountered by construction in all of the corridor intervals'underlain by a .particular rock unit will be evaluated. EIS/EIR Section The corresponding EIS/EIR sections (setting, impacts, and mitigation) will use information distilled from the PIR/PER to ensure that sensitive fossil site information is not released to . the public. The paleontologic resource sensitivity map provided in the PIR/PER will be used in the EIS/EIR, although the location of any fossil site in the corridors will be removed, - from the map. Paleontological Mitigation. Plan (PMP) A paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) will be prepared concurrent with the -preparation ; of the Projecfs EIS/EIR. The PMP will provide mitigation measures that are adequate for the recovery of a sample of significant fossils if the rock units cannot be avoided through - Project planning. Mitigation measures that reduce the potential adverse environmental impact of construction -related earth -moving activities on the paleontologic resources of the Project: area will be formulated to substantially reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. These measures could include monitoring of earth -moving activities to allow for the recovery of. larger fossil remains,collecting. and processing rock .samples to allow for the recovery of: smaller fossil remains, and comprehensive treatment (preparation to the point of identification, identification by knowledgeable paleontologists, curation, cataloging), and the transfer of the entire fossil collection to a recognized museum repository. Specific mitigation measures willbe intervals of each corridor segment that are underlain by a particular rock unit and. will reflect the potential for fossil sites being encountered by earth moving activities; the type of fossil that might be encountered, and the type of rock. The mitigation measures will be in compliance with CEQA, NEPA: and with` Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard measures for reducing the impact of construction on paleontologic resources and for the museum repository acceptance of a`mitigation program:, fossil collection. The plan will also include general field and laboratory methods, curation requirements; report,format and content, report distribution, and a list of proposed staff :and their qualifications. Assumptions • No additional field work or research is required. 157 • • No additional Project changes will require changes in the Areas of Potential Effect. Task 5:6 - Floodplain Evaluation Report Floodplain information for the Floodplain Evaluation.Report is -provided by the Location Hydraulic Study (LHS) conducted as part of the Task 3.0 in this scope of services and cost . estimate. The LHS will be prepared by a registered engineer, who has hydraulics expertise. If, based on the results of the LHS, it is determined that any one .of.the following will occur (1) a significant encroachment on a floodplain, (2) an inconsistency with existing watershed and floodplain management programs, or ,(3) uncertainty exists as to what impacts will occur, then a Floodplain Evaluation Report will be prepared.. The Floodplain Evaluation Report will be updated and completed to identify applicable procedures and orders relating to hydraulics and describe the existing floodplain with regard to its natural and beneficial values and policies. If an increase in the base floodplain elevation is anticipated, a hydraulic computer model will; be used to determine the floodplain encroachment impacts. The'Floodplain Evaluation Report will also summarize coordination with federal, state, and local water resources and floodplain management agencies, including the FEMA: . In order to comply with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), the Floodplain Evaluation Report will analyze the following: • The practicability of alternatives to; any longitudinal encroachments • Risks of the action • Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values •. Support of incompatible floodplain development • Measures to minimize floodplain .impacts .and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values impacted by,the Project (design components to address this issue may be incorporated into the Project description) Executive Order 11988 also requires early public review and comment regarding floodplain . risk assessments. Therefore, if encroachments on the base floodplain are determined, they will be included in public notices published for the Project and identified at Public meetings conducted for the Project. Floodplain Evaluation Report Assumptions • The Floodplain Evaluation Report will be finalized based upon the February 26, 2007, Project Description. Task 5.7 VVater Quality Assessment Report Caltrans has a Storm Water Management Program .that prevents the adverse effects of storm water runoff from Caltrans roadways and facilities. The Storm Water Management Plan 38 (SWMP) is the guiding framework for meeting permit requirements for Caltrans storm. water discharge. This plan guides storm water control and treatment. To comply with these guidelines a Water Quality Assessment Report,will''be updated and completed to reflect the new Build alternatives. The purpose of the Water- .Quality Assessment Report is to identify the following information in relation to the Project: • Applicable storm water regulations affecting the Project • Receiving water bodies listed in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and their beneficial uses •. Existing water quality • Project -related storm water discharges and quality • ' Potential storm water impacts to the water quality of receiving waters The Water Quality Assessment Report will describe BMPs and implementation procedures: in accordance with the Caltrans SWMP and Project Planning and Design Guideline.to'. reduce Project -related storm water quality impacts. The discussion of :impacts related to :' water quality will be qualitative in nature. However, if established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) exist, the analysis will include quantitative analysis as well. Water Quality Assessment Report Assumptions - It is assumed that the analysis for the Water Quality Assessment Report will be based on available data and information. No new water quality monitoring or analysis is included in this scope of services and cost estimate. It is assumed that a maximum of one quantitative analysis for TMDLs will be performed based on existing information. The Water Quality Assessment Report will be finalized based upon the February 26,' 2007 Project Description. Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment Initial Site Assessment (ISA) task will be performed. by Ninyo and Moore; under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Ninyo & Moore will perform the following scope of services to complete the Initial Site Assessment (ISA). The ISA will be based on the objectives outlined;;in the Caltrans ISA guidelines modified to reflect the preliminary nature of the design and route selection . process. The following specific tasks will be performed to identify possible hazardous waste sites alongg and near the Project. • Project coordination and attendance at one Project initiation meeting, .which we: have assumed will last no longer than 4 hours. 159 • Review title and/or lease records, if provided by the client, for the sites and properties located near the alignments to evaluate probable past site uses and their possible impact on the current environmental condition of the sites. Review maps and reports of past assessments and corrective actions, if provided by the client, for the sites and properties located_ along the :alignments. Review readily available historical aerial photographs of the sites and vicinities. Review a computerized database search of readily available government environmental lists for properties located within the minimum search radii prescribed by the ASTM Standard for the respective environmental records resources. • An overview site reconnaissance tovisually evaluate areas of possibly contaminated surface soil or surface water; improperly stored hazardous materials_,_ possible sources of. PCBs andpossible risks of contamination from activities at the sites and at properties - adjacent to the Project alignment. • Contact regulatory agency representatives, as may be available, to discuss the current status .of site assessments_ and/or corrective actions at the sites and properties ;located adjacent to the sites, which appear on the computerized database search. • Revise our draft ISA report to include the revised alignment alternatives for inclusion in the PR%EIS/EIR. The summary report will document work scope findings and provide a discussion of findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the environmental condition of the site along the alignments. Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report l The air quality analysis and technical report must comply with the federal Clean Air Act and the environmental document. must contain a regional and a Project -level air conformity statement, unless the Project is exempt (see 40 CFR 93,126-128). Project impacts, both long- term and temporary, will be estimated. Project conformity for both regional and local air quality requirements. will be addressed in the Air Quality Technical Report and incorporated in the Environmental Document (see Task 6.0 for a discussion of the ED). The Air Quality Technical Report will state the Project's conformance with the current RTP and RTIP, adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Project -level conformity will include the following::. • A list of the applicable federal. and state standards and attainment status for each criteria pollutant identified in the: applicable air quality management :plan/air quality assessment guidelines: • A quantitative hot spot analysis for carbon monoxide (CO) and a qualitative hot spot analysis for both particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM25) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PMlo). The PM hotspot analysis will be presented to the SCAG Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for approval. The Air Quality Technical Report will discuss the general climatic and meteorological conditions of the Project area (prevailing winds, inland influences, etc.) existing monitored pollutant levels, and address each "nonattainment" or "maintenance" pollutant. Other issues that will be addressed include the following: 160 40 A quantitative assessment of impacts to air quality associated with construction activities, including; fugitive dust from excavation and: grading, emissions from diesel- fueled construction equipment and emissions associated with paving. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) and Structural Asbestos, including a discussion of the Air Resources Board Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Activities and a geologic or structural assessment and the identification of measures for dealing with the material. Coordination with the local: air district and/or Air Resources Board will be discussed, and any required permits or approvals will be identified. • A qualitative discussion of greenhouse gas emissions. A quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis based on guidance from the FHWA and the software tool developed by UC Davis-Caltrans. Assumptions Traffic information necessary for conducting hot -spots analysis will be provided for Project opening and planning horizon years, including estimates of level of service (LOS), traffic volumes, and signal timing information. Information related to construction will be available, types of activities, duration, and construction equipment requirements. • . Analysisbeyond that described above will not be necessary to meet the regional and local conformity requirements. • It is assumed that the design and scope of the Project is described accurately and. adequately in the most recent RTP and RTIP, and no amendments will be required. • It is assumed air dispersion modeling will only be used for the CO hotspot analysis. Dispersion modeling will riot be performed to identify. potential MSAT hotspots: • It is assumed that Caltrans will provide guidance on the °level of detail: necessary for.'the qualitative PM.hotspot analysis. . It is assumed greenhouse gas emissions will not be quantified. - • Impacts associated with toxic air contaminant emissions from.construdion, including diesel particulatematter, will be assessed qualitatively. A Health Risk Assessment will not be performed for construction or operation of the Project. Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis This task will be performed by Entech, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Geographies will support the community meetings for this task, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. Conduct On -Site Monitoring of Sensitive Receptors.. All noise monitoring is. completed No additional surveys for modeling are included. 161 Predictive Noise Modeling. Comments obtained from the meeting with Caltrans and RCTC will be incorporated into the model development as appropriate. Noise modeling will be conducted to .predict current, future no -build and build alternatives using the SOUND32 model based on FHWA RD-77-108 Report. Prediction is based on inputs such as .projected traffic volume (average daily traffic), traffic mix (percentage of truck traffic), topography and distance of the Project from the receptors. Peak hour noise in the design year for each alternative will be modeled at selected noise sensitive receptors based on forecast traffic volumes. Modeling must be adequate to accurately predict the noise levels at each of the receptors, assess the number of properties within 500 feet of the Project that are impacted or will be impacted and determine the increase in traffic noise. Predicted noise impacts for the future build alternatives will be compared to the future no -build alternative to determineif a noise impact. A noise impact occurs when:1) there is a substantial noise increase (when the predicted noise levels with the Project exceed existing noise levels by:12 dBA) or/and; 2) the future traffic noise level with the Project approaches or exceeds the. noise abatement criteria (NAC). Construction Impact Analysis. The following methodology will be used to estimate the , construction noise emission. levels associated with the construction of the Project. This methodology serves two useful purposes: 1),It provides a mechanism for identifying potential noise impact areas prior to the start of construction. 2) It provides a mechanism for assessing the potential noise reduction resulting from certain mitigation strategies... This methodology presents the most accurate estimate of construction emission noise :levels to inform ,the Department where mitigation is needed. The construction noise analysis will largely follow the methodology presented in FHWA's Special Report "Highway Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction and Mitigation' for assessing construction impacts. The guidance statesthat the accuracy of the prediction ofconstruction noise impacts is directly related to the accuracy of input parameters. Therefore, if actual measurements are available orimportant parameters such as site topography and height of existing noise walls or more recent noise emission data are available then more accurate predictions can be made about construction noise impacts. The following steps will be used in: the analysis of construction noise impacts: 1) Determine the machinery likely to be, used simultaneously in a given area. 2) Obtain the appropriate (Society of Automotive Engineers SAE 188) noise emission data for each piece of equipment. 3) Determine the potential travel paths of the construction equipment. 4) Calculate the total sound pressure level from all construction equipment at its closest pass to the Project ROW. 5) Determine the distancefrom the ROW to the nearest residential or recreational land uses. 162 42 6} Calculate the construction noise level at these sensitive land uses. 7) Determine if there are any existing noise walls, their material and height: 8) Calculate the walls' noise buffering capability. 9) Calculate the net construction noise levels. Noise Abatement Evaluation. In accordance with FHWA and Caltrans requirements, noise abatement measures will be considered at locations along the alignments where traffic, noise impacts are predicted. If traffic noise impacts are predicted at the sensitive receptors, noise abatement measures must be evaluated at these locations. Preliminary noise abatement design includes considerations such as barrier heights, lengths, and location. Noise abatement is only considered where frequent human use occurs and a lowered 'noise level would be of benefit: A feasible and reasonable analysis will be performed at sensitive receptor locations` were a traffic noise impacts was predicted. Noise abatement will be included as part of the Project only if constructing the abatement is reasonable: and feasible. Noise abatement will be evaluated at impacted sensitive receptor locations by varying wall heights until a 5dBA reduction in the future noise level is achieved. Other considerations such as: topography;_ access requirements, other noise sources and safety considerations will be included as part of the feasible review. Those sensitive receptors that are determined to be feasible will undergo a reasonableness review. To.determine whether a noise, abatement measure is reasonable, a cost -benefit analysis will be conducted taking into account: absolute noise level, build versus existing noise, environmental impacts of abatement public and local agencies input, newly constructed development versus development pre- dating 1978 and the total noise abatement allowance versus the Project cost. The ' preliminary decision of providing noise abatement for exteriors of residential areas in ;activity Category B is made from the reasonable allowance per benefited residence. If the traffic noise impacts predicted have a potential to cause a significant adverse environmental impact due to either one or both of the following: 1} Substantial noise increase and/or; 2) Proposed noise abatement has a:potential 'for a.significant effect on a competing resource such as designated scenic highways,scenic vistas, historical sites; endangered species, etc. mitigation must be considered under CEQA requirements.. In: addition, it must be.further evaluated whether the proposed noise.,mitigation itself will result in a significant adverse environmental effect before the public involvement process is conducted. If the :proposed Project or. the proposed noiseabatement would result in a significant environmental effect, _then an overall mitigation plan must be: developedNand reported in the Draft NoiseTechnicalReport before incorporating into the Draft EIS/EIR for circulation to solicit public input. Development of Draft and Final Noise Technical Report. After completing the feasible and reasonable test ther&are two possible outcomes: 1) If traffic noise impacts are predicted and the proposed noise, abatement is feasible and reasonable, abatement will be recommended. 163 2) If the traffic noise impacts are predicted, but the -proposed :noise abatement is not feasible or, reasonable, noise abatement will not be recommended.. The analysis will contain a complete discussion of impacted areas that do not meet Caltrans'criteria for abatement and specifically note reasons for not including mitigation. . Development of Draft EIS/EIR section. A Draft Noise EIS/EIR section will be developed based on the findings from the Final Technical Noise Report. Public Meetings. The preliminary noiseabatementdecision will be presented at community meetings held to solicit input from affected residents. Property -owner concurrence for the installation of noise 'barriers will be requested. Assumptions • The Project alternatives will not change as a result of public comment. • Up to three (3) community meetings will be held to present_ the Preliminary Noise Abatement Recommendations to affected residents once a Preferred Alternative has ` been determined for the Project. • Resident-approval/disapproval of the Preliminary Noise AbatementRecommendations will be reached during the community meetings or will be received°through written correspondence subsequent to the community meetings. Additional community meetings or coordination will not be required. • The Final Technical Noisereportwill present the Final Noise Abatement Recommendations. . Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study - The Natural Environment Study (NES) will address the following six resource areas: • Natural communities • Wetlands and other waters of the United States • Plant species • Animal species • Threatened and endangered species • Invasive species Biological resources surveys previously conducted will be used to support preparation of the NES: Natural Communities The Natural Communities section of.the Natural Environment. Study will discuss natural communities of concern within the Project area. The section will focus on biological communities (such as grasslands, riparian forest, etc.) and not individual plant or animal species. The section will also -discuss as appropriate, habitat fragmentation, wildlife migration routes and corridors, and/or fish passage. The.;conservation goals of the western Riverside MSHCP will be discussed, as well as the Project's compliance with this plan, specific to each Project Build alternative. 164 44 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Vetlands and other waters are protected under a number- of laws and regulations: At the federal level, the CWA (33 U.S.C.1344), administered by USACE is the primary law regulating wetlands and waters. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that no discharge of dredged or fill material can ;be.permitted if .a practicable: alternative exists, that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O.11990) also regulates the: activities'' of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds:1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and 2) the proposed Project includes all practicable ineasures;to minimize harm. At the state level,, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by CDFG under Section 1600. of the COFG Code and .by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA. (delegated by EPA). = The Wetlands and Other, Waters of the U.S. section of the NES will be based .upon a separate, stand-alone technical report, the Wetland Delineation Report, discussed in Subtask 5.12:1 of this scope of services and cost estimate. Key tasks that will be conducted to analyze the data provided by the Wetland Delineation Report in the Wetlands and Other Waters section of the NES will include the following: Potential'iinpacts will be described qualitatively/quantitatively by drainage location and impact type (permanent, temporary, direct, indirect) in terms of the quality and functions ofthe affected waters and wetlands and associated impacts. USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB jurisdictions will be identified. Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures will be identified to impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States: • Coordination and preconsultation will occur with USFWS; USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB to. evaluate 'o tions for impact -minimization and Pro PP, Project mitigation, as a ro riate, and Pj g ; ,, ,p identify waters and wetlands permits anticipated to be needed for the Project Build alternatives. Plant Species The Plant Species section of the NES will discuss special -status plant species ,that are not formally listed or proposed for, listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Environmental Species Act (CESA) Special -status plants that will be addressed include CDFG fully -protected species and species of special concern; USFWS candidate species; and nori-listed California. Native Plant Society (CLAPS) rare and endangered plants; as wellasthose ,coveredby.:;the western Riverside County MSHCP.:Common plant species that will be addressed include native and non-native; species, including landscaped areas. In addition, the Narrow "Endemic or Criteria Area Species; per the MSHCP will be analyzed. 165 The Plant Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys previously conducted. Animal Species The, Animal Species sectionof the NES will discuss special -status wildlife species that are not formally listed or proposed forlisting under FESA and/or CESA. Wildlife species that will be addressed include CDFG fully protected species and USFWS candidate species, those covered by the western Riverside County MSHCP, as well as common: wildlife species considered to. be endernic to the Project region or of particular biological interest. The Animal Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys previously conducted. Threatened and Endangered Species Threatened or endangered species are plants and animals that are formally listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA and/or CESA.`The Threatened and Endangered Species section of the NES will assess proposed or listed species and their critical habitat within the Project area. The Threatened and Endangered Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resourcessurveyspreviously. conducted. Invasive Species On February 3,1999, President Clinton signed Executive'Order 13112 requiring federal agencies. to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as "any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause econornic or environmental harm or harm to r human health." Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10,1999, directs the use of the state's noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis for the Project. The Invasive Species section of the NES will identify existing invasive plant and wildlife species .within the Project area andd discuss the potential of the Project to promote :or inhibit the spread of invasive species. The Project's compliance with FHWA and Caltrans guidance regarding landscape species used for ROW revegetation will also be addressed': Measures that can be implemented to combat invasive species will also be identified. The Invasive Species section of the NES will be based upon biological resources surveys that have been completed. NES Assumptions • Permit acquisition or agency .coordination in support of permit acquisition is anticipated to occur after a Preferred Alternative is identified and is riot included in this scope of services and cost estimate. • Preparation of a.Biological Assessment (BA) and associated formal consultation with the Resource Agencies is not required for the Project due to the coverage afforded under the 46 western Riverside County MSHCP and is therefore not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. No site visits are required. The NES will be based on data collected during biological resource surveys and mapping efforts that werecompleted as part of the biological survey report task. Vegetation mapping will only be conducted to identify habitat; types for: wildlife. Detailed vegetation community. mapping is not included: Invasive species surveys and mapping will not be conducted in association with this task. No biologically ;based Section 4(f) resources are included. Mitigation for species impacts is planned to consist of contributing; to an in -lie fee program that would manage all mitigation activities. Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports A"number of independent technical reports will be prepared to document the methodology and results of biological surveys conducted in association with the Project. Biological surveys are anticipated to be required for the following resources: Wetlands and waters .of the United States Burrowing owl Rare plants Riparian birds Vernal pool fairy shrimp Mammals General Wildlife - Subtask°5.12.1 Wetland Delineation Report A delineation of waters of. the United States including wetlands will be required throughout the Project area for Project impact analysis in the ED and permitting. Waters of the U.S: include major. water courses, minor drainage channels, and adjacent wetlands; including vernal pools and playas. The field survey effort in 2005 and 2006 will be documented in the Wetland Delineation` Report. Deliverable • The results of the delineation will be provided in a Wetland Delineation Report. Assumptions . Existing survey, data isexpectedto be sufficient for document approval..• 167 • All field surveys are completed and no additional field surveys are required. USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB verification of the jurisdictional determination will be obtained. • Additional field work with Iris Tubes is not included. • Because of the mapping requirements for this report, an additional E size plot will only be provided to RCTC (T copy), Caltrans, and USACE (lcopy). All other copies will have E size plots on a CD._ • Extra printing fees for E size plotting are estimated at $5,000.: Subtask 5.12.2 Burrowing Owl Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report The MSHCP requires surveys for the burrowing owl within a mapped area shown on Figure' 6-4 of the MSHCP. Habitat mapping and focused field surveys have been completed. Deliverable The results of the burrowing owl surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey. Repor suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • ... No additional field work is included. Subtask 5.12.3 Rare Plant Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report This task will be completed by CH2M HILL, with the assistance of staff :from UC Riverside and local botanical experts under subcontract with CH2M, HILL. Habitat mapping and focused field surveys have been completed. Deliverable The results of the rare plant surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions . • No additional field work is included. • Because of the mapping requirements for this report, an additional E size plot will only be provided to RCTC (1 copy) and Caltrans (lcopy). All other copies: will have E size plots on a CD. • Extra printing fees for E size plotting are estimated at $5,000. 168 48 Subtask 5.12.4 Riparian Bird Focused Survey Report The MSHCP requires surveys for riparian birds in suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo. (LBV), southwestern willow flycatcher, and the California yellow -billed cuckoo. A survey map for these habitats is not included in the MSHCP. Habitat mapping and focused field surveys have been completed for LBV and SWF. Deliverable The results of the riparian bird surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable, for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • Surveys for the California yellow -billed cuckoo are anticipated to not be required because of lack of suitable habitat. • No additional field work is included. Subtask 5.12.5 Vernal Pool Fairy. Shrimp Focused Survey Report Surveys for vernal pool and Riverside fairy shrimp are planned for the wet season of 2006- 2007 for 29. pools. Deliverable The results of the fairy shrimp surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for :incorporation in the NES. ;Assumptions ; Six focused survey site visits (3 people for 3 days each) collecting samples. Four site visits to track precipitation will be required`. GPS unit and four-wheel drive vehicle will be required. • Travel expenses will be required. • External support from a subconsultant is not included. Subtask 5.12.6 Mammal Focused Survey Report This task will be completed by SJM Consulting, under: subcontract to CH2M HILL.,. Figure 6-5 of the: MSHCP indicates areas that are to be surveyed for rnammals'(Los Angeles pocket mouse {LAPM] and .San Bernardino kangaroo rat {SBKR]) in the' northern portion of the Project study area. Habitat mapping and focused field surveys have been completed Deliverable The results of the mammal surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions • No additional field work is included. 169 49 Subtask 5.12.7 Golden Eagle Survey A golden eagle :survey was previously conducted for the Project. No additional funding is requested for this task as no additional work will be conducted for the Project. Future work may be necessary based on the proposed construction schedule. Subtask 5.12.8 Corridor Video This task was previously established to conduct a video of the Project alternatives. It will no longer be: included- in the Project activities. As such, no budget is included in this task. Subtask 5.12.9 General Wildlife focused Survey Report A General Wildlife Survey Report will be written to -document the additional species surveyed within the Project area. The volume of information about these species is most suitably reported in .a separate document. Habitat mapping and focused field surveys have been completed Deliverable The results of the general wildlife surveys will be provided in a Biological Survey Report, suitable for incorporation in the NES. Assumptions' • No additional field work is included.. Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis The Project is required to evaluate the impacts to the criteria area of the MSHCP. This analysis is only required for the Preferred Alternative and will be described within a document referred to as an Equivalency Analysis. The MSHCP Equivalency Analysis will address the following: • Effects on habitats • Effects on Planning Species proposed for Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks and 7 and Existing Constrained Linkage B • Effects on Core Areas (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map, Figure 3-2) • Effects on Linkages and Constrained Linkages (as identified on the MSHCP Schematic Cores and Linkages Map) • Effects on MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management (such as increases and decreases in edge) Additional Deliverables . This document isplanned to be submitted%reviewed. after the Preferred Alternative is selected for the Project.. 17.0 50 The deliverables for the MSCHP Equivalency Analysis will include a separate bound repot with two submittals, as listed below. The deliverables are the following: Draft MSCHP. Equivalency Analysis for submittal to RCTC Caltrans, RCA, .USFWS, .and .; CDFG (Submittal 1) • Response to comments in table format Coordination on comments (meeting/email/conference call) • Final MSCHP Equivalency Analysis with track changes from submittal 2 incorporated (Submittal 2) The format and number of copies for each submittal are provided below: Submittal 1 Two hard copies and two CDs of the Draft MSCHP EquivalencyAnalysis; for submittal to RCTC RCA, USFWS, and CDFG • Five hard copies and five CDs of the Draft MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to Caltrans Submittal 2: Two hard copies and two CDs of the Final MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to RCTC, RCA, USFWS, and CDFG Five hard copies and five CDs of the Final MSCHP Equivalency Analysis for submittal to Caltrans MSHCP Equivalency Analysis Assumptions The NES will be submitted with the Equivalency Analysis ,to document impacts for the Project: The Equivalency Analysis will not represent the impact analysis; but rather present a brief summary based on the information included in the NES. The Biological Survey Reports completed for the Project will also be .provided with the Equivalency Analysis. The Equivalency Analysis will.,not include detailed, survey data for each species. An analysis of the acres: for each °Criteria Cell is .not required for the Project. A HANS application is not required for the Project... Based on the current Project Build Alternatives, it is expected that a number of MSHCP Section 7.0 requirements will be determined to already be addressed and resolved from previous coordination as part of the NEPA/404 MOU integration team. This specifically; includes siting and design discussions/justifications-and avoidance/minimization requirements for survey species and riparian and riverine habitats. Detailed mitigation plans for any species or habitat are not included :in this analysis. The Project will not require a minor or major amendment to the MSHCP. 171 • • • Biological subconsultants that conducted focused surveys will not be required to coordinate responses to any comments. • Impacts to all vernal pools and listed, survey species will be avoided. Task 514 Corridor Video Survey This task is not included. No additional funding is requested for this task. Task 5.15 Cultural Resources Phase 2 Site Testing (Optional Task): This task will beperformedby. Applied Earthworks, under subcontract to CH2M HILL. FINAL RESOURCE EVALUATION AND TREATMENT ResourcesEvaluation Planning. Now that the resources identification phase is nearly. complete, several critical decisions regarding evaluation of cultural resources along the Project alternatives are required. These decisions must take account of complex issues. Prior to any actual Project pernmitting and ground disturbance, -consultation under Section 106 of .the National Historic Preservation Act must be completed for all historic properties that may be adversely affected. This is atime-consuming process that may include test excavations, reporting, agency and Native American consultation for archaeological sites,. and additional archival research and: documentation for historic structures.,. Furthermore, for archaeological resources andhistorical structures that are: found to be eligible for National Register listing, and that will be affected by the Project, further treatments will be required to mitigate Project effects. Such treatments may include data -recovery :excavations for archaeological resources, detailed drawings and photographs for historic structures, or avoidance of effects through demarcation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), where feasible. The sections, below, identify the activities that will ultimately be required for resources evaluation. However, until decisions arereachedregarding the numbers and types of resources that will require evaluation, and the schedule of those evaluations, costs cannot be estimated accurately_ Nonetheless; preliminary cost estimates to initiate the following tasks are provided so that, in the event agency consultation results in decisions to expedite site evaluations before the selection of the Preferred Alternative or Record of Decision, the activities below can be initiated. Archaeological Evaluation Proposal. JE would develop an Archaeological Evaluation Proposal. This report would state the goals of the study and clearly establish the field and laboratory methods that would be used to evaluate the National Register eligibility of archaeological (prehistoric and historical) sites. It would include a research design; background information, and discussion of the regional research issues. Curation-plans, permits, time requirements, and personnel would also be addressed. Preliminary cost estimates include a proposal for six prehistoric and/or historical archaeological sites. 172 52 Continuing Agency Coordination. 1E would provide ongoing coordination with Caltrans,` FHWA; SHPO throughout the Evaluation process. This consultation would focus on ensuring that work completed under this Scope of Work complies with the requirements. of these Agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. 1-E would continue its role: to ensure Native American and interested parties consultation for the Project continues :in compliance with the requirements of Section 106. Archaeological Evaluation. This task involves completing suitable evaluation` excavations to allow characterization of the: horizontal and vertical extent of each investigated site, .as well as characterization of the site contents and development of a recommendation" as to the National Register eligibility of the site. The evaluation would include the use of shovel testing, geomorphological'trenching, soils analysis, and test excavation units to assess: site - contents, extent, age, structure, and integrity. Post -field activities wouldinclude artifact cataloguing; sorting, and technical analyses of flaked and ground stone, faunal and floral material, historic artifacts, obsidian, shell, and carbon. The evaluation program would assess significance and integrity, and formulate mitigation recommendations for site treatment. Preliminary costs include an average per site (prehistoric or Historical) estimate for fieldwork, laboratory processing, and artifact analysis at six. sites. ` Archaeological Evaluation Report. iE would develop an Archaeological Evaluation Repor (AER). The AER would provide the basis for determining whether sites within the APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It would also assess :the .potential for.`Project effects on the qualities that contribute to a site's NRHP eligibility. The report would document the fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. Preliminary cost estimates include evaluations for six sites (prehistoric or historical). Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Upon: completion of site. evaluations; E would complete a Supplemental HPSR. The Supplementall-IPSR would. be used by Caltrans%FHWA for consultation with the SHPQ`regarding eligibility of ;those sites that had not been 'tested prior to the DEIS, but which were presumed eligible. It would include National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and, as appropriate, a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect,with Standard. Conditions. The Supplemental HPSR would present` a stimm.a.ry of findings, document public :participation' (including Native American consultation), describe properties .identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register,'- and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The Supplemental HPSR .would have a location. map, Project vicinity map, and APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs plans, and other ra hies. The Su lemental HPSR will contain the followin attachments as g,p.. Pp g appropriate: Archaeological Survey Report, Extended Phase I Survey.; Report, Archaeological Evaluation Report, and letters from :any concernedor interested parties. Development of a.Su Supplemental Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect for PP g . tX .. g . , the Studied Resources. 'IE would work with RCTC/FHWA/Caltrans-to develop a Supplemental Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect, if necessary, for the newly evaluated resources. 173 Curation. IE would coordinate the curation of materials collected during the site evaluations and during earlier Extended Phase1 evaluations. With approval from Caltrans/FHWA, the San Bernardino County Museum; the closest repository that satisfies the National Park Service guidelines (36 CFR 79) and best meets the Project/agency needs would be used as the repository. Preparing the collections and transferring them to the identified facility will be most expeditiously addressed on a Project -wide basis at the conclusion of site evaluations and any necessary archaeological site treatment, after the number and types of artifacts and documents can be estimated. Therefore, a preliminary. cost estimate is provided for consulting with the San Bernardino County Museum to obtain accession numbers for the collections, preparing the collections (up to 50 boxes), and then transferring the material to the curation facility. Assumptions This effort is to be completed after the Draft EIS/EIR is circulated, but prior to the Final: EIS/EIR and Record of Decision. , A change of the Project schedule is not included to perform this work for the Project. A single evaluation report (Archaeological Evaluation Report) will be used to document the results of the evaluations at .both prehistoric and historical archaeological components. A-supplemental<HRER would not be used or required. If resources are found to be eligible for the NRHP and require further treatment, such as data recovery excavation or"HABS/HAER documentation, thosetreatments would occur after the ROD and land acquisition, and are not part .of.this scope. If further testing is conducted to discover buried archaeological sites; this would occur after ROW acquisition, and therefore, is not included in .this estimate. Likewise, cultural and paleontological resource management activities related to construction (e.g., treatment plans, construction monitoring, Native American consultation, treatment of discoveries, etc.) are not included -in this estimate. • If archaeological resources are found to be eligible for the NRHP as a result of testing and evaluation, a Finding of 'Effectwould be developed prior to the ROD, but a Memorandum of Agreement for site treatment would be negotiated after the ROD and is not included in this budget: 174 Task 6.0 Environmental Document Task 6.`0 replaces Task 4.0 in the previous contract. Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates This task. will no longer be conducted. No additional funding is requested. Task ;6.2 Administrative Draft EMIR The EDwill be prepared as a joint ED in compliance with NEPA regulations and the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Caltrans:and FHWA procedures. Based on the scope and coiplexity.' of the Project,it is assumed that an EIS/EIR, meeting state and federal requirements,.will be necessary for Project approval. Caltrans-accepted format for a- joint environmental_ "' document will be used for preparation of the EIS/EIR as previously approved`for the Project.Caltrans will serve as the state lead agency under CEQA; while FHWA will serve as federal lead agency under NEPA. The USACE will be a Cooperating. Agency, while ROTC would be a Responsible Agency. CH2M HILL will prepare a joint EIS/EIR that identifies, evaluates, and analyzes, potential' environmental impacts of the Build alternatives proposed to undertake the Project, in-, addition to the No Build alternative. The administrative draft EIS/EIR will include the chapters' and content discussed below. Summary.. This section of the EIS/ EIR will providea summary of the Project Build alternatives and associated environmental impacts. The summary will identify, he list_° permit' approvals, and cooperating .agencies and responsible agencies associated with the Project. Purpose of and Need for Project.. This section of the .EIS/EIR will be based on the information developed as part of the Final Purpose and Need document (CH2M HILL; December-18, 2003). Changes to the Project Purpose and Need as described, in this document are not included in this scope of services and cost estimate. Project Alternatives Description.. This section of the EIS/EIR will be based on:. information developed during preparation of the Project Alternatives: Description (see Task 4.0`of this scope of services and cost estimate). Affected' Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, . and/or Mitigation Measures. This section of the EIS/EIR will be based upon the technical, analysis conducted for the Environmental Technical Reports outlined in :Task 5.0;of this scope of services and cost estimate. The EIS%EIR will;provide.a description of existing conditions and the regional/local environmental setting: This. section will provide an equally detailed evaluation of impacts for each of the Project Build alternatives and the No Build alternative. Steps taken to avoid or minimize 175 impacts will be identified in this section, along with appropriate recommendations for the implementation of specific mitigation measures to reduce the severity of impacts, if required. • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Plan will incorporate all the mitigation measures developed in the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. The basic features of the Plan, will include the following: Each mitigation measure, grouped by environmental category, will be listed in a table format providing the following information: - Mandating authority, permit, or document - Responsible party - Plan sheet(s) with specified mitigation measure - Specific tasks and subtasks under each general measure - Timing/frequency of each task (e.g., preconstruction, construction, postconstruction, and frequency) - Verification approval for each measure upon completion of task or major milestone This section of the EIS/EIR will address the following main environmental topics: Human Environment -- - Land :Use (including parks and recreation) Growth Farmlands/ Agricultural Lands - Community Impacts (including community character and cohesion, relocations, and environmental justice) Economics " - Utilities/Services Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Visual/Aesthetics. - Cultural Resources Physical Environment - Paleontological Resources - Hydrology and Floodplains - Water Quality and Storm Water Run -Off - Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography/Mineral Resources Hazardous Waste/Materials - Air Quality - Noise - Energy Biological Environment - Natural Communities 56 - Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States - Plant Species - 'Animal Species Threatened and Endangered Species Invasive Species Cumulative Impacts. The Cumulative Impacts section of the EIS/EIR,will iden potential. cumulative effects of the Project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. The effort for this task will .be conducted. under Subtask 6.2.2, discussed below. California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation. The evaluation of significant impacts under CEQA will be addressed as a separate section of the EIS/EIR, independent from the analysis of impacts under NEPA, as required by Caltrans. This section will identify impacts associated with the Project Build alternatives and .the No Build alternative and determine the significance of these impacts based primarily on the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist, and on other applicable Caltrans, FHtNA, and local agency standards, if available. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts will be identified. Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Develop Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for properties affected by the Project alternatives. This will include the information attached to the. Community Impact Assessment, NES, and Cultural Resources. technical reports. Only 3 Historic Properties are assumed for this evaluation. Deliverables The Administrative Draft EIS/EIR will be concurrently reviewed by RCTC, Caltrans District 8, Caltrans Headquarters, DEA/Legal, FHWA, and otherCooperating Agencies (USAGE). The objective of this task is to revise the Draft EIS/ EIR twice The deliverables for the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR are identified below: • Administrative Draft EIS/EIR One set of comments will be received from this review Assumptions • Reviewing Agencies and copies: RCTC: 2 hard copies District 8: 2 hard copies Caltrans Headquarters: 2 hard copies DEA:1.hard copy Caltrans Legal:1 hard copy 177 FHWA: 2 hard copies USACE . (Cooperating Agency):1 hard copy • NO Other agencies are included in this review cycle. No new cooperating agencies or reviewing responsible agencies are included. • A total of 11 Draft EIS/EIR copies per review (11 total) are included in this task. . • The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $750. • Copies of technical studies will not be required to be submitted as part of this task::; • To avoid unnecessary additional or duplicative effort in preparation of the EIS/EIR;the ; content will be based on the Environmental Technical Reports. No changes from the . technical report text or figures will be included. Only section number- and figure numbers will be updated:. A reduction in the volume of text from the technical reports is not included. • Caltrans District 8 will complete the QC Review. Certification. • Revisions to the Draft EIS/EIR requiring new research or new analysis in response to -comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR is not included. • All figures will be prepared without.the word "Draft" or "Draft Not for Public Circulation". This new approach will help to conserve budget on the GIS task. As such, draft GIS figures in the Draft EIS/EIR could also be used as final figures in the Final EIS/EiR. • • No additional reviews will be created for the Project. All figures approved from the Final Environmental Technical Reports will be used to build the Draft EIS/EIR. Revisions to those figures will not be required. The CTC as a Responsible Agency will receive their copy of the EIR during public circulation. Comments from the CTC will be incorporated during. response to public comments. • Revisions to the Selected Build alternative based on new information or a revised construction scenario are not included. • The Draft EIS/EIR is expected to require a total of 3, 4" binders. After all 3 binders are prepared, only two are expected to have edits. Volume 3 is expected to contain appendix materials. • A limited amount of time has been included to respond to comments. • Shipping each document is estimated to .be $20. • Changes to the review or approval process potentially required for the Project have not been included for FHWA NEPA Delegation to Caltrans. • Study methods, approaches, and results presented in the Environmental Technical Reports prepared as part of Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate, will not 178. 58 require modification or reassessment prior to incorporation of technical report material'" into the Draft EIS/EIR. No additional,Environmental Technical Reports will be required to support preparation of the EIS%EIR. No changes from the Final Environmental Technical Reports will be included in the Draft EIS/EI.R. SHPO consultation must be completed prior submitting the :planned deliverables from this task to RCTC and Ca!trans. The Purpose of and Need for the Project will not vary from that defined in the Final Purpose and Need document (CH2M HILL, December 18, 2003). Final Agreement will be received by the federal agencies and a new agreement or revision to the existing agreement is not necessary. The Project Alternatives Description will not require any revisions from the description. developed- as part of Task .4.0.of this scope of services and cost estimate. It has been determined that a stand-alone technical report is not required to address::, potential energy consumption associated with the Project. As a result; this section will be developed solely for inclusion in the EIS/EIR and will describe existing energy,` consumption and anticipated energy use in association with the Project Build alternatives; including vehicles and equipment during construction and vehicles, maintenance, and street lighting during operation. Participating Agencies as part of SAFETEA-LU will not apply to the Project, nor will additional review documents or cycles be required. Task 6.3 Draft EIS/EIRPreparation Task 6.3.1 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation When comments are received from the review of the Administrative Draft, the Draft EIS/EIR will be prepared. The :review of the proposed Draft EIS/EIR>will occur to confirm that comments have been addressed as requested by the commenting agency. Deliverables The Draft EIS/EIR will be concurrently reviewed by ROTC, Caltrans District 8; Caltrans Headquarters, DEA/Legal, FHWA, and other Cooperating Agencies (USACE). Once reviewed, it is assumed to be ready to be circulated to the public. Deliverables The deliverables for the Draft EIS/EIR are identified below:. Draft EIS/EIR • No comments are expected from this review 179 • Assumptions • Reviewing Agencies and copies per review cycle: RCTC: 2 hard copies District 8: 2 hard copies Caltrans Headquarters: 2 hard copies DEA:1 hard copy Caltrans Legal: 1 hard copy FHWA: 2 hard copies USACE (Cooperating Agency):1 hard copy • No other agencies are included in this review cycle. No new cooperating agencies or reviewing responsible agencies are included. • A total of 11 Draft EIS/EIR copies per review (11 total) are includedin this task. • The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $750. • Copies 'of technical studies will not be required to be submitted as part of: this task. • To avoid unnecessary additional or duplicative: effort in preparation of the EIS/EIR, the content will be based on the Environmental Technical Reports. No changes from the technical report text or figures will be included: Only section number and figure numbers will be updated. A reduction in the volume of text from the technical reports is not included. • Caltrans District 8 will complete ,the QC Review Certification. • Revisions to the Draft EIS/ EIR_requiring new research or new analysis in response to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR is not included. • All figures will be prepared without the word "Draft" or "Draft - Not for Public Circulation". This new approach will help to conserve budget on the GIS task. As such, draft GIS figures in the Draft EIS/EIR could also be used as final figures in the Final EIS/EIR. • All figures approved from the Final Environmental Technical Reports will be used to build the Draft EIS/EIR. Revisions to those figureswillnot be required. • No additional reviews will be created for the Project. • The CTC as a Responsible Agency will receive their copy of the EIR during public circulation. Comments from the CTC will be incorporated during responseto public comments: • Revisions to the Selected Build alternative based on new information or a revised construction scenario are not included. 180 so • The Draft EIS/ EIR is expected to require a total of 3, 4" binders. After all 3 binders are ` prepared, only two are expected to have edits. Volume 3 is expected to contain appendix. materials. A limited amount of time has been included to respond to comments.. Shipping each document is estimated to be $20. Changes to the review or approval process potentially required for the Project have not been included for FHWA NEPA Delegation to Caltrans. Study methods, approaches, and results presented in the Environmental Technical : Reports prepared as part of Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate,,. will not require modification or reassessment prior to incorporation of technical report material into the Draft EIS/EIR. No additional Environmental Technical Reports will be required to support preparation of the EIS/ EIR. No changes from the Final Environmental Technical Reports will be included: in the Draft EIS/EIR. SHPO consultation must be completed prior submitting the planneddeliverables from ` this task to RCTC and Caltrans. The Purpose of and Need for the Project will not vary from that defined in the Final Purpose and Need document (CH2M HILL, December 18, 2003).. Final Agreement will be received by the federal agencies and a new agreement or revision to the existing agreement is not necessary. The Project Alternatives Description will not require any revisions from the description developed as part of Task 4.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate. It has been determined that -a stand-alone technical report is not required to address ` potential energy consumption associated with the Project. As a result, this section will be developed solely for inclusion in the EIS/EIR and will describe existing energy consumption and anticipated energy use in association with the Project Build alternatives, including vehicles and equipment_ during construction and vehicles, maintenance, and street lighting during operation. Participating Agencies as part of SAFETEA-LU will not apply to the Project, nor will: additional review documents or cycles be required. Task 6.3.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts The cumulative analysis will be based upon the individual resource analysis of cumulative impacts conducted as part of the Environmental Technical Reports (see Task 5.0 of this scope of services and cost estimate) with consideration of a specific set of cumulative projects, identified in consultation with the County of Riverside and Cities of Hemet an -San Jacinto. 181 • • Deliverables • The cumulative impacts analysis will be presented as a chapter of the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR. No separate deliverables will be developed or produced as part of this task. Assumptions • All existing Project information is currently completed. • The Cumulative Projects for consideration for this task will be completed per the response at the February. PDT meeting. • Future coordination with the local agencies will not be required to track down information pertaining to the cumulative analysis. • Updates to the cumulative analysis will not be conducted after February 2007. • Any future. coordination with the local agencies pertaining to upcoming projects, if required, will be coordinatedas part of the PDT Meeting task. Task 6.4 Draft EISIEIR Circulation After reviewer comments have been incorporated into the Draft EIS/EIR and it is approved to circulate as part of Task 0.3, the public Draft EIS/EIR will be printed and distributed as part of this task: Deliverables • Up to 20 hard copies and 100 CDs of the Draft EIS/EIR will be provided for distribution. Assumptions • No edits to the Draft EIS/EIR will be included aspartof this task. • To reduce the number of printed documents, the EIS/EIR will be posted to the Project website and distributed -to libraries and other public places. • The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $750. All agencies and people will not receive a hard copy of the Public Draft EIS/EIR. • The Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse will be provided with multiple copies of the Draft EIS/EIR for distribution to state agencies. A Notice of Completion (NOC) will be completed to assist the State Clearinghouse with information about the distribution of the Draft EIS/EIR. • The distribution list to be used will be compiled as part of Task 1.4 Other Meetings. • All documents will be delivered in a trackable method (FEDEX, UPS, USPS). • Shipping each document is estimated to be $20. • The Draft EIS/EIR will not require recirculation and a secondpublic review. 62 Task 6.5 Public Involvement Subtask 65.1: Revised Scoping This task is completed. No additional funding is requested. Subtask 6.5.2 Public Information Meeting This task will no longer be conducted. Any public meetings are included in Task 1:4 Other Meetings. No additional funding is requested. Subtask 6.5.3 Draft EISIEIR Public Noticing CH2M HILL will prepare and provide the NEPA NOA to FHWA for publication in the Federal Register and prepare and file the CEQA Notice of. Completion (NOC) with the Office . of Planningand Research. These notices publish the fact that the Draft EIS -EIR is completed .; P / . P . and available for public distribution, and identify the specific time period for delivering comments to the Lead Agencies and the dates of any public hearings on the .Draft .ElS/:EIR.' The notices will also be sent to all parties that request a copy during the environmental review process, published in a local newspaper in the Project area, and posted on the Project website. Deliverables Draft NOA and NOC for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, USACE, and FHWA Revised Draft NOA and NOC in track changes for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, USACE; and FHWA Final NOA and NOC for publication Assumptions FHWA will coordinate the posting of the NOA with EPA in the Federal Register CH2M .HILL will coordinate with Caltrans to publish the NOC with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. All submittals will be provided via email in electronic files. Subtask 65.4 Public Hearings Up to four public: hearings: are anticipated to be held for the Project. Three facilitated meeting(S) will be held in the City of Hemet, City of San Jacinto, and community of - Winchester for the Draft EIS/EIR. One formal hearing, held as part of a regular RCTC Commission meeting, is anticipated for the final EIS/EIR. CH2M HILL will provide support to RCTC and Geographies for the public hearings conducted in association with. the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. Support will include up to four engineering/environmental.consulting` staff to attend the Draft EIS/EIR public hearings and .up to two staff to attend the Final " EIS/EIR public hearing, answer questions, and ;otherwise assist with conducting the hearings. The comments received at the public hearings for the Draft EIS/EIR will be summarized as part of the Response to Comments task and included as an'appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. 183 No meeting summary reports will be prepared for public 'hearings conducted for the Draft or Final EIS/EIR. Deliverables • CH2M HILL attendance and support for up to four public hearings. • Geographies will provide the following in support of the public -hearings for the Draft EIS/EIR: - Meeting/locations for up to three public hearings Newspaper announcements for the public hearings = Direct -mail public hearing invitations to stakeholders - Public hearing flyers for distribution in public locations (converted from newspaper announcements) . — Stakeholder Newsletter for use at public hearings Public hearing materials, including displays, sign -in sheets, comment cards, and PowerPoint presentation Assumptions . • Up to four ;public hearings are assumed. to be held for the Project. It is assumed that three hearings will be held for the Draft EIS/EIR in the City of Hemet, City of San . Jacinto, and community of Winchester; and an additional fourth hearing will be held for the Final EIS%EIR as part of a regular RCTC Commission meeting. • Geographies will be responsiblefor preparation of meeting displays, -sign -in sheets, comment cards, handouts, and any presentations required for the public hearings in the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and community of Winchester. • Geographies will arrange for meeting facilities and newspaper notices for the public hearings in the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and community of Winchester. • Meeting facilities are assumed to be obtained free of charge. • The comments received at the public hearings for the Draft EiS/EIR will be included in an appendix of the Final EIS/EIR. Public attendance, meeting materials, and other meeting specifics will not be documented in the Final EIS/EIR: • Due to the nature of RCTC Commission meetings, meeting materials for the•Final EIS/ EIR public hearing will be limited to a PowerPoint presentation. Meeting displays, sign -in sheets, .comment cards, and handouts will not be required. • Court 'reporting services and/or formal transcripts will not be required at the public hearings for the Draft EIS/EIR: RCTC will arrange for transcription services at the public hearing for the Final EIS/EIR, as part of the regularly scheduled°RCTC Commission meeting. • A separate Public Hearing Report will not be prepared for the public hearings. 184 64 Subtask 6.5.5 Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing' CH2M HILL will prepare and provide the NEPA NOA to FHWA=for publication in the Federal Register. This notice identifies that the Final EIS/EIR is completed" and available for public review. The notices will also be sent to all parties that request a copy during public review, published in a local newspaper in the Project area, and posted on the Project website. Deliverables Draft NOA for submittal to ROTC, Caltrans, USAGE, and FHWA ,. Revised Draft NOA in track changes for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, USACE, and FHWA Final NOA for publication Assumptions • FHWA will coordinate the posting of the NOA with EPA in the Federal Register • An NOC will not be required for coordination with the State Clearinghouse. The final NOD will be filed with the State Clearinghouse. Task-6.6 Final EISIEIR Subtask 6.6,1 Response to Comments Upon close of the public review period on the Draft ED, CH2M HILL will organize comments on the Draft EIS/EIR submitted to the Project website; submitted in writing;or. presented .at the public hearings. CH2M HILL will confer with Caltrans and FHWA to review written comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and comments from the,.public hearing to develop a general framework and _strategies for preparation of responses. Written, responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR will be prepared and submitted for review.. Responses that are included in this scope of services and cost estimateconsist of explanations, elaborations, or clarifications of the data contained in .the Draft EIS/EIR• new analysis is not included. Deliverables The responses to comments will be included in the preparation of the Final EIS/EIR'and not reviewed as a separate document. Assumptions • For estimating purposes, up to 100 comment letters with 200 total written comments are anticipated. Of this total, approximately 50 comments will, require evaluation to develop responses to comments. • No new analysis,. Project description changes, new alternatives, or other Project: changes will need to be addressed to respond to comments. • Other Cooperating Agencies, Responsible Agencies or agencies commenting on a draft of this deliverable will be incorporated into one of the review steps above. 185 r • ,A limited amount of time has been included to respond to comments. • No additional reviews will be created for this task. Subtask 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable finding After the Preferred Project Alternative is identified, an assessment will be made as to whether it will result in a significant encroachment to .the floodplain. A "significant encroachment" is defined in 23 CFR 650.105 as a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood -related impacts: A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route • A significant risk to life or property • A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values _ If the Preferred Alternative will result in a significant encroachment to the floodplain, the Final EIS/EIR will include a finding that it is the only practicable alternative. The finding , will be supported by the following: • The reasons the proposed action must be located in the floodplain The alternatives considered and whythey were not practicable A statement indicating Whether the proposed action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards Assumptions • The floodplain encroachment only practicable alternative finding will be based on information 'determined in the location hydraulic study and the. F000dplain Evaluation Report. Subtask 6.6.3 final Section 4(f) Evaluation Develop Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for properties affected by the Preferred Alternative (when determined applicable by the FHWA based on the Community Impact Assessment). It is assumed that the Section 4(f) Evaluation in the Final EIS%EIR will evaluate all Section 4(f) impacts along the Preferred Alternative. Assumptions • The Section 4(f) Evaluation will be included as an -appendix to the Final EIS/EIR. • A total of 3 historic properties are included in this analysis. Subtask 6.6.4 Final EISIEIR Preparation The Final EIS/EIR will continue to be reviewed by ROTC, Caltrans, DEA/Legal, FHWA, and other Cooperating or Responsible Agencies. The objective of this task is to .revise the Final EIS/EIR.until it is approved. The list of submittals, their reviewing agencies, and the 66 number of copies are presented below. The review periods and agencies are determined based on the Caltrans Memorandum, Revised EIS Review Procedures (March 28, 2003). In addition to the existing material included in the Draft EIS/EIR; this additional _ information will be included in the document: • .Final Preferred Alternative/LEDPA • Findings and, Statement of Overriding Considerations :. A list of all persons, agencies and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR/EIR • A copy of each comment received Response to Comments table per Task 6.6:1 • MSHCP Consistency Determination Letter from USF'WS/CDFG Deliverables The -deliverables for :the Draft Final EIS/EIR are identified below: •, Draft Final EIS/EIR Comments Received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR • Revised Final EIS/EIR • The Revised Final EIS/EIR is expected to be ready to finalize and will not need an additional revisions. Assumptions • Reviewing Agencies and copies per review cycle: RCTC:.2'hard copies District 8: 2 hard copies Caltrans Headquarters: 2 hard copies DEA: 1 hard .copy Caltrans Legal 1 hard copy FHWA 2 hard copies USACE (Cooperating Agency):1 hard copy A total .of 11 Fina1'EIS/EIR.copies per review (22 total) are included in this task.. The cost of each individual EIS/ EIR document is estimated to be $750.:. Copies of technical studies will not need to be recirculated ao agencies while.. reviewing/approving the Final EIS/EIR. All figures will be prepared without the word "Draft" or "Draft - Not for Public Circulation" or "Final". This new approach will help to conserve budget on the GIS tas 187 67 As such, draft GIS figures in .the Draft EIS/EIR could also be used as final figures in the Final EIS/ EIR. • All figures approved from the Draft EIS/EIR will be used to build the Final EIS/EIR. Revisions to those figures will not be required. Also, only 3 new 11x17 figures will be required to identify the Final Project Selected Alterantive: • No additional reviews will be created for the Project. • FHWA or. Caltrans HQ will :not require an additional review to consider the cumulative mitigation required for the Project. • A revision or reorganization of the Project description will not be included to respond to public comments or complete the draft of the Final EIS/EIR'. • The Final EIS/EIR is expected to require a total of 3, 4" binders: After all binders are prepared, only two are expected to have edits. Volume 3 is expected to contain appendix materials. • Commentsin the Final EIS/EIR are only expected on the new material. A limited " amount of time has been included to respond to comments. • The Final EIS/ EIR will not need to be reorganized. The effort in this task is related -to including the response to comments and a discussion of the Selected Alternative for e Project. Only edits to existing text are included. No new analysis or mixing and r matching of the alternatives are included. • No new analysis will be conducted or presented for the Project. All responses will be developed from existing information previously presented in the DraftEIS/EIR. • It is assumed that the agency Preferred Alternative would be consist with the results of the analysis, local agencies* requests, and public comments and requests. • Biological subconsultants that conducted focused surveys will not be required to coordinate responses to any public comments or revisions to the EIS/EIR. • Visual work or participation by the visual subconsultant will not be required to coordinate responses to any public comments or revisions to the EIS/EIR. • Changes to the review or approval process potentially required for the Project have not been included for FHWA NEPA Delegation to Caltrans. • Revisions to the Selected Build alternative based on new information or a revised construction scenario are not included. • The CTC as a Responsible Agency will not comment on the Final EIR. Comments requiring coordination will be resolved during :the Response to Comments period. Subtask 6.6.5 Final EISlEIR Circulation After reviewer comments have been incorporated into the Final EIS/EIR and it is approved by, FHVVA to circulate as part of Task 6.6.4, the public Final EIS/EIR will be printed and distributed as part of this task. 188 68 Deliverables Up to 20 hard copies and 100 CDs of the Final EIS/ EIR will be .provided. Assumptions • To reduce the number of printed documents, the Final EIS/EIR will beposted to the . Project website. The cost of each individual EIS/EIR document is estimated to be $750. Documents will only be shipped to those that require a Final EIS/EIR: Other copies will be provided to RCTC for their files. The Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse will be provided *ith copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to state agencies as required All documents will be 'delivered in a trackable method (FEDEX 'UPS psps). Shipping each document is estimated to be $20. Caltrans will complete the EIR Certification form for the Project. Task i.7 ProjectApprovals The following actives are required for approving the Project. Subtask 6.7.1 Water Permitting and Coordination The Project is anticipated to require a water permits for impacts to jurisdictional areas. These are expected to include: Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Department of the Army Section 404 Individual Permit from the US Army .Corps of: Engineers Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game Collectively, these three permits are referred to. as Permit Applications. Deliverables Draft Permit Applications for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, FHVVA, USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB (Submittal 1) • Revised Draft Permit Applications in track changes for submittal to RCTC,Caltrans FHWA, USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB (Submittal 2) • Final Permit Applications for submittal to ROTC, Caltrans,: FHVVA, USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB (Submittal 3) 189 69 Assumptions • Each Submittal will consist of just the permit application form. All other corresponding Project documents are assumed to have already been received by the permitting agencies. • Each agency will prepare theirrespective public notices. Notices will be published by each agency concurrent with the circulation of the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. • Mitigation for wetlands/waters impacts is planned to consist of._contributing to an in -lie fee program that would manage all replacement/enhancement activities. As such, a Conceptual Mitigation Plan is not included in any deliverable. • The delineation document will not be required to be revised. The previously approved document will be used to support each permit application. The permit application will define the Build Alternative that was selected for the Project and will include calculations based on: the results of the NES and EIS/ EIR. • It is assumed that EPA will not be required to review or participate in the permitting activities for the Project. Nor is it assumed that EPA would rescind the permit approvals from USACE and. RWQCB. • Permit applications will not be updated after submittal for each subsequent agency update to their forms: • It is assumed that Permit Applications will not be denied for the Project. • The USACE will define their No Action Alternative. This will not be incorporated as an existing activity under any Project. task. • The USACE will prepare their public notices and Record of Decision, required for the Project. • The RWQCB will -prepare their own public notices. • It is assumed that no other previously completed task for the Project (biological or wetland/waters surveys, analysis, alternatives description, or alternatives selection) will be required to be revisited to acquire :the final permits. • All permits will be submitted after the Project LEDPA is identified and approved. An exceptiontothis would includea preliminary Section 401 Certification, which the RWQCB requires to establish funding for the review of the Draft EIS/ EIR per public circulation. The Draft 401 Certification application will only be reviewed by RCTC and Caltrans District 8, prior to submittal. No comments will be.received on this deliverable from this application. Also, much of the required information will not be able to be provided, as a LEDPA will not be determined at this point in the Project schedule. • The 401 Certification Application will be reviewed at the regional level and not be required to be submitted to the State Water Resources Board. It is assumed that one region will defer,their authority in approving the permit application. 190 70 The response from the MSHCP consistency analysis from RCA/ USFWS/ CDFG will, be all that is required to meet the requirements of determining impacts to biological species for the Section 404 Individual Permit. A Biological Assessment is not required, nor would a formal consultation period with USFWS. No other reviewers are included, other than those presented, will, be included in this process. . • FHWA or Caltrans HQ will not require an additional review to consider thecumulative mitigation required for the Project. All .permit programs are expected to be active and functioning for the timeframe required by the Project. Biological subconsultants that conducted focused surveys will not be required to coordinate responses to any comments. • Permit fees will be paid directly from RCTC Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan will no longer be a separate task; but included in Task 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR Preparation as a brief table. Task 6.9 Route Adoption A route adoption will be required for the Project because the realignment of SR 79 will need to be approved as a new alignment of a state facility of an existing route, maintained by. Caltrans. The two criteria applied to the Project are defined in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual for this action. They include: 1) a new alignment for an existing route, and 2) establishment of a location for an unconstructed route. This activity is anticipated to be primarily managed by RCTC and Caltrans. CH2M HILL will: support this activity by preparing the memorandum required for California' Transportation Commission (CTC) review and approval. As stated in Caltrans Project Development Procedures -Manual CH2M HILL's work will include preparing a reproducible map showing the planned location of the route by a singly heavy . line and describing the location of the segment for adoption and the segment to be relinquished. Deliverables • .Administrative Draft Route Adoption Memo for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 1) Revised Draft Route Adoption Memo in track changes for submittal RCTC and Caltrans (Submittal 2) Final Route Adoption Memo for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and CTC (Submittal 3) 191 Assumptions • It is assumed the existing portion. of SR 79 will be relinquished to the local agencies upon adoption of the new alignment. • RCTC and Caltrans District 8 will manage the communication: and scheduling of the Route Adoption hearing. • Revisions to the memo will not be required by the CTC. • This memorandum is expected to be brief and less than 5 pages with only one black and white line drawing figure. • A Modified Access Report or Freeway Agreement is not expected to be required for the Project, as such, it is not included. Task 6.10 Notice of Determination and Record of Decision A Notice of Determination (NOD) and Record of Decision, (ROD) will be required to be completed for the final approval of the Project per CEQA and NEPA, respectively. The NOD will be a joint notice first approved by Caltrans, then by CTC at the conclusion of the CTC Route Adoption. When approved, the joint NOD will be posted prior to the completion of the ROD by FHWA. FHWA will assume lead authorship to the ROD. CH2M HILL will assist RCTC by reviewing the draft ROD and providing comments to RCTC. - NOD Deliverables • Administrative Draft NOD for submittal to RCTC and Calimns • Revised Administrative Draft NOD in track changes for submittal to RCTC and Caltrans • Final NOD for Caltrans and CTC signature ROD Deliverables • One set of electronic review comments of the ROD submitted to RCTC for coordination with FHWA • One electronic review of the Final ROD to determine if changes were made as requested. Assumptions • FHWA will draft the ROD per previous coordination that the agency must take primary authorship responsibility to Project correspondence. • FHWA .will coordinate the posting of the ROD with EPA in the Federal Register • No additional materials will be required to be submitted with these notices. The Joint NOD must be approved prior to FHWA issuing the ROD.. • Revisions to any previous documentation for the Project will not be required to complete this task: 192 72 Printing of any Project documentation is not included in this task. Biological:subconsultants that conducted focused surveys will not be required to coordinate responses to any comments as part of the ROD. • Visual work or participation by the visual subconsultant will not be required to coordinate responses to any comments as part of the ROD. Theissuance: of the ROD by FHWA and the attainment of all waters permits signify the conclusion of the activities required per this contract. 193 ATTACHMENT 3 LABOR Project Manager Principal in Charge Senior Consultant Environmental Task Leader Senior Engineer Project Engineer Project Planner/Scientist Associate Engineer Associate Planner/Scientist . Engineer Planner/Scientist Technical Editor GIS/Graphics CADD Database Administrator Contracts/Procurement Administration Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem AMENDMENT 5 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 . Rate $91.50 $95.33 $61.12 $69.64 $66.52 $57.87 $51.64 $48.99 $40.86 $32.99 $25.67 $38.29 $35.31 $31.17 $48.36 $44.27 $24.27 SUBTOTAL 2.796 Hours 1,962 8 4,576 2,701 97 121 2,122 3,541 12,067 2,543 2,697 5,624 8,667 1,563 510 560 4,420 53,779 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) Labor Cost $179,513.19 $762.64 $279,678.90 $188,097.94 $6,452.77 $7,002.57 $109,578.81 $173,490.16 $493,048.08 $83,889.75 $69,229.14 $215,362.33 $306,037.51 $48,712.28 $24,664.45 $24,793.60 $107,259.29 154.2% 10% " $712,605 $128,298 Applied Earthworks $1,070,566.00 Balk Biological Consulting ($22,950.00) Peter Bloom - Burrowing Owl Specialist $29,950.00 David Bramlet - Rare Plant Specialist $55,000.00 Earthworks ($48,621.00) EcoAnalysts - Fairy Shrimp Specialist ($9,000.00) Entech DBE Epic Land Solutions DBE $223,774.00 $227,649.00 Geographies $199,285.00 Kimley Hom $90,000.00 Ninyo & Moore $495,724.00 Fred Roberts - Rare Plant Specialist $75,000.00 SJM Biological Consultants - Mammal Specialist $46,780.00 Tatsumi & Partners DBE $232,477.00 Scott White Biological Consulting ($21,995.00) SUBTOTAL 194 3/28/200710:08 AM ILL $2,317,573 $3,573,698 $589,127 $6,480,399 Page 1 of 16 �T LABOR Team Leader Project Manager (Prehistory) Project Manager (History) Prehistoric Archaeologist Architectural Historian Historical Consultant Native American Monitor Principal Investigator Crew Chief Field Supervisor Field Technician Laboratory Director Laboratory Supervisor Laboratory Technician GIS Analyst Graphics Administrator Project Multi tier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Applied Earthworks Bil ing Rate $125.87 $82.50 $89.76 $62.18 $58.16 $69.91 $65.00 $77.70 $62.91 $74.50 $59.14 $57.40 $56.80 $45.97 $55.80 $56.23 $56.09 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours 1,221 16 898 2,011 968 86 240 718 691 1,413 3,218 400 5 1,362 772 794 241 15,054 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST 195 3/28/200710:08 AM Labor Cost $153,681.63 $1,320.00 $80,604.63 $125,048.80 $56,297.12 $6,012.24 $15,600.00 . $55,788.04 $43,470.80 $105,267.36' $190,311.20 $22,960.00 $284.00 $62,608.80 $43,075.26 $44,647.80 $13,517.40 , $1,020,495 Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $27,539 $22,532 $1,020,495 $50,071 $0, $1,070,566 Page 2 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 , Subconsultant:,Balk Biologicai'Consulting LABOR Michelle Balk Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate $85.00 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours - 270 - 270 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL . SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses„Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST Labor Cost ($22,950.00) Wit ($22,950) Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $0 $0 ($22,950) $0 $0 FY -$22,950 196 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 3 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Peter Bloom, Burrowing Owl Specialist LABOR Peter H. Bloom Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate $98.20 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours Labor Cost 305 305 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) $29,950.00 $29,950 Included, in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $0" . $0 I $29,950 SUBTOTAL $0' TOTAL REQUEST $29,950 197 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 4 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 01421111HILL Subconsultant: David Bramlet - Rare Plant Specialist LABOR David Bramlet Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate $90.46 SUBTOTAL t , ' q.. 3 Hours Labor Cost $55,000.00 608 608 $55,000 Overhead Included in Billing Rate Fee Included in Billing Rate Total Burdened Labor $55,000 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL $0 $0 TOTAL REQUEST $55,000 198 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 5 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 tCH21VlMlLL Subconsultant: Earthworks - Rare Plant Specialists LABOR Rick Riefner Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate $105.00 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours -450 -450 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL gig SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL Labor Cost ($47,250.00) ($47,250) included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $0 ($1,371) TOTAL REQUEST 199 3/28/2007 10:08 AM ($47,250) ($1,371) $0 =$48,621 Page 6 of 16 • • COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: EcoAnalysts, Inc. - Fairy Shrimp Specialists D. Christopher Rogers Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/PerDiem Billing Rate $100.00 SUBTOTAL Overhead Total Burdened Labor Labor Cost ($9,000.00) Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate ($9,000) ($9,000) SUBTOTAL $0 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL $0 TOTAL REQUEST $9,000 200 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 7 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Entech LABOR Principal Scientist/Engineer Project Engineer Billing Rate Hours Labor Cost $142.94 $100.06 645 1,300 $92,196.30. $130,078.00 Pro ect Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem N/A 1,945 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST $222,274' Included in Billing Rate included in Billing Rate $0 ' $1,500 $222,274 $1;500 $0 $223,774 201 3/28/200710:08 AM Page 8 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Epic Land Solutions LABOR Principal Asst. Project Manager Tech Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Rate $52.88 ' $50.48 $13.00 SUBTOTAL 2.404 Hours 439 988 343 1,770 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) Labor Cost $23,214.32 $49,874.24 $4,459.00 118.5% 10% $0 $14,908 $26,355.00 $77,548 $91,894 $16,944 $186,386 $14,908 SUBTOTAL $26,355 TOTAL REQUEST $227,649 202 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 9 of 16 LABOR Copywriter Designer Photographer Meeting Facilitator Graphics. Website Coordination HTML Engineering Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL; COSTS Expenses TraveUPer Diem COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Geographies Billing Rate $78.46 $61.40 $89.55 $79.75 $62.66 $78.36. $89.55 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours 306 380 28 324 72 28 112 1,250 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST Labor Cost $24,009.53 $23,331.90 $2,507.44 $25,838.19 $4,511.43 $2,194.01 $10,029.77 $92,422 Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $106,863 $92,422 $199,285 203 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 10 of 16 • Principal Senior Professional Professional 2 Professional 1 Technician/Draftsman Senior Support Staff Support Staff COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Kimley Hom $70.20 $33.66 $28.14 $21.64 $25.48 $25.00 $17.31 SUBTOTAL Project Multiplier 3.072 EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Overhead Total Burdened Labor Labor Cost $6,669.00 $5,029.28 $807.84 $11,424.04 $692.48 $2,140.32 $800.00 $207.72 179.28% $4,487 $27,771 $49,787 $7,756 $85,314 SUBTOTAL $4,686 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL $p TOTAL REQUEST $90,000 204 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 11 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Ninyo & Moore LABOR Project Manager Project Engineer Project Geologist Environmental Scientist Staff Eng./Geologist 2 Staff Eng./Geologist 1 CADD/Technician Clerical Project Multiplier -, EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Lab Testing Travel/Per Diem Rate Hours Labor Cost $66.14 166 $10,979.06 $48.08 $51.93 $38.47 $29.33 $27.00 $30.90 $20.63 SUBTOTAL 2.695 268 236 60 1,470 176 382 246 3,004 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) Drilling/Excavation Seismic Refraction Traverses Traffic Control SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST $12,885.44 $12,255.48 $2,308.20 $43,115.10 $4,752.00 $11,803.80 $5,074.98 145.0% 10% $2,675 $26,400 $3,735 $136,860 $18,000 $30,000 $103,174 $149,602 $25,278 $278,054 $32,810 $184,860 $495,724 205 3/28/200710:08 AM Page 12 of 16 • LABOR Fred Roberts COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant:: Fred Roberts - Rare Plant Specialist Billing Rate $90.36 Hours 830 Labor Cost $75,000.00 Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per,Diem SUBTOTAL N/A 830 Overhead Fee Total. Burdened Labor SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST $75,000 Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000 206 3/28/200710:08 AM Page 13 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: SJM Biological Consultants - Mammal Specialists Stephen J. Montgomery Billing Rate $101.70 SUBTOTAL Project Multiplier N/A EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per. Diem Hours Overhead Labor Cost $46,780.00 Total Burdened Labor $46,780 Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $46,780 SUBTOTAL $0 SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem SUBTOTAL $0 TOTAL REQUEST $46,780 207 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 14 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Tatsumi & Partners iraCMAPIAAigilgiVAIIMPOOtaW1HURAtNHAMM4VNI00,01VOIMOIOWN Labor Cost LABOR Senior Principal Senior Associate Senior Staff Technical Staff Staff Project Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate '$251.38 $121.81 $94.38 $79.44 $59.46 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours 276 376 623 457 47 1,779 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) $69,379.56 $45,799.16 $58,798.74 $36,305.24 $2,794.62 $213,077 Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $16,600 $2,800 . $213,077 $19,400 I.! SUBTOTAL ,,,,,,.„::i.x,,,m1r4:100,imemmignitigaiiiiirm: a $0 111811141641111MMI 4, TOTAL_ REQUEST $232,477 208 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 15 of 16 COST PROPOSAL RCTC SR 79 Subconsultant: Scott White Biological Consulting LABOR Scott White Project: Multiplier EXPENSE and TRAVEL COSTS Expenses Travel/Per Diem Billing Rate $83.00 SUBTOTAL N/A Hours - 265 - 265 Overhead Fee Total Burdened Labor SUBTOTAL. SUBCONTRACTORS (includes Labor, Expenses, Travel, and Per Diem) SUBTOTAL TOTAL REQUEST Labor Cost ($21,995.00) ($21995) Included in Billing Rate Included in Billing Rate $0 $0 .. ($21;9951 $0 $0 • $21,99$ 209 3/28/2007 10:08 AM Page 16 of 16 • SR79 Project - Amendment 5 ; Task Direct Cost Estimate: Direct Costs Fimr. CH2M HILL ATTACHMENT. 4 ..... Mileage 25,460 . $0.485 $12,348.10 It is anticipated that a total of 25,460 vehicle miles will be driven for site visits, data collection, & meetings. This amounts for a total of $12,348.10 at a unit. rate of $.485. Other Travel cost $7,700.00 Other travel includes parking, tolls and other travel expenses for meetings, project site visits, and out -of -area travel. PDT Meeting Rentals and Meals cost $3,300.00 Site visits for the PDT team are anticipated in 2008 and 2009. The costs for renting a bus for the site tour and meals for the PDT team are anticipated to total $3,300. Postage/FedEx 1,901 - $10.00 .. - $19,010.00 FedEx & Postal Services are anticipated for. transmitting correspondences, and smaller deliverables. It is anticipated that 1,901 of such transmittals are needed at an average cost of $10 per transmittal totaling to $19,010. FedEx (Large Shipments} 634 $20.00 $12,680.00 FedEx Services are anticipated for. transmitting large .. deliverables and/or multiple copies of deliverables together. It is anticipated that 634 of such shipments are needed at an average cost of $20 per transmittal totaling to $12,680. Reprographics (small report) .: 109 $200.00 $21,800.00 _ Outside reproduction of the various reports and documents will be required at each submittal.- Multiple copies will be required for transmittal to the various agencies involved with this project. Small reports are estimated to be single 2- inch binders. 109 copies of such reports are anticipated at an average cost of $200 per copy totaling $21,800. Reprographics (medium report) 1,059 $350.00 $370,650.00 Outside reproduction of the various reports and documents will be required at each submittal Multiple copies will be required for transmittal to the various agencies involved with this project. Medium reports are estimated to be single' 3-inch binders. 1,059 copies of such reports are anticipated at an average cost of $350 per copy totaling $370,650. Reprographics (large report) '130 $750.00 $97,500.00 Outside reproduction of the various reports and documents will be required at each submittal. Multiple copies will be required for transmittal to the various agencies involved with this project. Large reports are estimated to include three 4-inch binders per copy. 130 copies of such reports are anticipated at an average cost of $750 per copy totaling $97,500. Other Reprographics ExExpenses p cost , $176,365.00 The deliverables and correspondences will be reproduced to meet the communication needs of the project team. Additionally, there will be costs of reproduction for the project management related documents as well as additional expenses for large format documents such as maps and graphics for presentations. GPS Rental 141 $100.00 $14,100.00 It is anticipated that a total of 141 days worth of GPS rental will be required, at an average cost of $100 per day totaling $14,100. 3/28/2007 210 1 of 2 Field Equipment and other Supplies cost $500.00 It is anticipated' that other miscellaneous supplies and field equipment necessary for the project will cost;$500.. , 4 Wheel -Drive Rental 180 $100.00 $18,000.00 It is anticipated that total of 183 days worth of 4 Wheel Drive vehicle rental will be required, at an average cost of ._ $100 per day (including gasoline) totaling $18,300: Rental Car 330 $50.00 $16,500.00 It is anticipated that a total of 370 days worth of rental cars will be required, at an average cost of $50 per day (including gasoline) totaling $18,500. Hotel 307 $150.00 $46,050.00 It is anticipated that a total of 107 days worth of overnight lodging stays will be required, at an average cost of $150 per night totaling'$16,050: , Airfare -Cleveland to Ontario/ Santa. Ana 5 $400.00' $2,000.00 It is anticipated that a total of 5 roundtrip flights for staff specialists: from Cleveland will be:Tequired,. at an average cost of $400 per trip totaling $2,000. Airfare -Las Vegas to Ontario/ Santa Ana 5 $120.00 $600.00 It is anticipated that a total of 5 roundtrip flights for staff specialists from Las Vegas will be required, at an average cost of $120 per•trip totaling $600: Airfare-Oakland/San Jose to Ontario/ Santa Ana 22 $200.00 $4,400.00 It is anticipated that a total of 22 roundtrip flights for staff specialists from the Oakland/San Jose area will be , . required, at an average. cost of $200 per trip totaling $4,400. Airfare -Sacramento to Ontario/ Santa Ana 12 $200.00 $2,400.00 It is anticipated that a total of 12 roundtrip flights for staff specialists from Sacramento will be required, at an average cost of $200 per trip totaling $2,400. Airfare -Philadelphia to Ontario/ Santa Ana 50 $300.00 $15,000.00 It is anticipated that a total of 50 roundtrip flights for staff specialists from Philadelphia will be required, at an average: cost of $300 per trip totaling$15,000. i ' - UPS 3/28/2007 211 2 of 2 AMENDMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 5 Task Original Budget (Amendment 9) - Amendment 2 Amendment 3 Am Amendment t 4 Total Budget through h Amendment 4 Total Authorized Through Amendment 4 Additional Budget Requested Amendment 5 Revised Total Budget Through g Amendment 5 Firm(s) Reason Additional Explanation Phase 1 - Total' Expended $1,121,920 $1,121,920 $1,121,920 $0 $1,121,920 1.1 Project Management $224,830 $30,000 $0 $391,106 $391,106 $309,880 $700,986 CH2M HILL Extended contract duration Contract duration has extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional budget is needed to cover the additional project management time that is required. 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings $120,141 $0 $130,119 $130,119 . $159,2913 $289,417 CH2M HILL Extended contract duration Contract duration has extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional budget is needed to cover the additional monthly. PDT and Trend meetings that are needed. 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings $129,162 $0 $83,071 $83,071 $83,734 $166,805 CH2M HILL Extended contract duration _ . Contract duration has extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional budget is needed to cover the additional monthly Resource Agency meetings that are needed. 1,4 ,Other Meetings $89,948 -$52,000 $170,244 $170,244, - $229,768 $400,012 CH2M HILL (73%), • Geographies (27%) Extended contract duration Contract duration has extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional. budget is needed to cover the additional meetings that are needed. 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings .. $175,834 $0 $27,667 $27,667 $73;112 $100,779.. CH2M HILL . Extended contract duration Contract duration has extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional iti budget is needed to cover the additional stakeholder meetings and coordination that will be required. 1.6 Progress Reporting & Invoicing $46,008 $5 740 88 046 $ , $88,046 $199,691 $287,737 CH2M HILL Extended contract duration . Conct duratiohas extended from 2007 to 2010. Additional budgets need ditto cover the additional progress reporting and invoicing that will be required. 1.7 QA/QC $39,768 $0 $23,361 - $23 361 $23,861 $47,222 • . ' CH2M HILL Extended contract duration ! Additional budget being requested for ongoing .QA/QC review activities g " "es Burin the extended length of the contract.. 1.8 landowner Access $ 209483 _ . $350,000 $0 $774,983 $774,983 $121,263 $896,246 CH2M HILL Additional scope ' Remaining effort to coordinate with landowners required by court orders or Right of Entry agreements to conduct additional survey. work in 2007 and PDT team site visits in 2008 and 2009. 1.9 GfS $708,205 $947,329 $179,013: $1,992,094 . $1,992,094 $258,516 $2,250,610. o ,CH2M HILL, ESRI (<1 /o) i 1 Additional scope i The GIS task all supports Project tasks, including the: Project. . description, technical reports, and EIS/EIR. Data analysis; calculations and mapping will occur as partof this task. 1.10 Project Website $49,373 $0 $79,273 $79,273 $79,31.1 $158,584 CH2M HILL (92%), '.•' eograph' s ° Geographies (8 /°) 1 Extended contract duratio � This task allows for the update of the Project website so that the public can review the current status, receive Project emails with updated Q&A sheets, and download completed Project documents. 1 11Environmental Streamlining Application $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CHZM HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being. requested:. 2.1 Purpose &Need $0 , $0 $0 $0 : $0 $0 CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is. not being requested. 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' CH2M HILL. Additional budget is not being req ested. Additional budgets not being requested. 2:3 Updated, Preliminary Agreement.. $23,709 $82,663 $0 $106,372 $106,372 $0 $106,372 CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being requested. 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, & Alts. $59,158. . . $0 $795 $ 795 $0 $795 , CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budged not being requested. 2.5 Final EIS Preferred/LEDPA Project Alt.. $55 988 , $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 - CH2M Hlll Additional budget is not being requested. Additional .budget is not being. requested.. 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Section 404(b)(1) Compliance $67,212 $0 $44 $44 $0 $44 CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being requested. 3.1 Loeabon Hydraulic Study $424,697 53 72 $ , . 5 $373,020 $373,020, $102,821 $475,840 CH2M HILL (55%), _ Engineering Resources 45%) . .. ;. i �ocatio Revisions due to changed alignments _. l n Hydra rows ulic Studies have been revised to address Hume alignment changes. They need to be finalized based upon the new Project Description: 3.2 Onsite Drainage Studies $141,817 $60,000 $7,535 $305,352 $305,352 $78,694 $384,046 _ CH2M HILL r Revisions due to changed alignments . ' Onsite Dra ladies have been revised to address Drainage S numerous alignment changes. They need to be finalized based upon the new Project Description. 3.3 Storrs Water Data Report $59,138 - $0 $70,638 $70,638 $31,260 $101,898 CH2M HILL Revisions due to changed. alignments .9 The location of BMP features andthe development of the Stone Water Data Report have been revised to address numerous alignment changes. They need to .be finalized based upon .the new Project Description. 3.4 Utility Coordination $110,653 $137,815 $2,155 $250,623 $250,623 $0 $250,623 CH2M HILL (5%), Engineering Resources (95%) Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being requested. - 3.5 Geotechnical $189;332 ' -$18,395 $127,137 $127,137 $488,111 $615,248 CH2M HILL (9%), Ninyo &: ° Moore 9.1 /° { ) .New Additional scope � tasks have been added, which include the analysis of the large rock cuts in the hills south of Florida Avenue, the establishment and monitoring of groundwater wells between Esplanade and _ Sanderson to explore the depressed roadway option, the update of. the PGR to be consistent with the new Project Description, and the. borings to support additional Advance Planning Studies. 212 3/27/2007 1 of 4 AMENDMENT 5 IICTC SR79 Task -Original Budget (Amendment 1) Amendment 2 Amendment3 Amendment 4 Total Budget through Amendment 4 Total Authorized Through Amendment 4 Additional Budget Requested Amendment 5 -Revised Total Budget Through Arrnendment 5 3.6 Traffic Analysis _. $233,701 -$23,900 $25,000 . $16,766 $194,235 Finn(si Reason Additional .Explanation $194,235 $95,090 3.1 Conceptual Landscape Plan • 3.8 Stage Construction Concepts and TN" $85,560 $153,993 -$45,000 $o $41,960 $30,993 " $289,325 _CH2M HILL (5%), Kimfey Horn (95%). Additionelid New scope has been added'teenalyze the traffic impacts eV building the' project in=two phases with the northern segment being built :first In,addit On; analyses will also -be done on twe alternative construction staging'scenariosihat have not yet -been defined, $41,960 $30,993 3.9 Alternative Refinement 3.10 Cost Estimate. $636,549' $29,677 $30,000: • 410,000 . -$722,549 2177. $193,687 $103,374 $235,647 ,. $134,367 C112M HILL (9%), Tatsumi Partners..:(91%) CH2M HILL Replace Budget, Additional Scope Additional scope Additional budget being requested to replace original budget that was: reallocated to ;other tasks and provide additional budget for the visual" assessment, task Newscope.has,beenadded todevelopand .anaty e:alternative construction, staging scenarios due: to funding constraints:. $722,549, $2,177 $167,937 $30,353 $890,486 $32,530 . CH2M HILL CH2M HILL Additional scope Revisions: due: to changed alignments Additional engineering is required"to"support ongoing coordination with devele rs-and ro pe p petty _owners; and to.coordinate design , - strategies: at canal crossings with MWD -Additionat cost analyses were done to help.;refine.the alignments in. support of developing the new Project Descnption. 3.11 Value Engineering'` $42,798 =$2,249 $30,768 $30,7.68, $0 $30,768 '.3:12 Draft Project Report $121,520 $25,000 $7,520 $7,520 $114,000 $121,521 CH2M HILL (17%), VMS (83%) CH2M HILL Additional budget is, not being requested. •:Task is complete: Additional budget is not being requested: Replace Budget 3.13 Aerial Mapping $0 $130,000 $134,049_. $134,049 $134,049 3.'14 Final Engineering $163,543 -$163,543 $0 so $0 $105,798 $105,798 CH2M HILL (12%), Digital Mapping (88%) CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested ; =Additional -budget being requested to'replace origiriaP budget that was reattocated:te other':tasks: _ Task is bempiete. Additional budget is not being requested: Replace Budget 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies 3..16 Right -of -Way Requirements 3.17 Right -of -Way Data Sheets 3.18 Geometric Approval Drawings $162,657 $26,147 $563,235 $0 -$162,657 $0 $30,000 =$40,000 $0 -$60,000 $0 _ $0 $5,147 $0 $260,690 $0 $5,147 $260,690 $0 3.19 3.20 1 Final Project Report Hemet Landfill Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical' Reports Modification.of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental Technical Reports $97,988 $0 -$97,988 $56,345 $0 $0 $0 $56,345 $0 $56,345 $201,807 $0 $81,675 $304,670 $97,988 $0 $201,807 $5,147 $342,366 $304,670 $97,9138 $56,345 $65,417 $62,596 -$7,391 $200,000 $9.1,825 $53,737 $53,737 $0 $53,737 CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL (9%), Epic Lands (91 %) CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL (14%), Ninyo & Moore (86%) Additional scope Additional budget is not being requested. Revisions due to changed alignments Replace Budget Replace Budget Additional budget is not being requested. . Additional budget being requested te'replace,original budget that was reallocated to other tasks. Additional Advance Planning Studies are required to address MWD concerns at canal crossings. Task is complete. Additional budget is not being requested. Additional work is required due to changed alignments. Additional budget being requested to replace original budget that was reallocated to othertasks. Additional budget being requested to replace original budget that was: reallocated toothertasks. Additional budget is not being requested.. CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not' being: requested $686,421 5.1 Community:lmpact Assessment $782,248 $54,750 $686,421 $50,026 $736,447 CH2M HILL Additional Scope' Additional budget is required to: fnalize•the project description with $453,698 5.2 Relocation impact Report $139,569 -$50,000 $24,569 $453,698 $24,569 5:3 Visual Impact,Assessment $145,959 $10,170 $126,729 5.4 Cultural Resources $650,406 $225,000 $225,000 $145,900 $1,171,906 5.5 Paleontological Evaluation Report $140,531 $4,400 $76,031 $126,729� $1,171,906 $76,031 $371,464 $166,039 $162,928 $919,263 $111,058 $825,162 $190,608 $289,657 $2,091,169 $187,08 CH2M HILL CH2M HILL (18%), Epic Lands (82%) CH2M HILL CFI2M HILL (49%), Applied Earthworks (51%) CH2M HILL (45%); Applied Earthworks (55% . 5:6 Floodplain Evaluation. Report $98,336 $23,636 5_7 Water Quality Assessment Report $162,916 $45,945 $166,361 5.8 Initial Site Assessment $96,648 $0 $59,748 3/27/2007 $23,636 $166,361 $59,748 213 $115,078 $101,834 $37,363 $138715 $268,195 $97,111 CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL (25%), Ninyo & Moon: (75%) Additional Scope Revisions due to changed alignments Additional Scope Additional Scope '.Additional Scope Revisions due to changed alignments Revisions due to changed alignments Revisions due to changed alignments reviewing Agencies. Additionatbudgefis requested to revise. completed. portions of document to be consistent withthe new Project description, as well; as .to write the retraining sections. Additional work (field work and report writing): is required due to changed alignments to be consistent with the new:: Project description Additional budget is requested torevise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description. This includes the addition of new visualsimulations to account for the new development Additional budget is requested to'complete the APE Map, ASR, HRER, HPSR, XP1' Proposal; XP1 Site Testing, XP1 Report, Native American Coordination, SHPO consultation coordination, and a Phase 2 Testing Agreement: Additional budget is requested te revise completed, pertiens.of document to be consistent with the new Project description: The Floodplain Evaluation Report has been revised to address numerous alignment changes. It needs to be finalized based upon the new Project, description. The Water Quality Assessment Report has: been revised to address numerous alignment changes. It needs to be finalized based upon the new Project description. The Initial Site Assessment needs to be finalized based upon the _ new Project description. 2 of 4 • RCTC °SR79 Task Original Budget (Amendment 1) Amendment 2 Amendment Amendment 4 Total Budget through Amendment 4 Total Authorized Through Amendment 4 Additional Budget Requested Amendment 5 Revised Total Budget Through Amendment S Firm(s) Reason Additional Explanation 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report $168,155 $5,000 $38,855 $38,855 $172,613 $211,468 CH2M HILL Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description. Additional analysis is also included to respond to new regulatory requirements. 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis $363,902 -$40,000 $226,502 $226,502 • $347,538 $574,040 CH2M HILL (24%), Geographies (11%), Entech (65%) Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to complete the technical report to be consistent with the new Project description. 5.11.Natural Environment Study $219,308 $20,000 $206,908 5206,908 . $402,768 $609,677 CH2M HILL Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to complete additional fieldwork, to revise completed portions of document (affected environment), and to complete the impact analysis to be consistent with the new Project description. 5.12.1 Wetland Delineation Report po $265,047 $215,000 $73,625 $745,672. 5745,672 $152,260 $897,931 CH2M HILL 97% { ), Dr. Herb Huddleston (3%) Additional Scope i Additional budget is requested to complete the technical report based on all field work conducted to date and to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description: 5.12.2 Burrowing Owl Advanced Reconnaissance Survey Report $218,060 $40,000 • $14,480 $386,760 $386,760 $77,777 $464,537 CH2M HILL (78%), Peter Bloom (22°k) i Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to complete the technical report based on all field work conducted to date and to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description: 5.12.3 Rare Plant Advanced Reconnaissance Surrey Report $198,906 $495,000 $124,270 $1,234,676 $1,234,676 $211,210 $1,445,886 CH2M HILL ° (60% °) , DavidAdditional Bramlet (15 /°), Earthworks (9%), Fred Roberts (10%), cite Bal Mich k (3%), Scott White (3%)' Additional Scope budget is, requested to complete the technical report based on all field work conducted to date and to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description. 5.12.4 • . - . Riparian Bird Focused Survey Report $98,010 _ $40,000 $22,260 $144,270 $144,270 . $78,147 $222,416 -, CH2M HILL Additional Scope ;;� Additional budget is requested to complete the technical report a completed based on all field work conducted to date and to revise po 'ors ment to be consistent with the new Project portions of document i description. 5.12.5 Vernal PFairy Shrimp Focused Survey Report $278,934 $100,000 $66,400 $660,334 $660,334 $48,661 $708,994 CH2M HILL gg%ool ( )' Ecoanatysts (2%) Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to complete additional field work and to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project description. 5.12.E Mammal Focused Surrey Report $79,597 $60,000 $46,130 $302,427 $302,427 $69,455 $371,883 CH2M HILL 62% , SJM ^ ( ) Biological (38°/°) Additional Scope Additional budget is requested to complete additional field work and to revise completed portions of document to be consistent with the new Project_ description. 5.12.7 Golden Eagle Survey $0 $17,780 $17,780 $0 $17,780 CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested.. Additional budget is not being requested. 5.12.9 General Wildlife: Focused Survey Report - $0 $0 $0 $73,909 $73,909 ." CH2M HILL Additional scope 1 Additional budget is requested to complete the technical report based on all field work conducted to date and to revise completed portions of document tobeconsistent with the new Project description. 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis $52,002 $56,902 $56,902 $100,834 $157,736 CH2M HILL' ' Additional scope Previous budget only.provided coordination time.. New scope includes the MSHCP Consistency document. - 5.14 Corridor Video Survey $0 � $0 $0 . $0 $0 CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested. - Additional budget is not being requested. eq 6.1 Technical Section Updates $438,701 $968 _ $968 , $0 $968 CH2M, HILL ..Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being requested. 6.2.1 Administrative. Draft EIS/EIR Preparation $391,953 '' $76,345 $398,298 $3913,298 $234,568 $632,867 CH2M HILL Additional scope ! Additional Draft budget is requested to complete an Administrative Dra EIS/EIR to be consistent with the new Project description. 6.2.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts $113,737 $80,000 $0 $317,737 $317,737 $58,182 $375;919 CH2M HILL Additional Scope. Additional effort is required to coordinate with local jurisdictions on new approved developments as part of the cumulative impact analysis. In addition, this task will draft the cumulative impact section for the EIS/EIR. 6.3 Draft EIS/EIR "Pre oration P $182,927 $180,427 $0 '._ $2,501 $2,501 $249,751 $252,251 CH2M HILL (58%), Applied Earthworks (15%), Entech (4%), Peter Bloom -(8%), ': David 8ramlet (2%), Fred Roberts (2%)., SJM (11%) Replace Budget ;' Budget is requested this ueste s replace the previous effort. The total amount of is workan reduced uced since Amendment _ 6.4 Draft EIS/EIR Circulation $151,683 - $151,683 $0 $0 $0 $64,263 $64,263 CH2M HILL Replace Budget p g get is requested to replace the Bud q p previous effort, however the cost of this task has been reduced since Amendment 1. 6.5.1 Scoping $58,496 $65,000 -$39,996 $150,700 $150,700 $0 $150,700 CH2M HILL (83%), eographics (17%) ° Additional budget is not being requested. Additional budget is not being requested. 6.5.2 Public Informational Meeting $793. $0 $793 $793 $0 $793 G CH2M HILL Additional budget is not being requested: Additional budget is not being requested. 6:5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing $30,704 - -$24,767 $5,937 $5,937 04 $10,652 r4 $16,589 CH2M HILL Replace Budget Budget is requested to.replace :the previous effort, however the cost of this task has been reduced since Amendment 1. • .� 3/27/2007 3 of 4 AMENDMENT 5 RCTC SR79 - 6.5.5 6.6.1 _ < Final EIS/EIR PublicNoticing Responselo Cominents • • . . ' Original Budget (Amendment 1) , $61,604 ' $272,714 - Amendment 2 - • - , _ Amendment 3 -$272,714 Amendment 4 Total Budget , through Amendment 4 $0 $o Total Authorized Through Amendment 4 $o so $0 Additional Budget Requested , Amendment 5 $85,145 $11,073 . $92,543 6.6.2 6.6.3 6.6.4 6.6.5 . 6.8 6.9 Flocs plain Entroachment OnlY_Practicable Finding. Section 4(f) Evaluation' Final EtS/EIR-Preparation _ Final EIS/EIR Ciroulation Water Pertnifting and• Coordination • ', • 1 Project Mitigation, Monitoritv, & Reporting Plan' Route Adoption - $42,879 $83,181. - $125,511 $143,035 $38,750 7., • , $o $o -$143,035 so t " $o $10,000 , $o $0, sio,000 $0 $o $46,246 $48,970 $308,226 - $57,772 $129,385 , Revised Total Budget Through Aniendment 5 $85,145 $11,073 •' $92,543 - - $46,246 $56,970 $308,226 $57,772 $129,385 ' 44,711 $0 -$44,711 $o so $0 $0 $19,430 $0 $19,430 - - Reason . '‘ :Additional -Explanation . .-CH2M HILL (39%), Peographics (36%) Tatsumi Partners (31%). CH2M HILL - - CH2M Hill_ : CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL (82%), Entech (4%), Applied E.arthworks (5%), Tatsumi Partners (9%) CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL CH2M HILL , • Replace,Budget, • RePlate Btidget:, • • I, Replace Budget , • ••• , ReplaceBudget - •. , .• • •- • • ,Replace Budget Reigate Budget-: - Replace Budget - Additional scepe Additional budget is not being requeSted. Additierial sterie _ Btidget is mquested to replace the previous effort. Additional effort is included in this task to have rncire'meetings in area of the Project - . during the Public review of the Draft EIS/EIR::' This task was created to separate the Draft EIS/EIR effort from the _ - Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing. Budget is requested to replace ,theirrevienSeffeit, hoWeVer.the test of this task haSheert reduced- since:Amendmentl. Addftional budget being requested to rePlace original budget that . was reallocated to other thsks. • Budget is; requeSteri to replace the- previous effort, however the Cost of this task has been reduced Since Arnendment 1. Budget is requested to replace_ the -previous efferl. Spbconsultant time to reSpond-topubliC torments has been added. This test was previonsly re-anded in the technital report taSks. -1 Budget is ',requested to replace -the previous efforehOWever thicost _ , . , of this task has been reduced since Amendment 1.-_ - •-• ,Previous budget only provided coordination time: New scope includes the completion -of permit epplications..' Additional budget is net being requested. A ROOto Adoption will be required betause ire Project will realign a -state highway. This task-WaS net inclUded in AMendinent1. • 6.10 NOD and ROD , $o 1- $0 !. $31,108 $31,108 CH2M HILL Additional scope SUBTOTAL PROJECT TASKS $12,531,668 $331,100 $1,807,873 $682,510 $15,353,151 $15,353,151 $8,953,240 $24,306,391 A NOD and ROD will be required for the Project as part of the Final EIS/EIR activities. This task -was net.included in Amendment 1. 5.15 Cultural Resources Phase 2 Excavation $0 $0 $1,011,701 $1,011,701 CH2M HILL (43%), Applied Earthworks (57%) Additional scope s_ This task was not previously included. After completion of cultural resources field surveys, additionalexcavation and sitetesting may be required prior to the issuance of the ROD/NOD. As this work may not be required, it is provided as an optional task. • SUBTOTAL FUTURE TASKS so $o $1,011,701 $1,011,701 TOTALS $12,531,668 $331,100 $1,807,873 , $682,510 $1353,151 $15,353,151 $9,964,941 $25,318,092 . Subtotal Phase,t-Tasks Subtotal Management and MeetingSr Tasks Total Base Contract Amount: _ Subtotal'Engineering Tasks Subtotal Environmental Tasks $1,121,920 • _ $825,691 $0_ - $0 $0 $1,121,920 ,$3,243,006 47,341,052 Amendment No 1 (Agreernent 05-31-532) Anvodment No 2 (Agte6nienio6.-31=si6); . Amendment No 3 (Agreernent:027,31704303) „. Amenclenerst No 4 (Pending) Budget Transfer iA Budget Transfer 3B : , $1,994,497 ... $t66, -too $225,000 $30,000 -$110,277 $1,888,150 -$46,260 -$121,746 $850,517 $913,613 $2,613,204 $10,704,414 $1,121,920 $9/3,613 : $2,613,204 $0 $10,704,414 $1,079,344 $2,501,935 - S1,121,920 $1,992,958 $5,115,139 $6,688,332 $17,392,745 $10,537,171 $331,100 $1,807,873 $682,510 Amendment No 5 (Pending) TOTAL AUTHORIZED CONTRACT *MOUNT . , $0 $o , $9,964,941 - ,Subtotal Technical Report Phase' Tasks: SubtotarPubliC Draft EIS/EIR Phase Tasks: SubtOtatfihal EIS/EIR Phase Tasks: Subtotal Future Tasks: Total Amendment: $25,318,092 $6,140,192 $909,042 . - - • , $1,904,006 $1,011,701 . $9,964,941. 215 3/27/2007 4 of 4 •••• - • • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 11, 2007 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Grade Separation Funding Strategy Ad Hoc Committee Technical Advisory Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation Funding Recommendation GRADE SEPARATION FUNDING STRATEGY AD HOC. COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to:. 1) Approve an "off the top" allocation of 25 % of CMAQ and STP federal funds from the next transportation bill (anticipated. after 2009) for.. Alameda Corridor. .East (ACE). grade separation projects, contingent upon a "use it or dose it" provision; 2) Approve ACE grade separation projects as eligible i'projects for 2009 Measure A Economic Development funds with an allocation of 25%; and l 3) Adopt the Grade: Separation Funding Strategy Bluep lint Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: t The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach serve as the nation's, key western portal and freight traffic is projected to triple over the next 20 I years. Regional international trade has a- significant effect on Riverside County because a large percentage of international, trade travels through Riverside ,County on its way. to the rest of the country'. As the conduit for this freight, Riverside County residents subsidize the .:nation's and California's economy. with .their health, their time., and their quality of life. { Almost all freight rail traffic in Riverside. County is from trains passing through the county. In 2003, 3 million tons of rail freight moved;to or from places in Riverside County. In contrast, 68 million tons of rail freight passed through the county. i ' The total tonnage of goods moving to, from, within and through Riverside County was 180 million tons in 2003. Of this total, 28% (50 million tons) is domestic trade -related. Most domestic trade is with the other counties in the SCAG region. Agenda Item 10 216" Inbound Outbound County Passing Domestic Domestic Internal Through Today's freight chokes ,local roads, inhibits emergency Vehicles, and degrades air quality at 58 mainline at -grade crossings in Riverside County. This is .significant locally as well as within the Southern California region. An analysis of the demand' for ` grade separations among four southern California counties (Los ,:Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside) in 2001 concluded that 37 of the" top 50 grade separations are in the Inland Empire. Grade separations eliminate the conflict between freight trains and cars. If 18 of the 58 are constructed by the cities .and the County, the results are striking: • 37 less hours of crossing gate ''down -time" every 'day; 36 fewer accidents per year; 212 less tons of projected 2030 emissions peryear; and 4,375 fewer 'hours of vehicle delay annually. At its September 2006 meeting, the Commission:. received ' a 'presentation .on. the Grade Separation Funding : Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects report (Blueprint). As a result of the presentation, the Commission, appointed an Ad- Hoc Committee to develop formal funding recommendations to assist the cities,and the County in advancing these projects. Currently, the Commission lias one formal funding policy:' regarding grade separations. At the September -1`0, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved -a policy to support successful . California Public` Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 Grade Separation ,projects that are included in the Commission approved Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Grade Crossing Priority List by funding the '10% local share match requirement of the CPUC if funding sources are: available. Today, 14 at -grade crossings in Riverside: County potentially meet the requirement making them eligible for up to $7 million Of Commission funding if' the grade separation projects are awarded by the CPUC.` Agenda Item 10 217 • The Blueprint Recommendations The Blueprint goes beyond the 2001 funding policy. It seeks to recognize the various federal, state, and local funding sources available for grade separation projects. Among these funding sources are those that the Commission has direct oversight: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program (STP), and Measure A Economic Development funds. The staff recommendation seeks to expand the ,Commission's funding policy to earmark funds to support grade separation projects in Riverside County. The funding recommendation, unanimously supported by the Technical Advisory Committee. on March 19, 2007, is as follows: • Earmark of 25 % of CMAQ funds from the next transportation 'bill (anticipated after 2009), estimated at $30 million; • Earmark of 25 % of STP funds from the next transportation bill" (anticipated after 2009), estimated at $30 million; • Allow grade separation projects as eligible for 'Measure "A". Economic Developrnent funds with an allocation of 25%, estimated at $1.0 million; and • CMAQ and STP funds. are subject to a "use it or lose it provision in order to encourage advanced delivery of projects. The Blueprint identifies18 grade separation projects that •total $561 million. Currently, $199 million of the $ 561 million is either planned or programmed. This results in a funding gap of $362 million. If approved, the funding policy provides for a minimum of $77 million (or 21 % of the needed funding) to support the efforts of the cities and the County in delivering grade separation projects. While this is "a significant allocation for the Commission, the 'lead agencies .(cities and County) have a more substantial. role :to play in closing the funding gap. In recognition of this, the Blueprint also identifies focal sources available for grade separations. For example, TUMF and Measure . A Local Streets and Roads funding is eligible for grade separation projects, however, this decision remains with the cities and County. Next Steps While all of the funding recommendations contemplated in this agenda item are anticipated after 2009, the time to start educating state and federal representatives in advance of the next transportation bill is now. Approval of the funding recommendations today serves as a cleardemonstrationto the Commission's congressional ,delegation , of the high priority of these projects and provides Agenda Item 10 218 :the Lead agencies (city and County) support in _leveraging these funds in order to advance a substantial local and state commitment of funds (i.e Proposition 1 B funds which contemplate a 1:1 match). Attachment: Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A 'Blueprint for Advancing Projects Agenda Item 10 219 reighf moved to or fro Executive Summary The impact of delays caused by freight trains traveling through" Riverside County is rapidly becoming one of the area's most pressing transportation concerns: In 2003, 68 million tons of rail freight passed through Riverside County with Fess than five percent of that total either originating'orending locally. The impact of freight rail growth has-led..to numerous quality of life" concerns in a number of communities that are faced with traffic delays, disruptions to public safety and emergency responses and 'an increase:in harmful emissions: Funding and subsequently constructing railroad grade separations has become an important transportation priority for Riverside County."The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has developed this funding strategy to serve. as a blueprint for advancing many of these needed projects: - .m RCTC Funding Strategy Highlights 18 Crossings Currently there are 61 at -grade Alameda Corridor East (ACE) crossings in <fi Riverside County. These crossings present conflicts between rail and highway . s traffic and are located on the main lines of either the Union Pacific (UP); or " Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads - During its April 2006.meeting, RCTC ranked the 61 railroad crossings. into five priority tiers based upon a set of criteria thatinclud'e§ traffic congestion,.sefety, air quality noise and local community preferences. The Commission has chosen to identify 28 crossings that are ranked in the top two.tier§ es the highest` priority `k for grade separations. The cost of constructing grade :separations at these 28 locations,.iis ;'currently yff y:t estimated at $815.8 million, yet only $199,million is currently committed from F various funding sources. This results in a $616.8 million gep.,from fully .funding all 28 projects. In short, funding -to address Riverside ,County is only 24% complete or 76% short of the needed amount. The amount of funding available to fund all 28 projects is significantly less than the estimated cost. The purpose of this report is to. develop a strategy `and. ;y r funding plan that leverages existing funding commitments of local jurisdictions, to close that gap by 2015. In doing so; .the, plan develops a strategy for funding 18 of the 28 crossings for a total project cost of $560.8 million and "groups them " according to three funding priority groups: • Funding Priority Group A,(4 Projects fully funded end under, design.) • Funding Priority Group B (12 Projects partially funded.) ., • Funding Priority Group C .(2 Projects with no _funding but are Tier 1) Among the 18 high priority projects, eight are located:6n UP mainline tracks and 10 are on BNSF mainline tracks (five of which UP operates over as well); 221 Executive Summary RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • • • Crossing Responsible Total RCTC Agency Project Cost Priority Tier Funding Priority Group A (4 Projects fully funded and under design.)_........____S78.8 M Columbia Ave/BNSF & UPRiverside . $21.0 M 1 Sunset Ave/UP Banning $21.0 M 1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd/UP Coachella/Indio $16.1 M 2, Jurupa Ave/UP Riverside, $21.7 M 2 Funding Priority {Group B_12_Projects partially funded. $427.51S11. Chicago Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $48.7 M 1 Magnolia Ave/BNSF. County $26.7 M 1 3rd St/BNSF & UP Riverside $31.7 M 1 McKinley St/BNSF Corona $109.2 M 1 Magnolia Ave/UP Riverside $27.2 M 1 Iowa Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $19.0 M 1 Adams St/BNSF Riverside $24.0 M Auto Center Dr/BNSF Corona $27.0 M Clay St/UP County $25.0 M Center St/BNSF & UP County $36.3 M Streeter Ave/UP Riverside $33.7 M Madison St/BNSF Riverside $19.0 M 1 '2 2 2 2 2 Funding Priority Group C (2 Projects with no funding but are Tier 1) $53.5 M Jurupa Rd/UP Riverside Ave/UP TOTAL County Riverside $26.5 M 1 $27.0 M 1 $560.8 M Only four of the 18 projects are fully funded. However, project development: is underway for six of the 18 projects. . Transportation funding gap'f 222 , Executive Summary RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 12006 Federal, $35 Million, 6% State, $10 Million, 2% Balance Needed,: Private, $3 Million, 1% Current Funding Status $361 Million, 64% Building grade separations improves the. quality of life in our communities and makes our nation's goods movement network more efficient and reliable. Upon completion, these projects would eliminate 2,745 .hours of 2030 forecast daily vehicle hours of delay and 212 tons per year of emissions. Recommended Funding Strategy Commitment from all levels of thepublicsector,matched with the participation 4 of the private sector will bring us closer to 'achieving meaningful results. The proposed funding mix is a combination of funding" available today and .potential future funding for the 18 high priority crossings:.. The table below summarizes the proposed funding mix for the 18 high priority crossings: Currently Funding Plan/ Available for Proiected Source Totals Funding Program - . Programming Federal Congressional Earmarks Projects of Nat'l & Regional Significance Transp. & Community & System Preservation Formula Funds Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Section 130 Surface Transportation Program Discretionary Funds High Priority Project Nat'l Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Projects Tr t l Federal (41` 1 State $19.4M $ 3.4M $16.0M $109.0M $21.0M $10.2M $77.8M $ 4.0M $2.0M $ 2.0M $40.8M $10.8M $30.0M $30.0M ,2' $30.0M $30.0M . $30.0M Section 190 Discretionary Funds Bond Initiative Total State; Local $40.0M $66.7M $10.0M S106.710 $66.7M S96.71VI Measure A - Local Streets & Roads Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Discretionary Funds Direct Contribution from Private Direct Contribution from Railroads Measure A Economic Development County General Fund Total Local! D%) $15.0M- $2.0M $175.0M .$133.9M $ 7.9M $ 6.3M, .. $ 3.3M $10.OM $ 6.7M $ 6.7M 2113M . 515 3.81;t4 $13.0M $41:1 M $3,OM ' $10.OM• Totals (100°M S560.8M $199.0M . Funding Needed 'anion) • $12.2111[ $349.6M 223 2 Executive Summary RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • Key Factors for Success Critical factors to the success of achieving the funding strategy are: - Lead Agency Commitment to develop shelf -ready projects in order to compete effectively on &national, state, and local level for discretionary funds; • Project Completion of Funding Priority Group A is required to demonstrate the region's ability to deliver projects in a timely manner: These projects must be completed prior to the reauthorization of the transportation 'bill in order to leverage the ability to receive the $361.8 Million of potential future funds; and • Legislative Action is required to streamline the delivery of projects as well as increase the eligibility of grade separation projects for funding. "The ftiriding ;strategy .rec rrrr> ends that ti e: ' $361:8M" rxeeded _ t6 address the funding ,gSp',be. seeurea."frci:M.:federel• {55% alr11$1,98.01Y1)r: state . (27° :air $96.71Ui}, and "I c l r u te. s rur es" :. 9%.: r $67„: NI) bet+ een :"ntiyit "and t}1 iri":a.rder°46, .fully: High "priority:: crass114s.. fpr "thy: Via. Nl , in "prr j ct .costs .:fegerai (4.1 -tar_ $233;21.0); state:: (OP/.: ar $'I0671Y1). taat:(3°4 or $06.7/li, arid: private;{��: ©r'$14:11}� 18 Priority Crossings t:'!bi`s':w:zAtK&'s.Fi£.'.:+.:'.";F.%: AV►O CENTER DR 224 Executive Summary RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 3 Proposed Funding Strategy i ocal, Private, S206.7 111Iiitic n, 37% $14.2 Min:, 3% • Pedera $233, 2 UP (LA SUB) RAIL UNE ., H+H4 BNSF (SB SUB) RAIL LINE H4444 UP & BNSF SHARED RAIL LINE • PRIORITY GROUP A O PRIORITY GROUP B. 0- PRIORITY GROUP C •_ ++3f CITY BOUNDARIES STREET ■� FREEWAY .hrtiugh traffic "i on:t�ips pillion ttiris) and; 35% 5 MOO APO's) Table of Contents Executive Summary .........................:......... .. .. 1 Introduction 5 Funding Priority Groups Defined 6 Funding Priority Group A 6 Funding Priority Group B 8 Funding Priority Group C 10 Summary of Funding Needed 11 Funding Sources Available Now 12 Federal: Projects of National & Regional. Significance (PNRS) 12 Transportation & Community & System Preserva'tion.(TCSP) .,13 Congressional Earmarks .....................', 13 State: Section 190 Grade Separation Fund 14 Local: Measure A — Local Streets and Roads ............ ..::.:16 Transportation Uniform Mitigation•.Fee (TUMF). .....'. :16 , Funding Sources Potentially Available Later: 17 Federal Formula Funds: Surface Transportation Program (SIT) 17 Congestion Mitigation& Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 17 Section 130 Railway -Highway Crossing Program 18 Federal Discretionary Funds: High Priority P.roject(HPP) Authorization 19.. Transportation Improvement Projects 19 National, Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program 19 State % Prop 16 Bond Initiative 20 Local: Measure A — Economic Development Incentives .:::20 Railroad User. Fees ::... . ... .•... :21 Direct Contributions ;from Ports ' 21 Direct''Cohtr.ibutions from Railroads to support Section, 190 :22 Unlikely Sources of Funds Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District 22 Development Impact Fee (DIF) District '22 Special Assessment District (SAD) 22 Direct or Indirect Contributions from Private Beneficiaries ::22 County or City Fuel/Sales Tait 23 Key Factors for Success "23 Lead Agency Commitment •23 Priority Group A - 23. Legislative Actions 23 Summary of Funding Sources 24 • '22 Appendices 25 A: RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Need List; April 2006 B.: RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: Funding Sumena,ry C: RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: Funding— Detail . 'D: RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: Impacts 225 RCTC Grade Separation Funding. Plan 2006. Introduction At its October 2005 meeting, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) requested the development of a funding strategy for grade separation projects in Riverside County. There are 61 at -grade mainline highway -rail Alameda Corridor East (ACE) crossings in Riverside County. At its April 2006 meeting, the RCTC 'ranked the crossings into five priority tiers based upon congestion, safety, air, quality, noise, and local preference. (see Appendix A) The top two tiers, comprised of 28 crossings, are identified as high priority projects -- for grade separation. Given that the combined capital cost estimate exceeds $815.8 Million and there is not enough funding to grade separate all the crossings at this time, the funding . plan focuses on 18 of the 28 high priority crossings. , The funding plan identifiespotential funding sources and presents a funding strategy for an optimal funding .program for the grade separation of. 18 high priority crossings in Riverside County. Existing and potential future funding sources for highway -rail grade, separation are discussed, and some case study examples are presented to give an overview of how and why some innovative projects received funding. Alameda Corridor East (ACE) Trade Area �...:�..., s-<.+.>h:;;r,':�y �'>'�'?M::s;.�:;:H.r::� u.<<�:H; cN,s„T•.Y"iP:�.a'r;i;m.::i"w,:F".<y:'� ;� `f:. s:.;..,.rra�%.,.��:w:�'3;�:•.%<;:.%,' :�r':s;sc:��<;:�..;.�A.�y:'': LEGEND BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAIL LINES UNION PACIFIC RAILROADS BWTOW RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006�� a. . Funding Priority Groups Defined The 18 crossings are divided into three "funding priority `groups: A, .B C. - Because funding commitments, either planned or programmed, are an indication of local jurisdiction priorities, the funding plan seeks to leverage existing funding commitments for crossings,and highlight the importance of funding -the top...10. crossings in the County. Funding Priority Group A, is comprised of four crossings that. are currently fully funded: Crossing Total Status Lead ` Project Project: Priority Agency. Cost Status Tier F. ................................................_..-.__....-...-...............-.. -.-..-..-..-..-.-..._......._.....--...-._ Columbia Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $21.0 M PE 1 Sunset Ave/UP Banning $21.0 M PE 1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd/UP Coachella/Indio $16.1 M Final Design 2 Jurupa Ave/UP Riverside :$21.7 M Final Design. - 2 227 6 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • Funding Strategy - Map for Priority Group A (4 Crossings) NdRC4 .`CORONA . All four projects are scheduled to be completed before 2010. Projects in Priority B and C will be more competitive if the region can demonstrate that projects in Priority A are completed. 228 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan. 2006 UP (LA SUBNUMA) RAIL LINE +44444 BNSF (SB SUB) RAIL LINE *RH UP $ BNSF SHARED RAIL UNE • PRIORITY GROUP A r tt% CITYBOUNDARIES STREET FREEWAY Funding Priority Group B is comprised of 12 crossings that are partially funded: Crossing Total RCTC Lead Project Project " Priority Agency Cost Status Tier Funding Priority Group B$427.5 M Chicago Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $48.7 M Magnolia Ave/BNSF County $26.7 M 3rd St/BNSF & UP Riverside $31.7 M McKinley St/BNSF Corona $109.2 M Magnolia Ave/UP Riverside $27.2 M Iowa Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $19.0 M Adams St/BNSF Riverside $24.0 M `..Auto Center Dr/BNSF Corona $27.0 M Clay St/UP County $25.0 M Center St/BNSF & UP County $36.3 M Streeter Ave/UP Riverside $33.7 M Madison St/BNSF Riverside $19.0 M 229 8 RCTC Grade Separation. Funding Plan 2006 2` 2 2 2 2 RIVER; -CORONA r Funding Strategy - Map for Priority Group B (12 Crossings) 230 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan :.2006 € UP (LA SUB) RAIL LINE 41141, BNSF (SB SUB) RAIL LINE 4++++} UP & BNSF SHARED RAIL LINE Q r PRIORITY GROUP B .u<,; CITY BOUNDARIES - STREET �� FREEWAY Funding Priority Group C is comprised of 2 Priority Tier 1 crossings that have .no funding identified. Crossing Total RCTC Lead Proiect Priority Agency Cost Tier Funding Priority Group. C..._._...._.._...._ _$53.5_M.__ Jurupa Rd/UP County $26.5 M Riverside Ave/UP Riverside $27.0 M The creation of Funding Priority Group C with Jurupa Road and Riverside Avenue ensures that the top 10 at grade crossingsranked by RCTC are addressed in this Funding Plan. (see Appendix A) Specifically, in April 2006, Jurupa 'Road became the top ranked RCTC at grade crossing in need of grade separation -due to its: • 2005 Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay at 105.4 • Forecast 2030 Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay at 231.7' Both of which are the highest in the County among 61,1 61 at grade crossings. In addition, the frequency of accidents in the last 10 years (6) is the highest in the County, tied with the Magnolia Avenue crossing in the unincorporated area of the County. Funding Strategy — Map for Priority Group C (2 Crossings) +444+1, UP (LA SUB/YUMA) RAIL LINE ' ++4444 BNSF (SB SUB) RAIL LINE 44-41 } UP 8 BNSF SHARED RAIL LINE • PRIORITY GROUP B ' »: _», _= CITY BOUNDARIES STREET FREEWAY 10 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan .2006 • • Summary of Funding Needed This blueprint develops a strategy for funding the 18 high priority crossings that total $560.8 Million. The funding plan leverages the local funding commitments made by the lead agencies responsible for constructing the grade separation projects: Banning, Corona, Riverside, Coachella/Indio, and County. Currently, $199.0 Million of the $560.8 Million is either planned or programmed, principally through Local Funds ($133.9 Million in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)). This results in a funding gap of $361.8 Million. Lead Agency Riverside (10) County (4) Corona (2) Banning (1) Coachella/Indio (1) Total Project Funding Funding Cost Priority Group A Priority Group B Planned Funding Planned Funding Nee4eti Needed $0 010 $64.2M $130 M $22.4M $65.6M . $32.6M $103.60 $273.OM $42.7M $1.10M' $1364.10 $2141M. $21.0M -$0.0114 $16;1 M $16.1 M Funding Priority Group C Planned Funding Needed $0.0M $7 UM $0.0M $26.5M" " TOTALS $560.8M $79.8M $0.0M $119.2M $308.3M $O.OM $53.5M The ACE corridor includes Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline tracks.. Among the 18 high priority projects, eight are located on UP mainline tracks and 10 are on BNSF mainline tracks (five of which UP operates over as well). Only four of the 18 projects are fully funded. However, project development is underway for six of the 18 high priority projects. 232. RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 11 $200 $180 $160 $140 - $120— $100 -- $80 $40 W..._... $20 .---- $0 Private State Federal N Local • Current Programmed Funds 100% • 90% 80% 70% -...... _. 60% 50% — 40% 30% 20% — 10% . 0% Private . State 11 Balance Needed Federal . Local Current Funding Status Showing Shortfall Funding Sources Available Now ; There are several funding sources that are typically used for highway -rail grade separation projects. This section describes those sources acid assesses the likelihood of receiving funding for grade separation from each one: Federal: Projects of National & Regional Significance Twenty-five designated Projectsof National and Regional Significance (PNRS) are identified in the federal 'transportation bill; commonly referred . to , as SAFETEA-LU. These are typically large projects with large funding amounts. Alameda Corridor East is one of. these projects,'receiving .a $125 Million allocation for the life of SAFETEA-LU (FY2005-FY2009). These .funds are to be split evenly between four ACE county transportation commissions. RCTC will receive $31.25 Million for grade separations from this. earmark: The federal share for this program is 80% except for designated. projects, which have a federal share of 80% subject to the sliding scale adjustment under 23 USC „ 120(b). A total of $1.8 billion nationally is allocated to PNRS in SAFETEA-LU, but no additional funding will be available before SAFETEA-LU expires in 2009. In April 2006, the Commission awarded $21 Million (of the $31.25 Million) of PNRS funds through a Call for Projects: Crossing Jurisdiction Total Project PNRS Cost, Award McKinley St/BNSF Corona Auto Center Dr/BNSF Corona Clay St/UP County Sunset Ave/UP Banning Jurupa Ave/UP Riverside Ave 48/Dillon Rd/UP Coachella/Indio $109.2 M $27.0 M $25.0 M $21.0 M $21.7 M $16.1 M , TOTALS $220.0 M ; Balance Available Sum The remaining balance of $10.2 Million will.. be awarded 'on a rolling basis to projects that are shelf -ready. It should be noted thaffuture earmarks for PNRS (or any federal program) are always uncertain.. Because federal programs are constantly changing, the post-2009 existence of PNRS (or any other federal program) is also not guaranteed. However taking an optimistic approach regarding future PNRS funding is not unreasonable. Recently, the United States Department of Transportation identified freight traffic in Southern California as a top priority. As a result of this interest, RCTC could receive more than twice as much money for the ACE in the next highway bill. Depending on when Congress acts, this would take place in 2010 or 2011. The total contribution of PNRS funds available for grade separation projects through 2015 is projected at $109 Million (of which $21 Million is committed leaving a, net of $88 Million ($10.2 Million is available now)). 233 12 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • • • Transportation & Community &..System Preservation Program (TCSP) TCSP is a discretionary federal program . that' is supposed to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the need for costly ,future public infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services,. and centers of trade; and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage compatible private sector development patterns.' Rail grade separation projects .make up a fairly small portion of TCSP grants, but the program has been used for rail realignment, overpass construction, and studies of grade separations and redevelopment of rail -served brownfields.2 When TCSP was originally established, it was a U.S. DOT discretionary program. For the last several years, Congressional appropriators have earmarked all these funds, essentially turning it into another way of getting an appropriations earmark. Unless complete earmarking of the program ceases before funding is needed for the 18 high priority projects, earmarking support from Congressional appropriations would be paramount to receive these funds. Based on amounts given in previous appropriations, the TCSP would act as a supplement to any grade separation project rather than a primary source. Funding amounts are typically less than $1. million per project, but SAFETEA-LU increased annual funding authorization levels for the program from -$25 Million to $61.25 Million beginning in FY2006. Nevertheless, TCSP funds might be pursued for apportion of a project that fits the program description. It would be optimistic to expect receiving TCSP funds for one. or more projects in any given year. The program should essentially be considered the same as an annual federal appropriations earmark at this time. TCSP funds could .be used to initiate project development/studies for Funding Priority B and C projects. The total contribution of TCSP funds available for. grade separation projects through 2015 is projected at $4 Million. Congressional Earmarks Projects with Congressional support - especially with support from a member of an appropriations committee - might receive earmarks in the annual federal.. appropriations bill. There are multiple earmark sections in the appropriations bill, but the logical sections for highway -rail grade separation projects in the 2006 appropriations bill are Surface Transportation Projects (nofto be confused with the Surface Transportation Program) or High. Priority Projects' 0 i http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/faq.html I AASHTO, "Freight -Rail Bottom Line Report," 2002. 3 Sections are frequently created and destroyed in the appropriations bill. . 234 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 13 Since Federal Fiscal Year 2005, the following grade crossing- :projects.. have received appropriation earmarks: Crossing Total Project Approp.. Jurisdiction Cost, Amount District Bill Sunset Ave/UP Banning* $21.0 M $0.5 M" . Lewis - 41 HR4818 - FY05.. - Sunset Ave/UP Banning $21.0 M •$1.0 M Lewis - 41 . HR3058 - FY06 StreeterAve/UP Riverside $33.1 M` $0.3 M Calvert-44 HR3058 FY06 TOTALS $1.8 M *Banning has received a total of $3.1M in earmarks for Sunset Ave Under an optimistic scenario, Riverside County might receive $1 Million — $2.5 Million per year on average from federal appropriations. While the future of congressional earmarks is uncertain, the need for grade separa"tidns in Riverside County is so significant, that it is 'assumed that funds will be available if the funding program continues. The total contribution" of appropriation earmark funds available for grade separation projects through 2015. is projected at $16 Million. 'State: Section 190 Grade Separation Fund The Section 190 Grade Separation Fund allocates $15 Million per year in state funds, among grade crossing separation or alteration projects. For any_ one project, the amount of ftinding is limited to $5 Million per year or one-third of the . total fund (whichever is Jess), and the cumulative project .funding allocation cannot exceed $20 Million.' The Caltrans program can fund up to 80% of the estimated cost, but no allocation can be .made unless the railroad agrees:. to ,contribute 10% of the project cost. An agency that has received a total cumulative project allocation greater- than . $5 Million is not eligible for an allocation for another. "crossing project for "a ; period of 10 years from the date of approval of that project.' This would prohibit the cities of Riverside and Coachella.friim seeking funding for additional grade separation projects. A bill introduced in 2006 :by Assemblyman John J. Benoit. (R-Palm Desert) and sponsored by the City of Riverside, AB 2630; seeks to lift the' ten year restriction on agencies that have allocated snore than $5 million to one grade separation. As of July 2006, this bill has passed unanimously,through the State Assembly and is on its way to the Senate "Committee on. Appropriations. Caltrans distributes the funds according to the funding priority list generated by . . the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC establishes a.funding priority list (every two years, with updating in the second year) of grade crossing projects that are most urgently in need of separation or alteration: Currently, the Jurupa Avenue and Avenue 48/Dillon Road:grade separation projects ,in Funding Priority. Group A have received $5 Million each from 8_ection.196, Q Also, projects cannot be grouped together. s "Grade Separation Program," CPUC Rail Crossing Engineering Section, January 2006. . 235 14 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan "2006." • • While this program is competitive and typically only allocates funds to a small number of projects, some local jurisdictions might nominate their strongest. grade separation candidate crossing if they can meet'the requirements. Projects at the top of the priority List are first in line for funding, but there are several requirements that are often not met by candidate projects, leading to projects that are lower on the priority list being funded. For example, projects ranking 14, 38, and 52 received funding in FY2002-2003. Therequirements for funding are: . • Design/final construction plans must be completed • A maintenance agreement with the affected railroads must be established . • Authority to construct the project must be obtained from the CPUC • The environmental review must be completed . • The local funding share or remainder of the project cost must be procured CPUC strongly recommends that agencies apply for funding if candidate projects can meet the requirements listed above within two years. The Avenue 48/Dillon Rd and Avenue 506 grade separation projects have been awarded CPUC funding in the last 10 years, as well as ,the Jurupa Avenue grade separation project in . Riverside. The CPUC Priority List for FY06/07 includes. the _following Riverside County ACE Projects: Crossing Lead Agency CPUC Rank Funding Priority 3rd Street/BNSF & UP Riverside 4 B Chicago Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside 6 B Madison St/BNSF Riverside 14 B Iowa Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside 19 B Riverside Ave/UP Riverside 20 C Columbia Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside 21 A Tyler St/BNSF Riverside 22 Streeter Ave/UP Riverside 30 B Adams St/BNSF Riverside 31 B Brockton Ave/UP Riverside 32 Jane St/BNSF Riverside 41 Magnolia Ave/UP Riverside 43 B Mary St/BNSF Riverside 44 Palm Ave/UP Riverside 56 Many highway -rail grade separation projects struggle.. with getting railroads to contribute the mandatory 10% share of the project cost. The total contribution of Section 190 funds through 2015 is projected at S30 Million, but will depend on the passage of legislation. . The Avenue k grade separation project in the City of Coachella was completed in 2004. 236 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 15. Local: Measure A — Local Streets and Roads The Measure A expenditure plan allocates.40% of the revenues to local street.and road improvements in Western Riverside,County:;;Five-year-Capital Improvement' Programs are prepared and annually updated within the ,City and each County with public participation. Grade Separation projects are an eligible 'expenditure for this Program. In April 2006, the Measure 'A. revenue apportionment projections for FY2007 - 2011 were released b,y,RCTC. A total of.$133,144,000 is projected for the cities of Banning, Corona; Riverside, and the.County (western Riverside portion)'. Assuming 10% of .the„proceeds is 'available ,for grade • separation projects, the total contribution ,of. Measure A Local Streets & Roads -funds available for grade separation projectaIhrough 2015 is projected at $13 Million. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Some grade crossings are eligible for TUMF funding. The amount of funding available varies, and not all crossings are eligible. , It should be reasonable to assume that the proposed TUMF funding arnountsrlisted below will be approved and available for grade separation in the near future.' Crossing Lead Agency TUMF Funding Funding Priority • Columbia Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $21.0 M A Chicago Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $19.3 M B Magnolia Ave/BNSF County $ 9.7 M . B, McKinley St/BNSF Corona $29.4 M :;B, Magnolia Ave/UP Riverside , $ 9.7 M : B Iowa Ave/BNSF & UP Riverside $14.5 M B Adams St/BNSF Riverside $ 9.7 M B'' Auto Center Qr/BNSF Corona $ 0.7 M B Clay St/UP County $ 0.5 M B Center St/BNSF & UP ;County $ 9.7 M. B Madison St/BNSF Riverside $ 9.7 M B TOTAL $133.9 M Additional TUMF funding of $41.1 Million could be available .for grade separations through 2015. The total contribution of TUMF funds available for grade separation projects through 2015 is projected at $175.0 Million. ' Source: April 10, 2006 Schedule of 2007-2011 Measure A Revenue Projections e March 28, 2006 phone conversation with. Paul Blackwelder, RCTC. 237 16 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • • H H Funding Sources Potentially Available. Later If i Federal: Surface Transportation Program (STP) The STP — established under ISTEA --is-the and t flexible federal funding source. Federal -aid highway projects, bridges, transit capital projects, and inter -city and intra-city bus terminals and facilities are eligible for these funds. Highway -rail grade crossing elimination or improvements fare eligible for STP funds if the roadway is a federal -aid highway. Projects must be (i) consistent with Title 23 United States Code (USC) and/or Title 49 USC and (ii) derived from the Regional Transportation Plan, included in a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and/or Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), and consistent with the conformity determinations of the Clean Air Act and its amendments 9 STPIunds are apportioned based on a federal formula; therefore, they are not a new source of funding for the region. RCTC is intending to fund other projects with 1STP funds .throughout the life of SAFETEA-LU, but these funds might be available for grade separations after SAFETEA-LU expires. Perhaps. $16 Million - $20.Million peryear in STP funds might be available beginning in 2010.' If 25%of these funds were dedicated to funding grade separation projects, $24 Million I- $30 Million could be raised over a six year period (2010 — 2015). The total contribution of STP funds available for grade separation projects through 2015 is projected at $30 Million. Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality fmprovementi(CMAQ) The CMAQ program provides flexible federal funding for projects and programs that reduce transportation -related emissions'i'n air quality non -attainment and maintenance areas. The primary purpose is to reduce carbon monoxide, ozone,' and particulate matter emissions. Intermodalnifreight facility improvements are eligible, and the CMAQ. program: has funded rail yards, branch lines, and clearance improvements." In the context of grade. separation, highway -rail crossings that have large amounts of delay, (and consequently emissions) could help achieve the objectives of this program. CMAQ funds, which are distributed by' states and MPOs, are apportioned according to a formula based on population{;'and the severity of pollution in ozone and carbon monoxide.areas. With some limitations, states may transfer CMAQ funds to .STP, NHS Program, Interstate . Maintenance Programs,- Bridge Program, Highway Safety .Improvement Program, and/or Recreational Trails Program apportionments. The federal share � is generally 80%, subject. to. the projects."` sliding scale and 90% for Interstate projects." u Similar to STP funds, RCTC is not likely to use CMAQ funds for grade separation projects before 2010. With the next reauthorization, RCTC might receive in the neighborhood of $20 _Million per year from the ;CMAQ program.t3 If 25% of these funds were used for grade separation projects over six years, there would be $30 Million in CMAQ funding for grade separation between 2010 and 2015. The total contribution of CMAQ funds available for grade separation projects ` through 2015 is projected at $30 Million. 9 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g04stp.pdf t0 April 3, 2006 phone conversation with Shirley Medina, RCTC. " AASHTO, "Freight -Rail Bottom Line Report," 2002 4 t2 Some activities receive a federal share of 100%. k "April 3, 2006 phone conversation vrith Shirley Medina, RCTC. 238 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 17 Railway -Highway Crossing Program (Section 130) Until 2005, ten percent of STP funds were reserved :for safety, which included railway -highway crossing projects (Section 130)' and hazard elimination activities (Section 152).14 Beginning in 2006, the federal railway -highway crossing program is funded with a $220 Million set -aside from the total amount authorized under SAFETEA-LU for the new Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).75 The purpose of the railway -highway crossing program is to eliminate hazards at highway -rail crossings. From the federal government's perspective, this can be in the form of grade separation. or more -incremental improvements (e:g., protective devices). Activities funded under this. program are also eligible for funding under the broader eligibilities of the HSIP FHWA administers the distribution of railway -highway crossing funds; however, states determine which public crossings need improvement and whatthelinprovements should be.1e Highway -rail grade separation projects are legally allowed under this program, although these projects have ,never been funded through Section 130' in California." Therefore, these funds are :not considered a potential source for RCTC grade separation projects at this time: If California's policy changes, however, these funds could be a source for ACE crossing grade'separation. In, the interim, this program might be used to fund other crossing- improvements where safety is a crucial issue. In order to qualify for the program, a•project must (i) beincluded in the California Public Utilities (CPUC) "Recommended List of Public Crossings in California for Improved Crossing Protection with Federal Funding, (ii) be on a public road open to vehicular traffic, and (iii) be included in the appropriate Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) developed by a metropolitan planning organization and. the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) approved by the FHWA. The ' CPUC evaluates projects under existing conditions and any projects to improve roadway•:capacity, such :as roadway widening, will not be considered.19 The federal share for this program is 90% and the remaining 10% is to be paid by the state, local authorities, and/or the railroad. A railroad participating in a hazard elimination project is :responsible .for compensating the state transportation department for the ',net benefit, to, the railroad of the project, but ,this, may not exceed 10% of the project cost.20'.The federal program i�s.funded by Contract authority, to remain 'available, for four years.: • California's average annual federal funding for the highway -rail crossing. ` program is $13,015,226 for FY2005 — FY2009.2' - '" http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g04stp:pdf , T5 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/railcrossings.htm " SAFETEA-LU specifies that 50% of a state's apportionment must be set aside for the installation of protective devices at railway -highway crossings. [1401, 23 USC 130-(e)1 '" February 10, 2006 phone conversation with Ken Galt, Caltrans.s - . 7 . http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/rail/dorwebsite/section130,pdf " http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/rail/dorwebsite/section130:pdf i0 http:!/www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/railcrossings.htm " PB Guide to SAFETEA-LU 239 18 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • • Federal Discretionary Funds Although new funding from the sources listed in this section is not available at this time, new funding may become available when SAFETEA-LU is reauthorized. Funding appropriations and allocations in past federal transportation bills do not indicate future funding; however, knowing which funding sources may be available and their historical funding amounts can be an approximate gauge for assessing potential future RCTC funding amounts. Because the High Priority Project, Transportation Improvement Project, and National Corridor Improvement programs were completely earmarked in SAFETEA-LU, Congressional support will likely be necessary to obtain funding from any of these sources if the reauthorization bill is similar to SAFETEA-LU. High benefit/cost ratios might help build support for funding the projects. Nigh Priority Project (HPP) Authorization Many highway -rail grade crossing projects arefunded with High Priority Project authorization earmarks in SAFETEA-LU. These allocations, however, are relatively small. Most HPP authorizations are $1 Million or less, and the upper limit is a few million dollars over the life of the authorization. There were 5,173 HPP earmarks totaling $14.832 Billion over five years; some projects received multiple earmarks. One of the larger HPP authorizations in SAFETEA-LU is in the Alameda Corridor East. The ACE Gateway to America Trade Corridor Project, which is a grade separation project from the Alameda Corridor (Hobart Junction) . to Los ,Angeles/San Bernardino County .Line, will receive $12.4 Million over the life of SAFETEA-LU. The City of Riverside received a $5 Million HPP earmark for grade separations. Transportation Improvement Projects(TIP) Similar to HPP authorizations, highway -rail grade separation funds are also earmarked in the Transportation Improvements section_ of SAFETEA=LU. There are fewer projects earmarked in this program (465),but the average authorization is slightly higher than HPP earmarks, typically in the $1 Million - $10.Million range. Typically, highway improvement projects receive funding from this section. Only a few (less than five) grade separation projects received funding from this section. One recipient is the ACE Construction Authority, which will receive a $30 Million Transportation Improvement authorization from SAFETEA-LU for grade separations. A total of $2.56 Billion is authorized for this program through 2009. RCTC did not receive any Transportation Improvement grade separation funding, and no additional funding from this source will become available before the next federal reauthorization. National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program. (NCIP) This program is for projects in corridors of national significance that promote economic growth and international or interregional trade. All funds from this program are earmarked in SAFETEA-LU. A total of $1.948 Billion is authorized for FY2005 — FY2009. The total contribution of HPP, TIP, and NCIP funds available for grade separation projects through 2015 is projected at $30 Million. 240 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 19 State: Prop 1B Bond initiative The $19.95 billion transportation bond initiative that will be'put before California voters on November 6th, also known as Proposition" TB, creates two, new accounts worth $3.25 billion in total which could fund grade separation projects. Prop 1B authorizes $2 billion to the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF). The proposition states that, "projects thatseparate'rail lines from highway,or local road traffic" are eligible for TCIF funding. This $2 billion will be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) along federally designated . "Trade Corridors of National Significance",and other_ corridors' with high volumes of freight movement. Prop 1B requires .the. CTC to consult trade infrastructure and goods movement plans adopted by regional transportation planning agencies, which would include ',the Multi -County Gaods , Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP)21. Another $1 billion is authorized for distribution. by the CTC to goods movement projects that result in emissions reductions.. Although the CTC must allocate the funds through the State Air Resources Board, BT&H 'officials have expressed a desire that the CTC's guidelines consider' grade separations as •air quality projects. Depending on the guidelines the CTC adopts, it may be feasible to fund: grade separation projects from this $1 billion air qualitji fund. Account Finally, Prop 1B creates the Highway -Railroad Crossing Safety , authorized at $250 million. Projects funded from this account require a dollar -for. dollar match of non -state founds. $150 million is to be allocated according to the Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) existing process for.i'dentifying and funding high -priority grade crossings. The other. $100.million is to be allocated: by the CTC, in consultation with the PUC, considering projects thatAare not on the PUC's statewide list of high -priority grade crossings: , Assuming passage of the Bond Initiative, the total contribution of funds available for grade separation projects = through 2015 is projected at $67 Million. Local: Measure A -- Economic Development Incentives Program In November 2002, Riverside County voters passed an extension of the Measure - A 1/2 cent sales tax program. The program includes a riew'category of funding: Economic Development Incentives with an allocation of $40 Million over the 30- year life of the Measure. The intent isto improve existing interchanges, construct new interchanges; provide public transit linkages or stations, and make other improvements to the transportation system:" Existing grade separation projects located in a commercial and industrial "development in Western Riverside County could be eligible to compete in this category. If 25% of these funds were used for grade separation projects over six years, there would be $10 Million in Economic Development Incentives funding for grade ;separation between 2010 and 2015. The total contribution of " Measure A `=Economic Development Incentives funds available for grade separationprojects through, 2015 is projected at $10 Million. " Measure A 2002 Expenditure Plan 241 20 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 which is - s • Railroad user Fees In some cases, railroad user fees have been used to fund rail grade separation projects. ACE.. could consider levying a user charge on railroads; however, railroads would likely resist such charges unless they believed they would benefit from grade separations. Additionally, railroad user fees need stable and increasing volumes of traffic." The most renowned example of using railroad user fees is the Alameda Corridor Project, which is discussed below. " The Alameda Corridor T'ransportatiOn Authority "(ACTA) charges a $16.75 fee for each 'loaded waterborne twenty=foot equivalent"unit Up)) Containe.r,.$4.47 for each empty or nibn-waterborne TEU container, and.$6.93"for other types of loaded waterborne rail cars that originate "terminate at the Sari Pedro Ray: -Ports and utilize the Alamede "raii corridor.. The"user fees"were used to back 0.2 "Billi n in revenue -backed bonds, The revenges fr€ ni..this are expected to;be $74 Million" far FY7006. User fees are just one part Of the Alameda, Corridor Project funding:pion. "Other major funding sources Were the .parts,of Long and Los Angeles ($394 Million), a U,S. [SOT:lflan ($409" Millitin),.the Los,Angel"es County- llllTA ($347: Millionl, and interest and " other resources ($160 .Mil on). The ACTA project is: unidue in that; it-consrilidated.f iir meandering train dines into pne throughway, efirriiriatirtg approximately."'300.at gride'highwetrail"crossing;;. , Mond, with" drivers: and aid Auaiitsi a[Ong :the berefited .considerably from ;the.. Alarrmeda :corridor- Project... ;;The raiiroodi :reeked speed rnproverents, . which :helped theni":n eet Their slippers` needs .Althorigh.the raitroads experienca intense coinpetitioii:<frarri :tructcs in:tho'Aferneda ? grricl i,:the railroads" clesity "benefited from the::raitthe :eonSPlidatiorr;.makirigII* o5erfe®s Ore acceptable.:: Sources. hrtpz1/4144, actsorgdneuvsraorn_factsjreer:Jttrrr www.innvvativeftriance org ACTA;"Prograni and Operating Budget for'Y. 005/2006 . The ACE project differs from the Alameda Corridor project in that no clear grade. separation speed advantages have been identified for the railroads.. Railroads would benefit from grade separation if the improvements allowed them to store. trains over longer segments of track (when parking trains, railroads often have to split trains into multiple segments to permit vehicles to cross at -grade crossings), although the dollar value of this benefit is unclear. Trains currently experience little or no delay that can be attributed to the highway -rail grade crossings in this study, so speed benefits appear to be small or non-existent. Therefore, it seems: unlikely that railroads would be willing to contribute a large amount of funding for highway -rail. grade separation at the RCTC high priority crossings, if anything. Railroads are commonly resistant about contributing to highway -rail grade. separation projects. Direct Contribution from Ports/Private If the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach believe goods movement through the port is constrained by ACE grade crossings, they might be willing to make contributions. However, because no significant delays due to the at -grade nature of the crossings have been identified as of yet, -this type of contribution is unlikely as ari ACE funding source at this time: "AASHTO, "Freight -Rail Bottom Line Report," 2002. 242 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 21 In addition to a contribution from the Ports, lead agencies have received"funding commitments from private developers for grade separation projects. The City of Banning anticipates receiving $7.9 Million of these funds to .support .the Sunset Avenue Grade Separation Project. Direct Contributions from Railroads to support Section 1,90 • Section 190 awards from the State require a: 10%. focal match froin the host railroad. (see page 12). The total contribution of. Section 190 funds through 2015 is projected at $30 Million. Therefore, the total "contribution from the railroads to support Section 190 through:2015 is:projected at'S3 Million. Unlikely Sources of Funding Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District " TIE is a formal reallocation of future property ".tax collections such that a' predetermined proportion is dedicated to a :specific• use,' in th'is .case, the, repayment of debt for the project.. : TIF districts are typically established to recapture the additional growth that jurisdictions are directly experiencing as a result of an infrastructure expansion or improvement project, which in this case is the grade separation of rail crossings.. Taxpayer would not experience .66 increased tax burden; ratherthe tax ...collecting jurisdiction would redirect a proportion of future growth in the tax revenues toward the repayment of project debt. Because this funding mechanism can be politically controversial and. the . projects are not likely to cause substantial -additional growth like a n_ ew:highway might, it does not seem to fit the RCTC funding plan program well. Development Impact Fee (DIF) District DIFs are a one-time fee charged to . developers:of new residential and/or 'commercial property. The revenue -stream fromdevelopment impact fees can be volatile as it is tied to the cyclical nature' of residential and" "commercial development. DIFs are typically used in areas:Where there will "be high levels of. new development taking place. A,Ithough Mrs have,.been used in multiple cases for highways, which tend to spur growth by increasing accessibility, rail grade separation is not likely to directly cause significant development. Therefore, this 'is an, unlikely funding source. Special assessment district (SAD) " A special assessment district is a tax that typically is in the form "of,an additional "cents per $100 in real property". that would .be paid on .all residential .and commercial property in parity with existing "property taxes., SADs represent an increase inthe tax rate rather than a, reallocation. of taxes already being paid ,in the Tax" Increment Finance. This.is an option, local leaders may want to consider if' there is strong support for: the need to grade separate the highway -rail crossings and/or other sources:cannot fully `pay for the project;. however, the amount is still likely to be relatively small and unpopular with those being forced to make a contribution. Direct or Indirect Contributions from Private Beneficiaries Many of the grade separation benefitsaccrue to residences and businesses located near the grade crossings.' The grade separation. project could potentially capture this, and .receive, in -kind contributions from adjacent landowners (e.g.," right-of-way or cash contributions .in exchange for more favorable zoning. or accelerated transportation improvements): This source might be more likely if landowners have a significant investment near a crossing, although few (if any) donations should be expected. 243 22 RCTC Grade Separation: Funding Plan" 2006 w • • County or City Fuel/Sales_Tax Because much of the grade separation- benefits would accrue to drivers and people living orworking along the corridor, an`,additional county or city fuel tax may be a potential funding source: As an example, San Bernardino County has raised $6 Million for grade separation from a portion of the county half -cent transportation sales tax (Measure 0.25 An alternative approach is a ? cent !city sales tax with a 10 year sunset provision. Approval of this type of tax would .require a 2/3rds majority vote, and could generate up to. $11. Million per year for the City of Riverside. However, due to recent TUMF measures, it is unlikely voters would approve a new fuel/sales tax surcharge for a highway -rail. grade separation program in at least the next five years. Key Factors for Success Critical to the success of achieving the RCTC funding strategy • Lead Agency Commitment to develop shelf -ready projects. In order to compete effectively on a national, state, and local stage for discretionary funds, projects must be shelf -ready (i.e. completion of preliminary engineering, final design, and environmental clearance). It will be critical for the lead agencies to develop shelf -ready projects through the use of local fund sources in order to leverage the federal and state discretionary dollars; • Project Completion of Funding Priority Group A is required to demonstrate the region's ability to deliver the projects in a timely manner.. These four projects must be completed prior to reauthorization of the transportation billin order to leverage the ability to -receive the $361.8 Million of potential future funding; and • Legislative Action is required to streamline the delivery of projects as well as increase the eligibility of grade separation projects for funding. For example, Section 190 restricts the ability of lead agencies to seek future funds for a period of 10 years if they receive an award of $6 Million. A bill introduced in 2006 by Assemblyman John J. Benoit (R-Palm Desert) and sponsored by the City of Riverside, AB 2630, seeks to lift the ten year restriction on agencies that have allocated more than $5.million to one grade,separation. As.of July 2006, this bill has passed unanimously through the State. Assembly and is on its way to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Federal funding through Congress must also remain a top priority. In, many ways, the goods movement need that creates Riverside County's grade crossing crisis is a natural byproduct of federal economic policy, The nation's economy depends on free trade which has led to additional rail demand. As a result, it is incumbent on the Congress to fund goods movement -related projects. In addition, the County Transportation Commissions in Southern California have launched a "trade corridor approval process" as part of the Southern California Leadership Council Green Freight Initiative. The purpose is to address streamlining, CPUC approval of utility relocations associatedwith grade separation projects through development of public -private partnerships. This could result in a single pre -approval process for international trade corridors rather than a project by project basis which can prolong the delivery of projects and increase project costs. T5 http://www.sanbag.com 244 RCTC .Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 23 Private State Federal Local Current Programmed Funds 100% - 90%.- 80% 70% 60% " 50% " 40% ---- 30% -. 20%' 10% ' 0% Private State 111- Balance Needed Federal Local CurrentFunding Status Showing Shortfall Summary of Funding . Sources The table below summarizes the proposed funding, mixfor thehigh priority crossings: Funding Source Currently Plan/ Available for Projected , Totals Program ,, Funding Funding Federal ...................... Congressional Earmarks $19.4M. $ 3.4M - $16.0M. Projects of Nat'l & Regional Significance $109.OM mom $10.2M $77.8M Transp: & Community & System Preservation $ 4.0M • $2.01V1 $ 2.0M . Formula Funds ................. _ _......................... Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality $40.8M $10.8M - $30.0M Section 130 - - - Surface Transportation Program $30.0M - - .$30.0M Discretionary Funds High Priority Project $30.0M - ' $30.0M Nat'l Corridor Infrastructure . Improvement Program Transportation Improvement Projects Total Federal State Section 190 Discretionary Funds Bond Initiative $233.2M $35.2M : $12.2M $185.8M $40.OM $10.0M $30.0M .$66.7M , $66.7 M Total State Local $106.7M $10.0M $96.7M Measure A - Local Streets &Roads ' $15.0M : $2.0M - $13.0M Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee $175.0M $1.33.9M, $41.1 M Discretionary Funds Direct Contribution from Private $ 7.9M $ 7.9M _ = Direct Contribution from Railroads $ 6.31VI, $ 3.3M $3.0M Measure A - Economic Development $10.0M - - $10.0M County General Fund $ 6.7M $ 6.7M Total Local $220.910 $153:.8M n _ $67:1M Totals $560.81V1. $199.0M Funding Needed ($361.<811) $1,2:2M:. S349.6 The funding strategy recommends that the $361.8M needed to addressthe funding gap be secured from federal (55% or $198.0M), state (27% or $96.7M), and local/private sources (19% or $67.1M) between now and 2015 in order to fully fund the 18 high priority crossings. 245 24 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 • • Appendix A RCTC ACE Trade Corridor Grade Crossing Separation Needed List, April 2006 Rail Line Overall Cross Street Lead Agency Weighted Score" Priority Group UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) . BNSF (SB SUB). BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) - UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (RIV) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (LA SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN), BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) Jurupa Rd Chicago Av Magnolia Av 3rd St Riverside County Riverside • Riverside County Riverside McKinley St Corona n Columbia Av (BNSF) Magnolia Av Sunset Av Riverside Av Iowa Av (BNSF) Adams St Auto Center Dr Hargrave St Clay St Smith Av 7th St Tyler St 22nd St Avenue 48/Dillon Road Center St San Gorgonio Av Streeter Av • Jurupa Ave Palmyrita Av (UP) Spruce St (BNSF) Madison St Brockton Av Mary St Pierce St Avenue 62 Railroad St Panorama Rd Buchanan St Bellgrave Av Avenue 66 Palm Av Avenue 52 California Av San Timoteo Canyon Rd Washington St Apache Trail Rutile St Jefferson St • Cridge St Viele Av Cota St Broadway Mountain View Av 'Airport Drive Main St Jackson St Pennsylvania Av Joy St Harrison St Tipton Rd Radio Rd Jane St Avenue 54 Avenue 58 Sheridan St Gibson St Riverside Riverside Banning Riverside Riverside Riverside Corona Banning Riverside County Corona Riverside Riverside Banning Indio/Coachella Riverside County Banning Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside County Corona Riverside Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Coachella Beaumont Calimesa Riverside Riverside County Riverside County. Riverside Riverside Beaumont Corona Riverside County Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Beaumont Corona Riverside Palm Springs Corona Riverside ' Coachella Riverside County Corona Riverside 4412 4330 4250 4010 3950 3950; 3880 3800 3785 3770 3665 3638 3625 3535 3263 .3110 3100 3100 3075 3008 3000 2965 2925 2835 2695 2690 2650 2640 2590 2544 2475 2465 2400 2348 2265 2265 2258 2200 2100 2080 2052 2046 2030 2025 1983 1938 1904 1650 1592 1531 1330 1267 1250 1120 1100' 1075 1060 767 688 663 . •520 246 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2s 2 2 2 2 2 Seven factors were Gonsidered in determining the overall score and resulting priority group; they were: identified in consultation with ..technical staff ofthe affected jurisdictions, and approved by the Riverside . County.. Transportation . Commission {RCTC}. The factors include: 20% of total score 20% of to 1 score 20% of tot a 1 score 10% of to 1 score . . 10% of total score 10% of tpta [ score 10% of total score RCTC estab ished a Priority List in March 2001.... The List uvas updated in April 2006.. Between March 2001 and April 2006, one grade separation project was completed: Avenue 50, Coachella in January 2004. Appendix B RCTC GradeSeparation Funding Strategy: Funding Summary IS in Millions) RCTC • ' _ Total Priurty Project Program/ /. Balance .. Project Tier.Project Total Plan FEDERAL STATE : LOCAL PRIVATE Needed Status • - _Funding Strategy Priority. A .......... .. .-_..._._:_.........._.._..._...........:......._:........:......__..... 1 Columbia Av/BNSF & UP- Riverside $21.0 21.0 • ° 21.0 . •• . $0.0 PE 1 Sunset Av/UP - Banning $21.0 21.0 10.6 9.4 _ 1.0 $0.0 PE 2 Jurupa Ave/UP - Riverside $21.7 21.7 12.2 5.0 3.4 1.1 $0.0 Final Design ,2 .Avenue 48/Dillon Road/UP - Coachella/Indio $16.1 16.1 7.1 5.0 2.8 1.2' ' . $0.0 Final Design Subtotal Priority A $79.8 $79.8 $29.9 • $10.0 $36.6 " $3.3 $0.0 - Funding Source Split 100.00% - 37.47% 125,7% 45.86%': 4.14% Q00% : - Funding Strategy Priority B 1 Chicago Av/BNSF & UP - Riverside $48.7 19.3 - 19.3 $29.4, - 1 Magnolia Av/BNSF - Riverside County $26.7 9.7 9.7 $17.0 - 1 3rd St/BNSF & UP - Riverside $31.7 1.0 1.0 - $30.7 PE 1 McKinley St/BNSF- Corona• $109.2 30.4 1.0 29.4 '$78.8 1 Magnolia Av/UP - Riverside $27.2 9.7 9.7 - $17.5 • PE 1 lowa Av/BNSF & UP- Riverside • $19.0 14.5 - 14.5 $4.5 - 1 Adams St/BNSF - Riverside $24.0 9.7 : 9.7 - $14.3 - 2 Auto Center. Dr/BNSF -.Corona $27.0 2.2 1.5 - 0.7 - $24.8 - 2 Clay St/UP - Riverside County $25.0 3.0 2.5 - 0.5 - • $22.0 - 2 Center.St/BNSF & UP," Riverside County, $36.3 9.7 - - 9.7 - $26.6 • ' 2 Streeter Av/UP - Riverside . $33.7 0.3 0.3 - - $33.4 - 2 Madison St/BNSF -'Riverside $19.0 9.7 - - 9.7 - $9.3 - Subtotal Priority B. $427.5 $119.2 5.3 - $113.9 $308:3,• ' " Funding Source Split 100.00% 1.24% 0.00% 26.64% . 0.00% 72.12% Funding Strategy Priority C 1, Jurupa Rd/UP - Riverside County $26.5 - $26.5 1 , Riverside Av/UP - Riverside $27.0 - - $27.0: Subtotal Priority C'. $53.5 - - - - 03.5 •, Funding Source Split 100.00% - 0.00% 0.00% a00% . 0.00% 100.00% . TOTALS $560.8 S199,0 S35.2 S10.0 $150.5 S3,3 S351.8 Funding Source Split 100.00% 6.28% 1.78% 26.84% 0.59% - 64.51 % Non Priority 1& 2 Crossings w/Funding .. Railroad.St/Cerona San Timoteo Canyon Road/Calimesa Viele Av/Beaumont 247 26 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 Appendix C RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: Funding - Detail ($ in Millions) FEDERAL • STATE LOCAL • • PRIVATE • RCTC Total ACE - - Priorty Project Program/ SAFETEA CMAQ/ Approp CPUC Measure Gen Balance Tier Pro"ect Total Plan LU STP Earmark 190 A TUMF Fund RRds Other Needed Funding Strategy Priority A 1 Columbia Av/BNSF, & UP- Riverside - $21.0 21.0 - 21.0 1 ;Sunset Av/UP - Banning $21.0 21.0 2 Jurupa Ave/UP - Riverside $21.7 21.7 2 Avenue 48/Dillon Road/UP - Coachella/Indio $16.1 16.1 i- Subtotal Priority A $79.8 $79.8 /00.00% /00.00% r- 7.5 3.1 1.5 1.0 7.9 - . 6.0 6.2 5.0 0.5 2.9 1.1 2.5 4.6 - 5.0 2.8 1.2 $16.0 $10.8 $3.1 $10.0 $2.0 $21.0 $5.7 $3.3 ' $7.9 $0.0 ... .. 0.00% ' Funding Strategy Priority B , . 1 Chicago Av/BNSF & UP - Riverside $48.7 • 193 193 $29.4 III, 1 Magnolia Av/BNSF - Riverside County $26.7 9.7 9.7 $.0 t 1 3rd St/BNSF & UP - Riverside $31.7 1.0 1.0 - 17. $30.7 1 McKinley St/BNSF - Corona $109.2 30.4 1.0 29A $78.8 1 Magnolia Av/UP - Riverside $27.2 9.7 9.7 $17.5 1 Iowa Av/BNSF & UP- Riverside $19.0 14.5 14.5 $4.5 1 Adams St/BNSF - Riverside 9.7 9.7 $143 , $24.0 : , . 2 Auto Center Dr/BNSF - Corona $27.0 2.2 1.5 0.7 2 Center St/BNSF & UP- Riverside County $36.3 9.7 9.7 $22$24:8 2 Clay St/UP - Riverside County $25.0 3.0 2.5 0.5 0 , . , :. $26.6' 2 Streeter Av/UP - Riverside $33.7 0.3 0.3 $33.4 e 2 Madison St/BNSF - Riverside - $19.0 9.7 - - 9.7 $9.3 Subtotal Priority B $427.5 $119.2 $5.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.0 $0.0 $112.9 $1.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3083 100.00% 27.88% 72.12% g Funding Strategy Priority C F., • 1 Jurupa Rd/UP - Riverside County Riverside Av/UP - Riverside Subtotal Priority C $26.5 $27.0 $53.5 /00.00% 0.00% $26.5 $27.0 $53.5 700.00% TOTALS $560.43 $199.0 $21.0 $10.8 $3.4 $10.0 $2.0 $133,9 $6.7 $3.3 $7.9 $361.8 Available But Unprogrammed Non Priority 1& 2 Crossings w/Funding 3 Railroad St/Corena 3 San Timoteo Canyon Road/Calimesa 4 Viele Av/Beaumont Projects Completed in Last 5 Years Ave 50/UP - Coachella (s)ri 2004) 100.00% $10.2 ,•• "p7. • • 248 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 , 27 TUMF 9.7 9.7 19.3 64.51% Appendix D RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: Impacts - Elimination Of: 2005 Daily 2030 Daily *Noise • *Noise RCTC 2005 .Gate 2030 Daily Vehicle Vehicle Accidents„ 2030 Total Population Population Priorty Down. Time Gate Down Hours : , Hours Eliminated/ Emissions Affected Affected, TierProject(Min) Time (Min)..- of beta Y of Delay 10 yrs (tons/year) w/in 1600' ._w/in_6400'_ Funding Strategy Priority A T Columbia Av/BNSF & UP- Riverside 185.6 383.4 33.9 145.4 ' 1 13.90 . 1,082 .12,937 1 Sunset Av/UP - Banning ' 101.2 200.6 40.4 194.0 1 17.74 ' 921 8,334 . 2 Jurupa Ave/UP - Riverside 83.3 162.5 16A 48.7 2 . 4.05 • 2,811 21,987 • 2 Avenue 48/Dillon Road/UP - Coachella/Indio 74.5 140.9 12.9 81.5 2 • 6.99 . 582 7,400 Subtotal Priority A 444.6 887.4 103.6 469.6 fi 42.68' ' 5,396 • 50,658 7 hrs 25 min. 14 hrs 47 min. _Funding Strategy Priority._8.................._..........................._. 1 Chicago Av/BNSF & UP - Riverside 185.6 383.4 33.0 168.1 4 ' 15.85..1,264 1 Magnolia Av/BNSF - Riverside County 104.8 203.5 24.8 103.4 . 6 9.93 2,851 1 3rd St/BNSF & UP - Riverside 185.6 383.4 37.4 148.0 1 14.14 1,140 1 McKinley St/BNSF - Corona 106.2 • 204.9 65.2 276.7 3 25.80 • 2,851 1 Magnolia Av/UP - Riverside 96.7 175.9 99.3 187.3 1 ' 7.68 1,233 1 lowa Av/BNSF & UP- Riverside 185.6 383.4 51.8 254.1 1 23.96 524 2 Adams St/BNSF - Riverside 104.8 203.5 38.4 114.5 1 10.99 2,630 2 Auto Center Dr/BNSF - Corona 114.4 214.6 23.3 264.1 1 18.96 843 2 Clay St/UP - Riverside County 84.3 163.5 42.5 131.8 1 11:36 1,247 2 Center St/BNSF & UP- Riverside County • 187.4 385.2 20.0 85.0 . 0. . 7.92 965 2 StreeterAv/UP - Riverside. 91.5 - 170.7 29.2 72.8 . 1 4.58 2,898 2 Madison St/BNSF - Riverside 104.8 203.5 14.7 38.8 • 2 3.0 1,691 Subtotal Priority B . 1,551.7 3,075.5 479.6 1,844.6 22. • -154.85 20,137 25 hrs 52 min. 51 hrs 15 min. • 21,672 23,596 -. 26,686 20,202 24,520 9,325 24,406 • 18,169 9,227 9,989 ' • 24,226 . 22,621: 234,639 Funding Strategy Priority' C 1 • Jurupa Rd/UP.- Riverside County 126.9 205.9 105.4 291.7 • 6 ' _ 8.48 ,972 ; 9,856 1 Riverside Av/UP - Riverside . 1.14.6 206.0 88.3 139.4 2 6.24 1,253 ' 21,936 Subtotal Priority C 241.5 411.9 1933 431.1 8 14.72 2,225' 31,792 25 hrs 52 min. 51 hrs 15 min. TOTALS S560.8 S199.0 $35.2 S10.0 $150.5 S3,3 $361.8 31 hrs 18 min. 72 hrs 55 min. Data in BLUE denotes highest in County among all 60 at grade crossings. *Populations may overlap at adjacent crossings - Totals likely include double -counting. 249 28 RCTC Grade Separation, Funding Plan 2006 • 250 RCTC Grade Separation Funding Plan 2006 Riverside County Transportation Commission A Plan for the Future Riverside County Transportation Commission Spring 2007 A.Overview of RCTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 B. Preparing for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 C. Plan to Address the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 D. Priority Projects at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 E. Measure A Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 F. Financial Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 G.Financial Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 H.Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 I. Appendix: Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission – Board Leadership Terry Henderson, Chair Jeff Stone, First Vice Chair Bob Magee, Second Vice Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission – Executive Staff Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates – Financial Advisor Daniel Wiles, Principal & General Counsel Anna Racheva, Assistant Vice President Lehman Brothers – Senior Managing Underwriter, Commercial Paper Dealer, and Swap Counterparty John McCray-Goldsmith, Senior Vice President Banc of America Securities – Managing Underwriter, Commercial Paper Dealer, and Swap Counterparty Scott Nagelson, Principal PRESENTATION PARTICIPANTS 10 86 RANCHO MIRAGE PALM SPRINGS CATHEDRAL CITY PALM DESERT DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS LA QUINTA INDIO COACHELLA BANNINGBEAUMONT S A N JACINTO MTN S. S A N T A R O S A M T N S . HEMET CALIMESA S p ri n g s R o a d G i l ma n Ramona Expressway Alessandro Blvd. MORENO VALLEY Cajalco Road Van Buren Blvd. PERRIS RIVERSIDE NORCO LAKE ELSINORE CANYON LAKE MURRIETA TEMECULA R3 79 79 215 74 15 91 79 60 10 62 111 243 74 74 86 111 195 371 SAN JACINTO 74 CORONA COLO RADO RIVER BLYTHE 10 78 95 2 GOVERNANCE State law created the Commission in 1976 to oversee funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for Measure A, a voter-approved 1/2 cent sales tax, first passed in 1988, and in 2002, renewed by voters through 2039. Commission Representation: One representative from each of the 24 listed cities Five members of the County Board of Supervisors Governor’s appointee (non-voting)OVERVIEW OF RCTC Governance Management Priorities Funding Sources Terry Henderson, Chair City of La Quinta Jeff Stone, First Vice Chair County of Riverside Bob Magee, Second Vice Chair City of Lake ElsinoreLEADERSHIPRCTC Board of CommissionersMarion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Brenda Salas, City of Banning Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck, City of Blythe John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Jeff Miller, City of Corona Hank Hohenstein, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe, City of Hemet Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Michael H. Wilson, City of Indio Frank West, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs, City of Murrieta Frank Hall, City of Norco Dick Kelly, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden, City of Palm Springs Daryl R. Busch, City of Perris Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams, City of Riverside Chris Carlson, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts, City of Temecula Michael Perovich, Director, Caltrans District 8 COMMISSIONERS 3 MANAGEMENT Led by the Executive Director, six top managers have responsibilities that fall into six major categories: Regional Programs Administration Legislative Affairs and Communications Capital Project Delivery Finance Transportation Planning & Programming Eric Haley, Executive Director MANAGEMENTRCTC Executive StaffClerk of the Board & Board Relations Office & Records Management Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Legislative Advocacy Executive Management Board of Commissioners Executive Committee Legal Counsel Policy Committees • Transit • Plans & Programs • Budget & Implementation • Property Advisory Committees • Technical Advisory • Citizens Advisory Administration Legislative Affairs & Communications Highway & Rail Capital Programs New Corridors Financial Management Contract Management & Procurement Budget Development Capital Project Delivery Finance Regional Transportation Plan State Transportation Improvement Program Congestion Management TUMF Program Transportation Planning & Programming Property Management Legislative Analysis Public Information & Communications Media RelationsClaims & Insurance Administration Human Resources Commuter Assistance Goods Movement Call Box Program Freeway Service Patrol Rail Operations Transit Planning Regional Programs Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2006 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Cathy Bechtel, Director of Project Delivery John Standiford, Director of Public Affairs Stephanie Wiggins, Director of Regional Programs Governance Management Priorities Funding Sources 4 PRIORITIES Governance Management Priorities Funding Sources Foster Environmental Stewardship Promote environmental stewardship and protect the area’s natural resources and quality of life while achieving mobility goals Encourage Economic Development Consider economic benefits of improvements and pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development Support Transportation Choices Through Intermodalism and Accessibility Develop transportation alternatives Promote Mobility Create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and the region Mitigate and Address the Impact of Goods Movement Facilitate the movement of goods and services throughout the County Ensure Improved System Efficiencies Advocate affordable and advanced transportation technologies to improve safety and reduce congested corridors Prioritize Public and Agency Communications Provide timely and informative information to encourage informed public and agency participation 5 FUNDING SOURCES RCTC’s funding sources are diverse and include the Measure A sales tax, the TDA sales tax, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, reimbursements primarily from federal and state goverments, investment income, vehicle registration fees, and other income. Governance Management Priorities Funding Sources Reimbursements 1.2% Other 0.6% Investment Income 3.3% Vehicle Registration Fees 0.5% Measure A Sales Tax 44.5% TDA Sales Tax 25.8% TUMF 24.1% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2006 6 STATUS OF 1989 MEASURE A IMPROVEMENTS RCTC has accomplished all but a few of the projects in the 1989 Measure A. State bond funding (CMIA) of $157.2 million was recently allocated for the SR-91 HOV lanes from Adams St. to the SR-60/SR-91/I-215 interchange. GROWTH FACTORS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY Growing population—2006 population estimated at 2,004,608 people Relative home price advantage compared to Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties Strong employment growth Growing sales tax base Status of 1989 Measure A Improvements Growth Factors for Riverside County Level of Service Projections Major Organizational Changes PREPARING FOR THE FUTUREFREEWAYS/HIGHWAYS/MAJOR ARTERIALS COMPLETED COMMUTER RAIL INTERSECTIONS INTERCHANGE UNDER DEVELOPMENT/ CONSTRUCTION MAY BE FUNDED UNFUNDED 78 10 BLYTHE CO LORADO RIVER 95 5/05 RANCHO MIRAGE PALM SPRINGS CATHEDRAL CITY PALM DESERT DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS LA QUINTA INDIO COACHELLA BANNING BEAUMONT SA N J A CIN T O M T N S . S A N T A R O S A MTN S . S ANTA ANA M T NS. HEMET CALIMESA SAN JACINTO Lake Perris MORENO VALLEY PERRIS NORCO CORONA LAKE ELSINORE MURRIETA TEMECULA Lake Skinner 79 74 R3 79 79 215 74 15 91 79 60 10 10 62 111 243 74 74 86 86 111 195 371 RIVERSIDE CANYON LAKE Lake Mathews 71 8691215215 60 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROJECTIONS (2015) Riverside County’s growth means more cars on the road and RCTC has a plan to address decreasing levels of service resulting from the growth. Status of 1989 Measure A Improvements Growth Factors for Riverside County Level of Service Projections Major Organizational Changes 83 71 91 91 74 74 74 74 5 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 243 79 79 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 60 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA Legend Existing LOS D F F(0) F(1) F(2) F(3)N Freeway performance is commonly described by planners and engineers in terms of a measure called Level of Service (LOS), which is a letter grade ranking that describes how well a roadway operates. LOS ranges from A to F with LOS A being the best operating condition possible and LOS F being the worst. LOS D is the level at which speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows. LOS F represents stop and go, low speed conditions with little or poor maneuverability. LOS is further sub-classified with respect to the relative duration of delay. LOS F(0) is heavy congestion; LOS F(1) is very heavy congestion; LOS F(2) is extremely heavy congestion; and LOS F(3) is gridlock. Goods Movement Manager Executive Director Board of Commissioners Executive Assistant Administrative Support Specialist Staff Analyst (2) Public Affairs Director Community Relations Manager Deputy Executive Director Senior Accounting Assistant (2) Accounting Technician (2) Accounting Supervisor Toll Project Manager (I-15) Toll Project Manager (SR-91) Regional Programs Director Staff Analyst Transit Manager Staff Analyst Commuter Assistance Manager Rail Manager Toll Programs DirectorChief Financial Officer Accounting & Human Resources Manager Administrative Support Specialist Deputy Executive Director Project Development Director Property Administrator Capital Projects Manager PVL Project Manager Right of Way Manager Staff Analyst (2) Capital Projects Manager Legal Counsel Administrative Support Specialist Senior Office Assistant Clerk of the Board Administrative Assistant Programming Manager Staff Analyst Programming Manager Project Delivery Director Contracts/Motorist Assistance Manager Senior Staff Analyst New positions approved 2/07 8 MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES Increase from 32 budgeted positions to 44 by end of FY 2008 Capital Projects Delivery—4 new positions Toll Programs—3 new contract positions Other · Public Affairs · Goods Movement · Programming · Accounting · Administration Support Status of 1989 Measure A Improvements Growth Factors for Riverside County Level of Service Projections Major Organizational Changes 2008 ORGANIZATION CHART RCTC is adding staff to ensure that its planned projects and programs are accomplished. Projects CMIA Revenue Costs P3 & Tolls 10-Year Delivery Plan 9 2009 MEASURE A PLAN OVER THE LONG RUN ENHANCING MOBILITY IN THE FACE OF GROWTH RCTC is acting NOW to deliver mobility that will meet the challenges of growth. First steps for Western County Measure A highway projects —UNDER EVALUATION 10-Year Delivery Plan — APPROVED · Focus on priority corridors · Act and deliver projects quickly · Seek to invest more than $2 billion in first 10 years of the new Measure Federal approvals for Perris Valley Line —BEING SECURED · Metrolink extension projected to open in 2010 · FTA “Small Starts” designation 2009 Measure A Plan Enhancing Mobility in the Face of Growth Completed Preparation Activities Western County Delivery Plan Priority List Through 2019 FREEWAYS/HIGHWAYS MEASURE A COMMUTER RAIL MAJOR ARTERIALS INTERCHANGE 5/05 INDIO BANNING BEAUMONT MORENO VALLEY CALIMESARIVERSIDE CORONA MURRIETA TEMECULA NORCO PERRIS HEMET COACHELLA LA QUINTA PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE CATHEDRAL CITY PALM SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS DESERT HOT SPRINGS SAN JACINTO CANYON LAKELAKE ELSINORE 78 10 BLYTHE COLORADO RIVER 95 PLAN TO ADDRESS THE FUTURE 10 COMPLETED PREPARATION ACTIVITIES Updated cost data Calculated congestion relief and other benefits Updated projected Measure A revenues Considered public/private partnerships Submitted projects for state bond funding (CMIA) WESTERN COUNTY DELIVERY PLAN PRIORITY LIST THROUGH 2019 RCTC has identified priority projects and has an approved plan to achieve them between now and 2019. Immediately pursue construction: · State Route 91 · Interstate 15 · Interstate 215 · Interstate 10 Pursue environmental clearance: · Bi-county Interstate 215 project · Mega projects: State Route 79 realignment & Mid County Parkway (MCP) Protect right of way for mega projects Consider additional projects as opportunities arise 2009 Measure A Plan Enhancing Mobility in the Face of Growth Completed Preparation Activities Western County Delivery Plan Priority List Through 2019 March ARB Diamond Valley Lake Wildomar Temecula Sun City San Juan Capistrano San Clemente Rancho SantaMargarita Murrieta Mission Viejo Lake Forest Lake Elsinore Laguna Woods Laguna Niguel Laguna Hills Irvine Foothill Ranch Coto de Caza Aliso Viejo Yucaipa San Jacinto Redlands Perris Moreno Valley Hemet Grand Terrace East Heme Colton Beaumon Yorba Linda Rubidoux Pomona Pedley Ontario Norco Montclair MiraLoma Glen Avon Corona Chino Hills Chino Bloomington Anaheim Riverside Calimesa RIVERS IDE CO .ORANGE CO . RIV E R S I D E C O . SA N D I E G O C O . SAN BERNARDINO CO. RIVERSIDE CO. 133 261 241 142 83 71 1 91 74 74 74 60 5 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 210 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 10 405405 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 73 79 79 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 91 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 79 0510 Miles N 11 PRIORITY PROJECTS AT A GLANCE State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding OpportunitiesPRIORITY PROJECTS AT A GLANCE 12 91 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities 91 Norco Riverside RIV ERSI DE CO.ORANGE CO . RIVERSIDE CO. SAN BERNARDINO CO. Serfas Club Dr. 71 5 210 10 215 15 10 405 15 215 10 91 15 215 Construct two HOT Lanes & a General Purpose Lane from OC Line to I-15 and a General Purpose Lane to Pierce Street Construct EB Auxiliary Lane from OC Line to Serfas Club Drive Build Connector Improvements and Collector Distributor (CD) System at SR-71 Implement Connector Improvements and CD System at I-15 Cost: $835 Million PROPOSEDTODAY 15 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA Diamon Valley Lake Temecula Canyon Lake Rancho Santa Margarita Murrieta Lake Elsinore oto Caza Redlands Perris Moreno Valley Grand Terrace Norco ona Bloomington Riverside Lake PerrisLake Mathews RI V E R S ID E C O . OR A N G E C O . RIV E R SAN BERNARDINO CO. RIVERSIDE CO. Indian Truck Trail Bundy Canyon Rd. 91 74 74 60 5 210 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 15 10 405 79 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 10 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 60 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 79 Add 2 HOT lanes in each direction from SB County to SR-74 Construct HOV Lane from SR-74 to I-215 Support French Valley Parkway Coordinate with SANDAG regarding future improvements Cost: $827 Million PROPOSEDTODAY13 14 215 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA Add Mixed Flow Lane in each direction from I-15 to Nuevo Road Construct HOV Lane in each direction from Nuevo Road to Box Springs Road Cost: $417 Million ·State bond funding (CMIA) of $38.6 million for the I-15 to Scott Road segment PROPOSEDTODAYCanyon Lake Murrieta Lake Elsinore Perris Moreno Valley Riverside Lake Perris March ARB Eucalyptus Ave. Box Springs Rd. Nuevo Rd. Scott Rd. 74 74 5 210 10 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 15 10 405 79 1515 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215 60 10 15 60 215215 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 15 10 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA Construct Truck Climbing Lane from San Bernardino County line to SR-60/I-10 Interchange Cost: $47 Million PROPOSEDTODAYYucaipa Banning Calimesa SAN BERNARDINO CO. RIVERSIDE CO. 5 210 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 215 15 10 405 15 215 1010 INTERSTATE CALIFORNIA 15 215 16 State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities PRIORITY PROJECT COST IMPLICATIONS Examining Toll Roads in Riverside County Over and above Measure A program Public or private or public/private? Strategic partnership review with PB Consult, KPMG, and Nossman Opportunities to build public projects sooner on SR-91 & I-15 HOV policy implications HOV 2+ HOV 3+ NEXT STEPS: Highway Delivery Plan Begin environmental clearance for multiple projects Complete updated Traffic/Revenue Studies Seek legislative authorization for HOT Lanes projects Foster ongoing communication and dialogue with communities and the public on upcoming projects Stage Project Cost (millions) Build SR-91 $ 835 Build I-15 827 Build I-215 417 Build I-10 47 Subtotal Build Projects 2,126 Environmental I-215 Bi-county 55 Environmental SR-79 39 Environmental MCP 31 Subtotal Environmental Projects 125 ROW SR-79/MCP 167 Rail Perris Valley Line 165 TOTAL $ 2,583 I-2 1 5 : R I V E R S I D E —P E R R I S 17 State Route 91 Interstate 15 Interstate 215 Interstate 10 Priority Project Cost Implications Next Steps Perris Valley Line Funding Opportunities PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL EXTENSION 22.7-mile extension from Riverside to Perris $193 million capital project · 19 miles of single track upgrade · Construction of up to 6 stations · Purchase of additional rail cars Pending FTA approval for Preliminary Engineering · $145 million in federal and state funding · Short-term financing may be required · Potential use of design-build delivery method FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FUNDING SOURCES Commercial Sales Tax Toll Revenue Federal & State Bonds Paper Revenue Bond Projects Measure A State (CMIA) TUMF Financing Bond Financing Financing Highway: Build SR-91 HOT & Mixed flow lanes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes I-15 HOT & HOV lanes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes I-215 HOV lanes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A I-10 Truck climbing lanes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A Highway: Environmental I-215 Bi-county Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes N/A SR-79 Realignment Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A Mid County Parkway Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A Highway: Right of Way Mid County Parkway Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A SR-79 Realignment Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A Rail: Perris Valley Line Yes Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Rail 11% $100.0 Regional Arterials 6% $52.5 Tra nsit Services 6% $55.0 Highways 37% $318.5 Local Streets and Roads 40% $344.0 18 Riverside County Economy Measure A Sales Tax Overview Measure A Comparison: 1989 and 2009 2009 Measure A Allocations Measure A Sales Tax Revenue MEASURE A SALES TAXBond Financing 6% $270.0 Economic Development 1% $40.0 New Corridors 8% $370.0 Tra nsit and Commuter Rail 12% $578.0 Local Streets and Roads 31% $1,456.0 Highways and Regional Arterials 42% $1,948.0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ECONOMY Macroeconomic drivers for growth: Increasing population Relatively affordable housing Expanding job base Increasing taxable sales · 2006 UCLA Study, Sales tax growth projected 2.8% to 5.4% per year over the 30-year period MEASURE A SALES TAX OVERVIEW 1989 Measure A · 2 1/2 years remaining 2009 Measure A · Revenue forecast updated for 30-year period · $500 million bond limitation Riverside County economic growth Amounts listed are as presented in the respective measures 1989 Measure A (At inception) $870 Million Total 2009 Measure A (Original Assumptions) $4,662 Million Total MEASURE A COMPARISON: 1989 AND 2009 ($ MILLIONS) 19 Projections are net of State Board of Equalization fees and assume growth rates projected in the May 2006 UCLA study Riverside County Economy Measure A Sales Tax Overview Measure A Comparison: 1989 and 2009 2009 Measure A Allocations Measure A Sales Tax Revenue 2009 MEASURE A ALLOCATIONS (IN MILLIONS) Original Updated Western County New Corridors $ 370 $ 845 Highway Improvements 1,020 2,330 Transit and Commuter Services 390 891 Regional Arterial Projects 300 685 Local Streets and Road Improvements 970 2,216 Bond Financing 270 617 Economic Development Projects 40 91 TOTAL $ 3,360 $ 7,675 Coachella Valley Highway and Regional Arterials $ 628 $ 1,304 Local Streets and Road Improvements 439 911 Specialized Public Transit 188 390 TOTAL $ 1,255 $ 2,605 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets and Road Improvements $ 47 $ 73 TOTAL $ 47 $ 73 GRAND TOTAL $ 4,662 $ 10,353 1991199319951997199920012003200520072009201120132015201720192021202320252027202920312033203520372039Measure A Sales Tax Revenue (real $ in 000’s)Fiscal Year (ending June 30) Historical Projected $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 MEASURE A SALES TAX REVENUE History of strong growth, conservative projections shows continued significant levels of growth. 20 FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION Measure A as primary source of financing · Debt service coverage · Utilization of commercial paper · Forward starting swaps · $500 million bond limitation under 2009 Measure A Toll revenues as source of additional financing 2009 MEASURE A SALES TAX REVENUE PRIMARY SOURCE OF FINANCING 7.67% average growth in Measure A annual receipts since 1991 Measure A revenues reflect strong local economy and population growth Current revenues exhibit continued growth Impressive sales tax performance compared to state and national trends DEBT COVERAGE Outstanding bonds of $95,695,000 on June 30, 2006 · Maturing in 2009 with an annual debt service payment of approximately $35.5 million Additional Bonds Test · 1.50x Maximum Annual Debt Service · 1.15x on Junior Debt Commission Policy · Maintain a 2.0x debt service coverage Projected Debt Service Coverage at 4.5x or higher No plans for additional bond issuance under 1989 Measure A FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONFinancial Implementation 2009 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Primary Source of Financing Debt Coverage Commercial Paper Program Forward Starting Swap(s) Historical & Projected Debt Service Coverage 21 COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM $185 million authorization · $70 million committed to local jurisdictions $55 million issued · Significant land mitigation acquisitions · Strategic partnership efforts · Local jurisdiction projects FORWARD STARTING SWAPS $185 million notional amount · $100 million – Banc of America Securities · $85 million – Lehman Brothers 3.679% for 20 years vs. 67% of 1-month LIBOR Effective date: October 1, 2009 HISTORICAL & PROJECTED DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 2.30 2.14 2.31 2.67 2.56 2.66 2.89 3.32 3.79 4.37 4.55 4.71 4.87 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Fiscal Year Debt Service D/S Coverage $90,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2006. Projected D/S coverage assumes UCLA study revenue growth rates. Financial Implementation 2009 Measure A Sales Tax Revenue Primary Source of Financing Debt Coverage Commercial Paper Program Forward Starting Swap(s) Historical & Projected Debt Service Coverage RCTC FINANCIAL STATUS JUNE 30, 2006 Government-wide Financial Statements · Assets: $633,575,000 · Liabilities: $156,392,000 · Net Assets: $477,183,000 - Restricted net assets: $442,129,000 Fund Financial Statements · Assets: $482,182,000 · Liabilities: $28,753,000 · Fund Balance: $453,429,000 - 98% reserved for projects and programs - 47% reserved for Measure A · Revenues of $353,169,000 in excess of expenditures of $247,736,000 Strong Financial Position · Keeps projects on track · Sufficient to prefund GASB 45 liabilities Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2006 FY 2006/07 BUDGET ($ MILLIONS)FINANCIAL INFORMATIONMeasure A Sales Tax 46% $156 LTF Sales Tax 3% $11 Intergovernmental 9% $29 TUMF Revenue 13% $42 Other Revenue 1% $2 Investment Income 4% $13 Debt Proceeds 24% $80 Capital Project Development and Delivery 80% $322 Debt Service 10% $39 Management Services 1% $5 Regional Programs 9% $38 1 2 Uses of Funds $404 Million Total SOURCE of FUNDS $333 Million Total 1 Includes Executive Management, Administration, Legislative Affairs and Communications, and Finance 2 Includes Regional Issues, Planning and Programming, Rail Operations, Property Management, Transit, Commuter Assistance, and Motorist Assistance Source: FY 2006/07 Budget SUMMARY Proactive organization and leadership 10-Year Delivery Plan sets the course · Innovative financing of projects through tolls - Seeking design/build and toll legislation · Financial advisory input to ensure sound decisions · Maintenance of strong debt ratings · Strong economic foundation for sales tax receipts · Development of financing plan to ensure project delivery 22 23 ECONOMIC DATA Economic Diversity Employment across sectors demonstrates Riverside-San Bernardino diversified economy. Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Population Growth Riverside County has outpaced the state in population growth (4.14% vs. 1.25%). CALIFORNIA COUNTY POPULATION PERCENTAGE GROWTH LEADERS, ANNUAL CHANGE 2005 TO 2006 Source: California Department of Finance: California County Population Estimates and Percent Change; data for July 1st of each year, provisional for July 1, 2006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY VS. CALIFORNIA Information 1.14% Agriculture 1.31% Construction 9.73% Finance 3.95% Government 17.71% Manufacturing 9.40% Other Services 3.40% Leisure and Hospitality 9.87% Education and Health Services 9.67% Professional and Business Services 11.13% Trade, Tra nsportation and Utilities 22.71% Riverside Placer Kings Madera Imperial San Bernardino KernSan Joaquin Merced Tulare% GrowthCounty 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Riverside County CaliforniaRiverside CountyCaliforniaYear Economic Diversity Population Growth Housing Growth Employment Strength Riverside County Taxable Sales Riverside County Historical Taxable Transactions Riverside County Taxable Sales Growth RatesAPPENDIX 24 Housing Growth Riverside County offers relatively affordable housing. HOME PRICE ADVANTAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY & SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKETS (DECEMBER 2006) Source: DataQuick Employment Strength Unemployment rate in Riverside County is near all-time lows. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE : US VS. RIVERSIDE COUNTY Source: California Employment Development Department Riverside County has experienced the strongest employment growth in the region. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKETS (2005 VS. 1990) Source: California Employment Development DepartmentAPPENDIXEconomic Diversity Population Growth Housing Growth Employment Strength Riverside County Taxable Sales Riverside County Historical Taxable Transactions Riverside County Taxable Sales Growth Rates Riverside Los Angeles San Diego Ventura Orange County $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 $435,000 $525,000 $505,000 $600,000 $635,000 $90,000 $70,000 $165,000 $200,000 Median Home Prices Riverside County Advantage 19871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006US Riverside Cou nty 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Ventura San Diego Orange San Bernardino 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Los Angeles 7.16% 16.12% 24.26% 18.04% Riverside 61.71% 36.77% 25 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TAXABLE SALES ($ IN THOUSANDS) Taxable sales have maintained strong growth. Source: California Board of Equalization, http:www.boe.ca.gov/news/tsalescont.htm RIVERSIDE COUNTY HISTORICAL TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS ($ IN THOUSANDS) Growing levels and diversification of taxable sales has occurred over time. Source: California Board of Equalization, http:www.boe.ca.gov/news/tsalescont.htm, includes part time permits and businesses classified as other than retailers RIVERSIDE COUNTY TAXABLE SALES GROWTH RATES Sales tax revenues experienced average growth of 7.67%. Source: California Board of Equalization, http:www.boe.ca.gov/news/tsalescont.htm Economic Diversity Population Growth Housing Growth Employment Strength Riverside County Taxable Sales Riverside County Historical Taxable Transactions Riverside County Taxable Sales Growth Rates 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $9,522,631$8,911,121$9,227,433$9,275,276$9,814,533$10,320,618$11,138,861$11,972,371$13,140,854$15,076,945$16,979,449$18,231,555$19,498,994$21,709,135$25,237,148$28,256,491(000's)2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Calendar Year All other Outlets Business and Personal Services All other Retail Automotive Building Material Household Eatin g and Drinking Food S pecialty General Merchandise Apparel $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000(000's)9.76% 14.73% 12.62% 7.37%6.95% 11.33% 16.25% 11.96% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -6.42% 3.55% 0.52% 5.81%5.16% 7.93%7.48% Riverside County Transportation Commission (951)787-7141 • www.rctc.org 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208