Loading...
09 September 24, 2007 Budget & Implementation80366 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Monday, September 24, 2007 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor, Riverside ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Rick Gibbs, Chair / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Steve Adams, Vice Chair / Dom Betro, City of Riverside Barbara Hanna / Brenda Salas, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Charles Grotke, City of Blythe Mary Craton / John Zaitz, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Alex Bias / Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs Bob Magee / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Gordon Moller / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District III ***STAFF*** Eric Haley, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer ***AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** Annual Budget Development and Oversight Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Measure A Implementation and Capital Programs Public Communications and Outreach Programs Competitive Grant Programs: TEA 21-CMAQ & STP, Transportation Enhancement and SB 821-Bicycle & Pedestrian SAFE/Freeway Service Patrol TUMF Program and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, September 24, 2007 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, '1st Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954. Z if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provid e 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 Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, 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 Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or .topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Budget and Implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 27, 2007 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous 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. FISCAL YEAR 2008-12 MEASURE A. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ‘ROADS FOR 'THE CITIES • OF BEAUMONT AND LAKE ELSINORE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Beaumont and Lake Elsinore as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action:. 7B. FISCAL ` YEAR 2007/08 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2007/08 Measure A Five-Y.ear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for -the city of Palm Springs as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Page 3 8. AGREEMENTS FOR INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 08-19-028-00 to KPMG LLP to perform internal audit services and on -call internal audit services (at this time, the contract is still in negotiations and staff expects to bring a final contract to the Commission meeting); 2) Award Agreement No. 08-19-029-00 to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. and Agreement No. 08-19-030-00 to Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. to perform on -call internal audit services (at this time, the contract is still in negotiations and staff expects to bring a final contract to the Commission meeting); 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Page 15 9. 2009 MEASURE A $300 MILLION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL ARTERIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 18 1) Direct staff to release a Call for Projects for 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County (Western County) funds in the amount of $300 million; 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS ON GENE AUTRY TRAIL WIDENING PROJECT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 28 1) Approve the Technical • Advisory. Committee ,(TAC) and staff recommendation to increase federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds on the Gene Autry Trail widening project from $1.54 million to $4,038,020; and 2) Forward to the Commissionfor final action. Budget and Implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Page 4 11. AMENDMENT TO THE PROJECT SCOPE AND A PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WITH LIM AND NASCIMENTO ENGINEERING CORPORATION TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS, . SPECIFICATIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 'INTERSTATE 215/STATE ROUTE 60 EAST JUNCTION BETWEEN THE BOX SPRINGS OVERCROSSING AND DAY STREET UNDERCROSSING Page 32 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) . Approve an amendment to the project scope (Attachment .1). for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction project and increase of the project budget (Attachment 2) from $35.35 million to $55.742 million; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-039-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-31-039-00, with Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation (LAN) based on the negotiated project scope, schedule, and cost that is attached to this agenda item for a base amount of $1,533,452, plus 23.9% contingency amount of $366,548, to cover potential changes in scope for a total not to exceed amount of $1.9 million [$1.682 million of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds and $218,000 of Measure A as local match], which addresses the additional design fees required for expansion of the original project scope to incorporate elements from the Caltrans design sequencing project and additional portions from the Segment : 7 project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP TO . PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROJECT REPORT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROUTE 91 IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION AND TO THE STATE ROUTE 71/91 INTERCHANGE, FROM APPROXIMATELY '/4 MILE WEST OF GREEN RIVER ROAD TO SERFAS .CLUB DRIVE IN THE CITY OF CORONA Page 42 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 08-31-015-00 to Parsons Transportation Group to provide preliminary engineering services for the preparation of Caltrans project report and environmental document (PRIED) for the proposed improvements to SR-91, in the eastbound direction andto the SR-71/91 Interchange, from approximately 1/4 .mile west of Green River • Budget and Implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Pages Road to Serfas Club Drive in the city of Corona. At this time, staff is negotiating with •Parsons Transportation Group and staff expects to complete negotiations and bring a final contract to the October 10, 2007 Commission meeting; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. AGREEMENT WITH SPOTLESS JANITORIAL SERVICES TO • PROVIDE CLEANING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR THE FIVE METROLINK STATIONS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 45 1) Approve selection of and award Agreement• No. 08-24-023-00 to Spotless Janitorial Services (SJS) to provide cleaning and grounds maintenance services at the five Commission -owned 'Metrolink stations;. 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counselreview, to execute . the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. STATE AND FEDERAL STATUS UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 47 1) Adopt an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position on SB 974 (Lowenthal); 2) Adopt proposed amendments to SB 974 and authorize staff to transmit the amendments to state leaders; 3) Approve a priority list of projects for funding by any container fee revenue; 4) Adopt an OPPOSE position on the following federal bills: a) S.2019 (Hutchison, R-Texas); and b) H.R..3510 (Peterson, R-Pennsylvania) 5) Adopt a SUPPORT position of • the SR-241 Foothill South toll road extension; 6) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final •action. Budget and Implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Page 6 15. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 16.. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissionersand staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related : to Commission activities. 17. ADJOURNMENT:. AND: NEXT MEETING The next Budget and .Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at. 930 a.m., Monday, October 22, 2007, Board Chambers, 1'St Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board DATE: September 24, 2007 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues - Budget and Implementation Committee Agenda of September 24, 2007 The September 24, 2007 agenda of the Budget and Implementation Committee includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. An RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 8 - Agreements for Internal Audit Services Consultant(s): KPMG LLP Lynn Mackenzie 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Mayer Hoffman McMann P.C. Marcus D. Davis 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. Michael J. deCastro 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Torrance, CA 90503 Agenda Item No. 11 - Amendment to the Project Scope, a Project Budget Adjustment with Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation to Expand the Scope of the Development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate for the Construction of the Interstate 215/State Route 60 East Junction Between the Box Springs Overcrossing and Day Street Undercrossing Consultant(s): Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corp. Dokken Engineering William Nascimento Richard Dokken 1887 Business Center Drive, #6 41707 Winchester Road San Bernardino, CA 92408 #201 Temecula, CA 92590 Associated Engineers Jim lmbiorski 3311 E. Shelby Street Ontario, CA 91764 LIN Consulting Denwun Lin 21660 E. Copley Drive, #270 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LSA Associates Lee Card 1650 Spruce Street, 5"' Floor Riverside, CA 92507 Kleinfelder Bart Patton 1220 Research Drive, #B Redlands, CA 92374 Douglas Engineering Douglas Mays 414 Tennessee Street, #G Redlands, CA 92373 Agenda Item No. 12 - Agreement with Parsons Transportation Group to Provide Preliminary Engineering Services, Project Report and Environmental Document for Improvements to State Route 91, in the Eastbound Direction and to the State Route 71/91 Interchange, From Approximately Y Mile West of Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona Consultant(s): Parsons Transportation Group Khalil Saba Parsons Project Manager 3602 Inland Empire Blvd. Suite B-120 Ontario, CA 91764 Converse Hashmi Quazi 10391 Corporate Drive Redlands, CA 92374 Applied Earthworks, Inc. Melinda Horne 3292 E Florida Avenue, Suite A Hemet, CA 92544 Michael Brandman Associates Dr. Tom McGill 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 T. Y. Lin International Gary Antonucci 3550 Vine Street, Suite 120 Riverside, CA 92507 Associated Engineers, Inc. Jim lmbiorski 3311 E. Shelby Street Ontario, CA 91764 Paragon Partners, Ltd. Jim Rushing 5762 Boise Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Arellano Associates Genoveva Arellano 4091 Riverside Drive, Suite 117 Chino, CA 91710 Tatsumi and Partners David Tatsumi 5 Corporate Park, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92606-5166 Agenda Item No. 13 - Agreement with Spotless Janitorial Services to Provide Cleaning and Grounds Maintenance for the Five Metrolink Stations in Riverside County Consultant(s): Spotless Janitorial Services Christina Lara 5416 Lauder Ct. Riverside, CA 92507 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ROLL CALL SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 County of Riverside, District II AtAr ytof R►uersi „, City of Banning 1" ;ir11145147,1AF. itiwlPi;-tir City of Blythe a zr ity,of.:Cany'on City of Cathedral City ityof aaflla ";, Ivl City of Desert Hot Springs ..,1>... »tCli,.....:..i'����I� City of Murrieta Q01E , a , City of Riverside e l Itgeco i"r=a GTQ c1:30a.01 Presen Absent O ptcV j • os) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS 6i- ergo /L 2 6.,a,, ��4 ki. ,,,,,,,,, , (zr„,, ,,,,,_,,_ --_-_--s-„,,,,, ,,,,,„ f-v r e 7,//kG, AcT� te--r,,..- 771 ����, Tom,A v ,e(Tz' c� c.,- C ? i3 iu ly u /1-4 / ii T-y- z_,- if Rut-r et,e-p-1 �C' UU'G CIS. (-4 s7k, ,, J eye %5S%-t, /iX di rf0.-i q C ,�- j�` AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, August 27, 2007 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Rick Gibbs at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Steve Adams led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates. Present Members Absent Steve Adams Roger Berg Alex Bias Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Rick Gibbs Bob Magee Gordon Moller Ron Roberts Jeff Stone John Tavaglione Eduardo Garcia Barbara Hanna Gregory Pettis 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 23 and June 25, 2007 M/S/C (Adams/Stone) to approve the minutes of April 23 and June 25, 2007 as submitted. . ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There was a revision to Agenda Item 8, "2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Maintenance of Effort Guidelines." 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. M/S/C (Craton/Stone) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): 7A. INTERFUND LOAN ACTIVITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Interfund Loan ' Activity Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. QUARTERLYINVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment .Report for the quarter ended June '30, 2007; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) - Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007; and 2') Forward to the Commission forfinal action. 7D. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT 1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2007; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 3 8. 2009 MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT GUIDELINES Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, provided an overview of the 1989 Measure .A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort guidelines and updated the Committee on the necessary revisions for the 2009 Measure A guidelines. M/S/C (Stone/Roberts) to: 1) Approve the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Guidelines; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 07-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the 2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Maintenance of Effort Guidelines;" and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. STATE ROUTE 60/INTERSTATE 215 EAST JUNCTION CONNECTORS ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUEST Shirley Medina, Program Manager, presented an overview on the SR-60/1-215 East Junction, which is the seventh segment of the design sequencing project. She explained that in order to avoid repeated closures and reduce impacts to the community, project elements were recently shifted from the design sequencing project over to the SR-60/1-215 East Junction project. She explained that upon completion of the design phase of the SR-60/1-215 East Junction connectors, an increase in capital costs is expected that will be brought to the Committee at that time. Commissioner Bob Magee asked if the right-of-way needed for this project is commercially zoned and if there are current appraisals for these properties. Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager, replied that one of the properties that will be acquired is an apartment building with approximately 17 units and one small office, and the balance of the properties are commercial. Appraisals will be secured pending the approval of this item. There is an independent cost estimate, including relocation .and contingency. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 4 M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: 1) Approve $4 million of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds for the SR-60/215 East Junction connectors project for the right-of-way phase; 2) Approve $459,000 of Measure A funds as match to the $4 million CMAQ funds in the event it is needed; 3) Approve a budget amendment for a $4 million increase to federal revenues in FY 2007/08; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, :to sign associated amendment agreements- to reflect additional funding; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUEST FOR STATE ROUTE 60/VALLEY WAY: TO INTERSTATE 15 PROJECT Shirley Medina presented the need for additional funds due to unforeseen conditions causing additional work on the SR-60 widening project from Valley Way to Interstate 15. The project is scheduled for completion in January 2009. M/S/C (Adams/Stone) to: 1)Approve an additional $1.5 million of . Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). program funds for the SR-60/Valley Way to 1-15 high occupancy vehicle and mixed flow gap closure project 2) Authorize the Executive Director, : pursuant to legal counsel review, to sign associated amendment agreements to reflect additional funding; and 3) Forward to the Commission :for final action. 11. FISCAL YEAR 2008-12. MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. PLANS FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITIES OF CALIMESA, MURRIETA, AND NORCO Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, provided a brief overview of the FY 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year .Capital 'Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Calimesa, Murrieta and 'Norco. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 5 M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: 1) Approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Calimesa, Murrieta, and Norco as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. FISCAL YEAR 2007-11 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CALIMESA Jerry Rivera provided a brief overview of the city of Calimesa's FY' 2007-11 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: 1) Approve the FY 2007-11 Measure - A five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for the city of Calimesa as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2007-11 MEASURE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FOR THE CITY OF CORONA Jerry Rivera provided a brief overview on an amendment for the city of Corona's 2007-1 1 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan. M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2007-11 Measure A Capital Improvement Plan .for local streets and roads for the city of Corona as submitted and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. AGREEMENT NO. 08-33-011-00 FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE NORTH MAIN CORONA PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PERRIS MULTIMODAL FACILITY Edda Rosso, Program Manager, presentation the recommendation to award an agreement for construction rnanagement services for the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure and the Perris Multimodal Facility. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 6 She explained that staff is also seeking approval for; the -authorization to _ advertise to receive bids for the construction of these facilities pending federal authorization. M/S/C (Adams/Stone) to: 1) Direct staff to present its award recommendation and notice to proceed to the Commission for Agreement No. 08-33-011-00 for construction management services to support the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure in the city of =:Corona and the Perris Multimodal Facility in the city of Perris; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 08-33-011-00 on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize staff to advertise to receive bids for the construction of the North Main Corona parking structure: in the city of Corona and the Perris Multimodal Facility in the city of Perris, contingent on federal funding authorization; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15.. AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR ON -CALL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR FOR THE METROLINK STATIONS Min Saysay provided an overview on the authorization to issue a request for statement of qualifications (SOQ) for an on -call maintenance contractor for the Metrolink stations. Commissioner ,Ro;ger. Berg requested clarification on the process to determine the :most responsive "contractor. Commissioner Bergexpressed concern that the contractor's costs should be uniformly provided so that there are parameters to follow, Min Saysay replied that staff is currently developing a list of services required and the costs will be negotiated prior to the execution of the contract'.. ,He explained that criteria are being developed for all the required services for, :the five Metrolink stations and the request for proposal will be. published and a contract will be awarded. He explained that a checklist has been : developed in order to inspect the stations on a regular basis to ensure the work has been satisfactorily delivered. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Jeff Stone stated his appreciation for Commissioner Berg's concern as the Commission needs to control costs. He expressed that this item is a qualitative request to find a contractor that has the qualifications do to the multi -tasking necessary to maintain the Metrolink stations. He indicated to Commissioner Berg that his concerns will be addressed at a later time. The goal of this action is to find the contractors that are qualified to perform the work. Commissioners Bob Magee and Gordon Moller concurred with Commissioner Berg's concerns. Min Saysay concurred that the Commissioners' concerns will be considered. Commissioner Stone expressed that all of the Commissioners' comments have been well received. He noted the Commission has the authority to award a contract to the next qualified contractor with cost effective rates should the most qualified contractor propose unreasonable rates. Min Saysay replied that staff will return to the Commission to present the rankings on the contractors that respond to the SOQ along with the qualifications and the hourly costs. M/S/C (Stone/Adams) to: 1) Direct staff to develop and advertise a request for SOQ for on -call maintenance contractor services for the five Metrolink commuter rail stations; 2) form a selection committee comprised of Commission and Metrolink staff to review, evaluate, and rank all SOQs received; 3) Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top -ranked . contractor and bring back a recommendation to the Commission for contract award; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. No: Berg 16. INTERSTATE 215 B1-COUNTY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WORK Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, presented an overview and background information on the need to: increase funding from $2 million to $4 million for the Interstate 215 Bi-County improvement project. The total project cost is now estimated at $11.5 millionwith a schedule of completion in August 2012. Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 8 M/S/C (Adams/Craton) to: 1) Authorize an increase in funding from $ 2 million .to $4 million for the development of a project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the 1-215 Bi-County improvement project; . and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 17. STATE AND FEDERAL STATUS REPORT John <Standiford, Public Affairs Director, announced that the state budget has been approved and provided an overview of ;its transportation provisions and trailer bills, including the spillover account, Proposition. 1 B, and SB 9 (Lowenthal). He noted that Executive Director Eric Haley was in Sacramento meeting with Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency Secretary 'Dale Bonner to discuss the implementation of SB 9. He briefed the Committee on federal transportation issues and the passage :of the defense appropriations bill, which may impact the SR-241 toll road extension. Commissioner Steve Adams expressed concern for supporting a project in another county when the Commission does not ° have all the necessary information and opposed supporting the SR-241 toll road'' extension. 'Commissioner Adams also expressed concern regarding the representation in Sacramento for Riverside County and questioned its strength. Commissioner Roger Berg expressed his belief that the toll roadextension is necessary and supports its development. Commissioner John Tavaglione asked if the Transportation .Corridor Agencies (TCA) have asked the Commission for formal support and if; Orange County. Transportation Authority (OCTA) also supports the toll road extension. He suggested not taking a position until the Commission is formally asked to do so and if OCTA is in support, he suggested the Commission take a formal position in support. John Standiford replied that the TCA has not formally asked the Commission to take a position and it is uncertain if OCTA has taken a formal position, . Commissioner Ron Roberts expressed concern about this particular route and the controversy in South Orange County and opposition to a support position on the toll road extension unless the Commission is formally asked for its support. • • Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 9 Commissioner Adams concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's comments. Commissioner Bob Magee also concurred with Commissioner Tavaglione's comments. With respect to Commissioner Adams' comments about the lack of strength of the Riverside County legislators, he stated that Assemblymen Kevin Jeffries and John Benoit have gone out of their way to assist the community in Southwest Riverside County in doing the right things with respect to transportation and moving Ca!trans forward. John Standiford suggested withdrawing Staff Recommendation No. 1, "Adopt a SUPPORT position for the development of the Foothill --South Transportation Corridor (State Route 241) in Orange County" as it was based on an informal request. Staff will verify OCTA's position and bring this recommendation back at the next Committee meeting. Commissioner Stone recommended tabling Staff Recommendation No. 1 until additional information is provided to the Committee to make an informed decision on this recommendation. M/S/C (Stone/Magee) to: 1) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 18. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. 19. COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS/STAFF 19A. Chair Rick Gibbs commended Commissioner Magee for his State of the City address for Lake Elsinore. • AGENDA ITEM 7A • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for Local Streets and Roads for the Cities of Beaumont and Lake Elsinore STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 2008-12 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for local streets and roads for the cities of Beaumont and Lake Elsinore as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the Coachella. Valley and Western County cities and the county must participate in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The agencies are required to submit the annual certification of maintenance of effort (MOE) along with documentation supporting the calculation. On April 20, 2007, Commission staff provided the local agencies with Measure A revenue projections for local streets and roads to assist them in preparation of the required CIP. The agencies were asked to submit their CIPs by June 11, 2007, for submission to the Budget and Implementation Committee at its June 25, 2007 meeting and to the Commission on July 11, 2007. The Commission has previously approved the plans for all but three cities. Staff has received the required CIP, MOE and supporting documentation from the cities of Beaumont and Lake Elsinore and is requesting Commission approval of their CIPs. Staff has notified the remaining city, Desert Hot Springs, that no Agenda Item 7A disbursement of Measure A funds for Focal streets and roads will be made until all of i the required documents have been received and approved by the Commission. Attachment: Measure A Capital Improvement Plans for Beaumont and Lake Elsinore Agenda Item 7A 2 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2007/2008 - 2011/2012 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" 2006/2 007 and 2007/2 008 Palm Avenue, 6th Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $3,087,000 Under Construction $946,000 2008/2 009 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6`h Street to Oak Valley Parkway Rehabilitation $950,000 Under Design $500,000 2009/2 010 8th Street, Elm Avenue to Highland Springs Avenue Rehabilitation $1,200,000 Pending Design $525,000 2010/2 011 Brookside Avenue, Highland Springs Avenue to Beaumont Ave. Rehabilitation $700,000 Pending Design $55.0,000 2011/2 012 Oak Valley Parkway, Beaumont Avenue to Cherry Avenue Rehabilitation $750,000 Pending Design $575,000 3 LO- 4E-8 -yainseaW1 eox3wowoios enechkueVn 4 a6ed 08 - 0£L - suoneaed pus aoueueluleW wails _ eppviAn-epueuaXwaW nealls g 99Z - 96E _ _ sluawen udwi halls amid Jesei� :uoprulsuooeb i(empeo l muewenoadwl efieuleao 9 66 86.6'Z - slua.wenoidwl Aemi461H pue leans swawanoudw{ wualul a6ueyoaam S611bL8S ti £6 001. spue6ei pue 6uldpls owe4 ule}u!eW wekoad 6u1d01S Vail lenuuy £ oe 001, weboad eme ue ieimp. %lino ail P!S P _ wekoa memo i pu+e aaun� cpn enuu d p.S � f v Z 000' f. - 000' G _ uonemlgegat! - .- '8 uon.oni suooaa lean ePlmAlo - wekoid wewa6eueW wawene d I.(S.00Os) saNn4 ..y.. 321f svmv` .. - -�S.Ooos} _ . S1S03'viol `� 3dA.1 _.._ _ _ 133roud SlIWI1 /31/11bN 1g3('0114 . � ; _ - .. 'ON 1/311 9 a6ed • L016£/90 :e}ea On '1xe VZ 6£-t7L9 (I.96) ..0N auoud aeaul6u3 A.la - olewnes ue>i :rtg paiedaid aiou!se 10 APO :t(oue6y 900Z • LOOZ AJ INVIIJOad SaNnA wool ..v.. 32I11811341 NOISSIWW03 NOIl'd121OdSNbILl AlNnoo 30I9213AIN • • 1.0-L£-8 -veunseaW1 eox3wowolos enepu61.19V1 z e6ed . 08 5LL suol;eaedp pue eoueua;uiew ;aaa;S eplivut;,lo-eoueuelulevy wags �b £6 OOl spueBei 6u!cluls og.jea; ulemew weiBoad 6uld!a1S lenuuy E 08 000' (S.000$) SaNnA ..v„ aanse3W. 001, 000' ts0oos) S1SOO 1%9101 aleda� memern pue aagno ` pno uope;lllgege '8 uol;ona;suooed ;seals 3dAl 103POad wei6a,d >Hameln pue aaune `41110 lenuuy eporvtpo - wea6oad;uawa6eueil;uetuened - - l Simn /3WbN 1o3f dtid Z i 'ON W311. S }o Z e6ed L0/ 6 £L80 ::alga ttZ 'tea tZ I.E-tL9 (6S6) VON euo4d Jaau16u3- alewneS ueN peaedeud aaoutsl3 alai Jo /go :rtous6y 600Z • 800Z A - VIM:1001M saNnd "w oo• ivia aanSb3W - NOISSIWW00 NOLLVINOdSNVNI. A1Nn0o 3aIMAIN LO.6£-8 -yainseaWil uawowopS enechiaua1: f c a6ed _ 0.8 08L _ suoneaedp pue aoueueluieN leads epuuitpo-eoueualuleW wails tp £6 0M spue6ai pue Bulduis puleal umuiBN weafioad 6u1dAS °WU lenuuy £ 08 001. aiedel miemen pue Janno'gmO weabad 5liennap1S pue aeMe `WO lenuuy' Z 000` I, 000` L uonemigeyeN ig uoporulsuooeN ;awls ep!mA110 - wei6o.Jd lue uefieueN Wewened r' � (s.000s) SaNn4 ..b'.. 321f1Sd3W (s.000s) _ S1S03 11/101 3dAl -�. 103f 0Nd SIIINI1 l3WYN 133f 02ld .ON I11t311 910 £ e fled L0l6£/90 :81e0 t n. 11xe 17Z 1.£17L9 (1.86) :,oN euoud Jeeui6u3 �t1tO - olewnes ueN :As peiedald wows 8518110 A)10 :Aouafiy 01.0Z - 600Z WVIOOad saNnd -wool ..v.. 32Insvmm NOISSIWWOO NO11d12IOdSNAN1 AiNnOO 30ISb3Ala • l0* G£*$-yaanseawij93x31uowoIos eAaav6uaN: 09 06L suoReaado pue eoueuemew Man eoueueluleW lases b s6 spue6el pule 6urdAs or}}eil ulelulevg wei6old 6ulcips areal lenuuy £ 08 000' I. 001 000' I. (S.p00s) SONnd (si000s) ..H.. minSb3W SiSOo '1t/101 medal Niemen pue Jauno `cm° uoReplrgeye i uNonalsuooaa walls 3dAl 1o3Ps:Nld a1ed8U NIeMein Pue Anne `grno lenuuy Z aplNANo - Lue.s6oid puewe6euevy wewened S11W1'1 'ON /3WYN 1o3f oad W31t' SioeBed /0/6E/90 :ale° fi7Z 'We trZI.E17l9 (1,56) :•oN euoild Jeaupu3 - (memos uayl :As paaedaad aaouisl3 8)18110 :Aoue6y 1.1.0Z • O 1.0Z AA umootld saNnd ivo0'1..1f.. 32lnsv3W NOISSIWWOo NOIlb1210dSNIALL A1NnOo 301S113AIN • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2011 - 2012 Agency: City of Lake Elsinore Prepared By: Ken Seumalo - City Engineer Phone No.: (951) 674-3124 ext, 244 Date: 08/31/07 Page 5 of 5 • ITEM NO. _.. PROJECT NAME/ LIMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COSTS (E000'S) MEASURE "A" FUNDS WOO'S) - 1 Pavement Management Program - Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation 1,000 1,000 2 Annual Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk repair 100 80 3 Annual Traffic Striping Program Maintain traffic striping and legends 100 93 4 Street Maintenance Street Maintenance and Operations 800 80 Page 5 U:lengr1Dave Solomon\Excel\MeasureA- 8-31-07 AGENDA ITEM 713 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan Amendment for Local Streets and Roads for the City of Palm Springs STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 2007/08 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for local streets and roads for the city of Palm Springs as submitted; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Measure A requires each recipient of local streets and roads monies to annually provide to the Commission a five-year plan on how those funds are to be expended in order to receive its Measure A disbursements. In addition, the Coachella Valley and Western County cities and the county must participate in either the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) or Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) 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 Palm Springs (City) was approved by the Commission at its July 11, 2007 meeting. Any revisions to the adopted plan must be returned to the Commission for approval. The City applied for and received grant funding for the signal at Indian Canyon Drive/Tamarisk Road. Therefore, the City is requesting to amend its FY 2007/08 CIP to move funding from the Indian/Tamarisk signal project to the next project on its priority list, the Sunrise Way at Alejo Road signal project. Attachment: Letter from the City of Palm Springs with Revised CIP Schedule Agenda Item 7B 9 81666 JR City of Palm Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8253 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: rvww.ci.palm-springs.ca_us September 7, 2007 D E C E l n Via Facsimile: (951) 787-7920 Mr. Jerry Rivera - SEP 112007 Measure "A" Program Manager Riverside County Transportation, CommisfINRSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon Street, 3"' Floor TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Fiscal Year 2008-2012, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Road Program Proposed City of Palm Springs Annual 5-Year Measure "A" Plan (Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Continued, Fiscal Year 2007/2008) — REVISED Dear Mr. Rivera: I am enclosing the first revision to the Measure A lists for funds that are listed on the "2006/2007 continued to 2007/2008" Table and the "2007/2008" Table for Fiscal Year 2008-2012 5-Year Plan. The City applied for and received a 2006/2007 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant in the amount of $217,809 for.construction of a. new traffic signal at Indian Canyon Drive/Tamarisk Road. This.signat is,ciarreritly.programmed with Local Measure A funding. ft is our intent to move the majority of tocal.Meastire A funds originally programmed for the Indian/Tamarisk signal to the next signal modification project on our.priority list: Sunrise Way at Alejo Road. Therefore, we are requesting concurrence on the reduction of Local Measure A funds for the "Indian Canyon Drive/Tamarisk Road Traffic Signal ($199,158.65 Local Measure A funds continued)'to apply towards'a new project "Sunrise Way/Alejo Road Traffic Signal Modification" for the 2007/2008 fiscal year. Please review the information and let me know if you have any further questions. I can be reached at (760) 323-8253, ext. 8744. Sincerely, GLt�v arcus L. Fuller, P.E., P.L.S. Assistant Director- of PublicWorks/Assistant City Engineer enc cc 'Winds Misch, Assistant City Manager - David paratcian, Director of PubligWotaseplyenjineer -Craig Graves, DirectorofFigance/Treasurer, • Post Office Box 2743 • Palm 1 prings, California 92263-2743 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J, Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer) Date: June 1,'2007 September 7, 2007 (Revision 1 ) Fiscal Year 2008-2012, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program Fiscal Year 2006/2007 continued to 2007/2008 • ITEM NO. �. _ _. — ,._. v PROJECT NAME/LIMITS T war. ar PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST, . MEASURE "A" FUNDS 1. _- Annual. Street Slur Seals- Contract Slurry } (Remaining funds to be used with next year's project) Street Maintenance $6,156 $6,156 2'` Bridge Repairs r (Remaining funds to be used with future project} Bridge Maintenance $103,488.61 $103,488.61 3• Belardo Road Bridge (Currently in environmental phase) New Road Extension and Bridge Construction $4,400,000 $299;021.80 Indian Canyon Drive Widening (UPRR to Garnet Ave) . (Currently in environmental phase) Roadway and Bridge Widening $4,400,000 $233,859.22 '(Currently Indian Avenue/I-10 Interchange in right-of-way phase) Expanded Freeway Interchange $25,000,000 $806,963.58 6• Gene Autry Trail/I-10 Interchange (Currently in right-of-way phase) . Expanded Freeway Interchange $25,000,000 $595,318.68' 7 Gene Autry Trail UPRR Bridge Widening (Currently in environmental phase) Bridge Widening $5;000,000 $61 000 a Indian Canyon Drive UPRR Bridge Widening Y 9 9 Bridge Widening *Included in Item 4 above $189,830.34 9 Indian Canyon Drive Widening (Tramview Road to UPRR) (Currently in environmental phase) Roadway Widening 9 $3 300 000 $ 149 819.91 Pa9e 1 of 2 Fiscal Year 2008-2012, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program Fiscal Year 2006/2007 continued to 2007/2008 ITEM NO. - PROJECT NAME/LIMITS _:. PROJECT TYPE TOTAL. COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 10. Gene Autry Trail Widening. (Vista Chino to UPRR) (Engineering complete; bidding scheduled in Summer 2007) Roadway Widening $4,446,000 $794,620.31 1,1. ARHM Street Overlays (Construction) (Remaining fundstobe used with -nextyear s project) Street Maintenance $288,259.83 - . $288,259.83 • 12. Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation • (Initiating Consultant Selection Process) . Bridge Widening/Rehabilitation $4,888,950 $150,000 13.. Raman Widening Study (El Cielo Road to Sunrise Way) . Planning Study $100,000 $50,000 14. SB 821.Sidewalk Project (FY 06/07) En ineerin complete; bidding underway)Sidewalk { 9� g P 9 Construction $73,000 $25,188.29 15. Indian Canyon Drive/Tamarisk Road Traffic Signal Signal Installation $200,000 $25,158.65 • • ;v 4 TOTAL 2006/2007 CONTINUED TO 2007/2008 $77,205,854.44 $3,778,685.22 Note: These are .current RCTC approved Fiscal Year 2006/2007 (and prior) projects that need to be "continued„ to Fiscal Year 2007/2008. Note: Measure A funding amounts are existing budgeted amounts as of May 31, 2007. Revision 1 Transfer $174,000 Measure "A" funds for new traffic signal project in 2007/2008 {see other sheet). • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE "A" LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM Agency: City of Palm Springs Prepared by: David J. Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (by Marcus L. Fuller, Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer) Date: June 1, 2007 September 7, 2007 (Revision 1) Fiscal Year 2008-2012, 5-Year Measure "A" Local Street & Roads Program. Fiscal Year 2007/2008 ITEM _ . NO: • PROJECT NAME/LIMITS IMITS PROJECT TYPE TOTAL COST MEASURE "A" FUNDS 4. • ARHM Overlays (Construction) Street Maintenance $500,000 $500,000 2.. Annual Street Slurry Seals (Construction) Street Maintenance $500,000 $500,000 3. Gene Autry Trail 1 Interstate 10 Interchange (fundingto be added to required City match q tY ) Expanded Freeway Interchange .*Included on previous sheet $400,000 4. Belardo Road Bridge (funding to be added to required City match) New Road Extension and Bridge Construction *Included on previous sheet 00 ,000 5. Sunrise Way at Mesquite Avenue Traffic Signal Upgrade Traffic Signal Modification $150,000 $150,000. 6. Traffic Signal Interconnect Communication Upgrade Traffic Signal. Modification $50,000 $50,000° 7. Traffic Striping Improvements (City wide) Traffic Striping $50,000 $50,000 :Traffic Signal Street Name Sign Replacement Program .; Traffic Signal Modification $50,000 $50,000 9. Camino Real Street Improvements Street Improvements $60,000 $50,000 10. ADA Curb Ramp Retrofit/Repair Program Street Improvements $50,000 $50,000 11. Traffic Safety Projects Traffic Signal Modification $40,000 $40,000 12. SB 821 Sidewalk Project,(FY 07/08) y Sidewalk; Construction $70,000 $30,000 Page 1 of _2 . wercud leufis hum (spuni „b„ &inseam' LOOZ/900Z panunuoo way Jimaraea) 000*Ll$ PPd =t uopted d. '900Z/L00Z aoj seupdS ailed jo ay; ao papafoad wewesingslp. lenuue 000'686' 1-$ eui Wawalddns 02 pasn aq IllM (LOOZ AeN 3Q se) 9L0'E5£$ lunowe ay) ul spunl y aanseew 1eoo-1 Bululewaa pewooneull :810 ZZl`;lfi`Z$ ZZL`fil►li$ 800Z/LOOZ ae8A 1posId ' ICisi. -• DODt+L $ 000111$ uo;emPoW. Ieu$!S o�etl uopeomPo W !euSr oN1 Peo �o.le deM esmunS 'ZL 00E`5$ 00E`9$ _ uoRe0WPoW leufiowl' Pn�S uoezuoa oustS ieueis o�e.a a .nru(mo 11. ZZt7101•$ ZZt7`01.$ swawanoudwl }same eN (OVA0) luawasanqu Aenoped:AelleA PIW • '01. 000`91$ _ uogelelsul leu6lS °Weil - _ (Apou6pea) Ieufiu.ea 1 ueplsaped looyoS OH sfiupds wled le peo�l 0141e8 a000`911 saNnd aid. 3dn e3w isoo 1► .101 - .cliU 103r0lld sllwrinvuvN LO3r0Nd 'ON 01911 800Z/LOOZ JeaA leosld e amsee .yea aea easy uue��o.�d speO�l +g �aaa�S pool �sb'�� 1N A-9 `Z 40Z-$OQZ A 1 AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Agreements for Internal Audit Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection process and award Agreement No. 08-19-028-00 to KPMG LL'P to perform internal audit servicesand on-call internal audit services (at this time, the contract is still in negotiations and staff expects to bring a final contract to the Commission meeting); 2) Award Agreement No. 08-19=029-00 to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. and Agreement No. 08-19-030-00 to Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. to perform on -call internal audit services (at this tirne, the contract is still in negotiations and staff expects to bring a final contract to the Commission meeting); 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf ;of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The FY '2007/08 budget for the 'Finance Department includes the goal to develop and maintain an organization accountability program encompassing financial and operational functions. One of the initiatives related to this goal is the implementation of an internal audit program. The initial focus of the internal audit program is a business risk analysis and assessment that will result in the development of an audit plan. All departments and operations will be evaluated during the risk assessment phase. Areas assessed as high or medium risk- are projects that are likely to be considered in .the development of the . audit plan Commission management and the Audit Ad Hoc Committee will have significant irivolvement in the review of the risk assessment, development, and final approval of an audit -plan with the internal auditor. Agenda Item 8 15 In addition to the core internal audit activity related to financial and operational audits, other projects that may be required periodically include construction and engineering audits, investigative reviews, contract closeouts, special reviews, .and administrative assistance. Based on the, depth of resources that would be required for .such an internal audit program, staff released a request for proposal (RFP) for internal audit services on July 12, 2007. The Calendar of Events was as follows: Distribution of RFP Pre -Proposal Conference Proposals were Delivered to Commission Prior to 2 p. Evaluation Committee Review of Proposals Interviews Held for Short -Listed Firms Selection Process July :12, 2007 August 1, 2007 August 27, 2007 September 6 2007 . September 17, 2007 Staff received seven proposals by the required date and time. An evaluation panel consisting of Commission finance and program staff as well as a Metro'link finance representative reviewed the proposals based on qualifications of the firm staffing and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and completeness of response. After the review of the proposals, the evaluation panel determined that four firms submitted high quality proposals and invited those firms for interviews on September 17, 2007. During the interviews, the evaluation panel carefully ,considered the personnel .of the proposed project: team, understanding of the services ° required by the. Commission and demonstrated capacity to complete the proposed scope of work. As it relates to the primary focus of the internal audit program for a risk assessment andaudit plan,the panel ranked the four interviewed' firmsas follows: Top Ranked KPMG LLP Second Deloitte Third' Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. Fourth Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. Accordingly, :staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 08-1.9-028-00 to KPMG LLP for internal audit services. Since staff anticipates an increased need for other internal audit services related to construction and engineering awards and contract close-outs as well as other Agenda Item 8 16 • reviews and assistance, the panel ranked the four firms for on -call internal audit services as follows: Top Ranked Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. Second Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. Third KPMG LLP Fourth Deloitte Staff recommends that on -call internal audit services be awarded to the three top ranked firms. Therefore, staff recommends the award of Agreement No.08-19-029-00 to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C.; Agreement No. 08-19-030-00 to Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.; and the award of Agreement No. 08-19-028-00, including the internal audit services discussed previously, to KPMG LLP. As on -call internal audit services are required, a proposed scope of work will be presented to each firm for a cost and work plan proposal. The most responsive firm will be awarded a task order. These three agreements are anticipated to be three-year contracts with two one-year options. At this time, staff is negotiating the terms and cost with the firms and expects to bring final contracts to the Commission meeting. The FY 2007/08 budget includes expenditures of $150,000 for internal audit services. Due to the anticipated increase in project related contracts, staff recommends an increase in budgeted expenditures of $50,000 for contract and other audits. Financial Information Yes FY 2007/08 $150,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $50,000 N/A FY 2008/09 + TBD Source of Funds: Measure A, Local Transportation Funds, Motorist Services Funds Budget Adjustment: No Yes N/A GLA No.: S 19 65401 P1001 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \.i` Date: 09/18/2007 Agenda Item 8 17 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: 2009 Measure A $300 Million Western Riverside County Regional Arterial Call for Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to 1) Direct staff to release a Call for Projects for 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County (Western County) Regional Arterial funds in the amount of $300 million; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2009 Measure A identified $300 million over the life of the measure to fund regional arterial projects in Western County. The intent of this program is to fund capacity enhancements that are identified on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) backbone network including roadways specifically listed in the ordinance and included in the call for projects (Attachment 1). The 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial funds are also intended to complement TUMF backbone funded projects where additional TUMF funding above the eligibility amount may be needed. Measure A Regional Arterial funds are not meant to replace committed TUMF or local funding. The 2009 Measure A call for projects was developed by staff and a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The subcommittee reviewed prior calls for projects as a basis to develop the Western County Regional Arterial call for projects. The schedule for the call for projects is as follows: TAC Approval Commission Approval Release of Call for Projects Deadline for Project Applications Convene TAC for Project Evaluations Commission Approval of. Selected Projects for Funding Agenda Item 9 18 September 17, 2007 October 10, 2007 October 17, 2007 December 15, 2007 January, 2008 February, 2008 Agencies will be allowed to . submit three projects each. The countyof Riverside will be allowed to :submit three projects per supervisorial district. The target date for implementation of the approved projects is by 2015. While the funding source for the selected projects is 2009 Measure, A Western County Regional Arterial funds, it may be necessary to issue debt to 'finance these projects. Some projects may commence prior to the July 1, 2009 effective date of the 2009 Measure A; therefore, an increase in the commercial paper program amount may be necessary to advance projects that are ready before the 2009 Measure A begins. Additionally, the Call for Projects is based on the $300 million of revenues expected to be generated over the 30-year term of the 2009 Measure A; however, the implementation date for the selected projects is by 2015. Accordingly, it may be necessary to issue long-term debt to finance the costs of these projects that will be completed during the first 10-year period of the 2009 Measure A. Finally, the financing of all or part of the $300 million may have a significant impact on the $ 500 million debt limitation for the 2009 Measure A. The intent of this call for projects is to program the entire $300 million 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial funds and implement the approved` projects within the first 10 years of the 2009 Measure A. The fiscal impact of the call for projects on the 2009 Measure. A Western County Regional Arterial program is uncertain, and the estimated cost of the approved projects cannot be determined until all project submittals are evaluated. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2009-2015 Amount: $300,000,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Regional Arterial Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 266 72 81 XXX Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,14"wn Date: 09/19/2007 Attachment: Draft; 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterials $300 Million Call for Projects Agenda Item 9 19 • - DRAFT - 2009: MEASURE A VVESTERN COUNTY REGIONAL ARTERIALS $300 MILLION CALL FOR PROJECTS The 2009 Measure A included a category of funding for the Regional Arterial System. The Regional Arterial System component is described in Ordinance 02-001 as follows: "The freeway and state highway system can no longer be expected to handle the traffic demands for travel between and through the cities of the Western County. area, with the development projected for the future. A system of regional arterials (major local roadways) with limited access, freeway interchanges, grade separations, and coordinated traffic signals are needed to supplement the highway backbone system. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), in conjunction with the cities and the County; has developed this system of roadways to meet this need. This roadway system will be periodically updated by the Commission, or the WRCOG, to reflect actual development trends. Funding to widen existing roads and construct new roads on this system will be funded by an estimated $300 million in revenues generated by Measure A and by matching revenues to be generated by the cities and County implementing a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) administered by the Commission or the WRCOG. Examples of the roadways on the regional arterial system that may be eligible to receive Measure A and TUMF funding for widening and other improvements to increase capacity and traffic flow are: • Van Buren Blvd from 1-215 to SR-60 • Alessandro Blvd from 'I-215 westerly to Central Ave • Central Ave from Alessandro Blvd to Van Buren Blvd • Arlington Ave from Central Ave to Van Buren Blvd • Green River Rd from Dominguez Ranch Rd to SR-91 • Foothill Parkway from Lincoln Ave to Green River Rd • Scott Rd from SR-79 to I-215 • Clinton Keith Rd from SR-79 to 1-215 • Date Street from SR-79 to t-15 • SR-79/1-10 Interchange Improvements and possible bypass to 1-10 • Ramsey St from Banning City Limits to Field Rd • Ramona Expressway from San Jacinto to 1-215 • Cajalco Rd from 1-215 to t-15 • Perris Blvd from SR-74 to San Bernardino Co Line • Pyrite. Street from San Bernardino County Line to SR-60 _ 20 - DRAFT - Schleisman Rd from San Bernardino County tine to 1-15 and Arlington Avenue Domenigoni Pkwy from State St to 1-215 Railroad Canyon/Newport Road from 1-215 to I-15 The final scope and project limits of all improvements proposed for the regional arterial system will be determined through noticed public hearings, environmental clearance process, and agreement with affected agencies." Project Eligibility ,and Basic Assumptions: Projects listed in the Measure A ballot and/or included in the "backbone". TUMF network are eligible for this Call for Projects. Measure A Regional Arterial funding should not replace already committed TUMF or Local funds. A local fund commitment is represented as funds. appropriated in the agency's annual budget that is adopted by the council/board. It is the 'intention of the Regional Arterial program to match the Measure funds on a dollar for dollar (50%) basis. However, projects will still be eligible if the match is lesser than 50%. More points will be given to projects with higher match rates. • Agencies may submit up to three (3) project applications. The County of Riverside may submit up to three (3) project applications per supervisorial district. The target construction date for projects that are approved under this call for projects is 2015. Projects must demonstrate that they can begin construction by 2015. RCTC will monitorproject progress and will rescind fund allocations if reasonable progress is not being made. Measure ,A Regional Arterial funds will be made available for ALL project phases (PA&ED, PS&E, R/W, and Construction).: • RCTC staff will review project schedules to determine if they are reasonably feasible. Adjustments to schedules may be made by RCTC` staff for programming purposes where appropriate. The Scope of Work under this call for projects is for capacity enhancements. Rehabilitation and maintenance work/costs. are not eligible for Measure A Regional Arterial funds. 'Work activities that are part of and within the limits of a capacity enhancement project (e.g. 21 • - DRAFT rehabilitation/overlays, curb gutter, sidewalk, etc.) are eligible project costs. Landscaping, irrigation, and other "softscape" activities are not eligible. • Projects funded by the Measure A Regional Arterial program will continue to be included in the TUMF calculation to ensure that Measure funding does not replace TUMF funding. EVALUATION CRITERIA The following criteria will be used to evaluate project applications: I. Emphasis on Measure A Program Projects listed on the Measure A Ballot and/or included in the backbone TUMF network that are not expected to be funded from anticipated revenues: Scoring: 0 to 3 points, 0 if not applicable Indicators Points If project is on Measure A Ballot AND TUMF 3 Backbone If project is on Measure A Ballot only 2 If project is on TUMF :Backbone only 1 Total number of points given will not exceed 3. II. Regional Significance Projects that are regional, multi jurisdictional, identified on the Congestion Management Program System, CETAP network in Western Riverside County, or Western Riverside County TUMF Backbone network. Project applicants are required to submit 2030 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) using a transportation computer model consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional transportation model. Project applicants should obtain 2030 ADT numbers from WRCOG. Project applicants have the option to provide supplemental information if the model results show 2030 ADT to be unrealistic (e.g. model results for the year 2030 are at or near current traffic conditions). The Evaluation Committee will consider the supplemental inforrnation; however, it is not guaranteed that the information will be used to substitute model information. 22 - DRAFT - Scoring: 0 to 3 points, 0 if not applicable The Scoring delineation for ADT in the year 2030 is as follows: 2030 ADT Points 50,000 and above 3 30,000 — 49,999 2 10,000 — 29,999 1 9,999 - and below 0 If an agency wishes to provide supplemental inforrnation.regarding ADT, they may do so in the space below. Supplemental information regarding ADT: ILI. Project Readiness Project applicants will provide project implementation status. Projects closest to construction will be given the highest level of points. Points will be given based on documentation of completed phases or workin progress. Scoring: 0 to 3 points, 0 if not applicable The Scoring delineation is as follows: Level of Project Readiness Points Ready for construction, r/w certified 3 Completed Design 2 Completed Environmental 1 Preliminary Work 0 Describe the project irnplementation status and provide documentation of completed work or work in progress: 23 • - DRAFT - IV. Safety Project applicants must describe how the project will improve safety. Scoring: O to 3 points, 0 if project will not result in safety improvement Projects will be scored on a 0 — 3 point range based upon the qualitative information that describes how the project will eliminate or significantly reduce an existing or future safety problem. The Evaluation Committee will determine what constitutes high, medium, and low safety benefits at the time of project evaluations. Provide a qualitative description on how the project will improve safety: V. Congestion Mitigation Project Applicants must provide detailed information on 'how the project will improve congestion: The Project will provide Congestion' Mitigation as follows: Congestion Mitigation will be measured by Level of Service. Project applicants are required to submit 2030 LOS from the WRCOG TUMF model network. 24 - DRAFT - LOS for project: Project applicants have the option to provide supplemental information if model results show 2030 LOS does not accurately depict the overall congestion benefit that the project will yield. The Evaluation Committee will consider the supplemental information; however, it is not guaranteed that the information will be used to substitute model information. Supplemental information regarding LOS/Congestion benefit: Scoring: 0 to 3 points 3 points = High Congestion Benefit 2 points = Medium Congestion Benefit 1 point = Low Congestion Benefit 4 point = No Congestion Benefit The TAC Evaluation Committee will determine 'high, medium, and low congestion benefits at the time of project evaluations. VI.: Matching Funds Projects need to maximize TU'MF eligibility costs. Projects that include local match funds will be given points based on the percentage of local funds committed to the totalprojectcost. Local match funds must be committed by the local agency through a resolution or council/board action. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program funds that will be designated as local match must be committed through a WRCOG or RCTC board action. Scoring 0 to 5 -points, Percent Points.. 75%° and above 5 60% - 74% 4 50% - 59°1° ,3 30% - 49% match 2` 25 • - DRAFT - 10% - 29% match 1 9% or less 0 VII. System Continuity Projects that will -complete the continuity of an existing road system. Examples of projects under System Continuity include: 1. Elimination of bottle -necks (lane widening and interchange improvements); 2. Gap closures (new connections); and 3. Elimination of obstruction (grade separation, bridge over roadway, river, storm drain channel, etc.). Scoring: 0 — 3 points. 0 if not applicable Indicator Points Multi -jurisdictional (project located in more than one jurisdiction, and freeway interchanges) 3 Gap Closure 2 Full elimination of obstruction/bottleneck 2 Partial elimination of obstruction 1 If the project meets more than one of the above indicators, the points will be summed. Total number of points given will not exceed 3. Project Applicants must complete the information below: Describe how the project meets the System Continuity criterion: Describe which of the above indicator(s) this project meets: - DRAFT - Other related System Continuity Benefits: Number of Existing Lanes: Number of Lanes after the improvement: 27 AGENDA ITEM 10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Technical Advisory Committee Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Palm Springs Request for Additional Federal Funds on Gene Autry Trail Widening Project TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and staff recommendation to increase federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds on the Gene Autry Trail widening project from $1.54 million to $4,038,020; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached letter from the city of Palm Springs (City), dated September 4, 2007, is requesting additional federal. STP funding on the Gene Autry Trail Railroad 'Bridge project. This project was originally approved for 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program discretionary funding and was subsequently reprogrammed with federal STP funding due to the state budget crisis that began in 2003. As indicated in the City's letter, this project has experienced extenuating circumstances in delivery. The original project estimate was developed in 2000. Due to inflation costs and the spike in construction materials over the Last few years the project costs increased 71.3%, from $2.2 million to $3,768,600. Another -issue the City encountered was related to the timing of the Union 'Pacific Railroad's additional main line track improvement, which will also require the City to construct a reinforced concrete wall section in the amount of $1.5 million. Lastly, the Palm Drive/Gene Autry interchange project will connect to the City's project and will require an elevated road profile, which was not known at the time the project was submitted for funding. The cost associated with the profile is $500,000. The City will also be required to delay its project until after the start of construction of the interchange project. Total cost increases of $3,568,600 result in a total project cost of $5,768,600. Agenda Item 10 . 28 The City is requesting an increase of $2,498,020 to the original STP funds of $ 1.54 million for a total of $4,038,020. The City will maintain the same federal/local. share (70% federal and 30% local) funding split with the City funding contribution of $1, 730, 580. This request was presented and approved at the September 17, 2007 TAC meeting. Staff recommends support for the increase in STP funds given the unforeseen extenuating circumstances. Due to project delays, there is capacity to add STP funding to this project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: N/A Amount: $2,498,020 Source of funds: Surface Transportation Program Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: - ,11, Date: 09/18/2007 Attachment: City of Palm Springs Request Agenda Item 10 29 I. - 2 81628 AM, SM September 4, 2007 City of Palm. Springs Department of Public Works and Engineering 3200 E. 1ahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8253 • Pax: (760) 322-8360 ` Web: www.ci_palm-springs.ca.us Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Shirley Medina, Program Manager. P. Q. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 ECEROVIE SEP 072007 RIVERSIDE COUMY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re: Gene Autry Trail Railroad Bridge Project, City Project #01-04 Dear Shirley; Pursuant to my recent conversation with Anne Mayer and our email correspondence, we are continuing to proceed with completion of the plans and specifications for the referenced project. The RT1P number for the project is RIV 010213. This project originally was a STIP Funded project, but was moved over to.STPL Funding several -years ago when.RCTC did'&number of transfers. The original discretionary grant funding had a federal amount of $1,540,000 which represented 70% of the cost estimate. at the time. , Since that time the following has. occurred: 1. Cost increases per the Caltrans Bridge Construction Cost Index, inflation of costs froth 2000 to 2006 equals .71.3%. This represents a cost of $1,568,000 to the original $2.2million project. 2. The Union Pacific Railroad is moving forward with its additional main line track and are requiring the piers adjacent to the track be constructed with an entire in -fill wall protection. This represents an increase of $1.5million to construct the reinforced concrete wall section. Further; the railroad informs us that they will be going to bid within one month and will not allow our work_ on this bridge while their contract : is under way. Therefore, barring any delays in ,the railroad project, it appears we will be forced to wait until the railroad project has completed their work in the area of Gene Autry Trail. We will then be required, in addition to the walls mentioned above, to provide additional false work and flagmen at our projects' expense, for protection from this active third rail line. 3. The Palm Drive/Gene Autry interchange Design is elevating the road profile of Gene Autry Trail from the Railroad Bridge,to I-10 by several feet. This profile was not known at the time of application for Federal _ Funding for the Railroad Bridge, .but represents an increase of about $500,000 for additional roadway approach fill and construction.: The total increases to the construction costs, represented by the above three items is $3,568,600, bringing the total estimate to $5,768,600. Post Office Box 2743 ' Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 30 Shirley Medina, RCTC GAT Bridge Widening, CP#01-04 Page 2 l am requesting that you place a request for additional STPL Funding on the TAC Agenda, and should a favorable recommendation come forward from the TAC, on to the Commission Agenda. This request is an increase in . STPL Funding of $2,498,020 to the current federal amount of $1,540,000 resulting in a total federal funding amount of $4,038,020 which represents the same 70% federal share for the new cost estimate. Please let me know when this can be placed on the TAC Agenda, such that the project milestone report can be updated to reflect the revised funding and the IMP amended. Sincerely, David J. Barakian Director of Public Works/City Engineer DJB/clr xc: Anne Mayer Marcus Fuller 31 AGENDA ITEM 11 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: -Marlin Feenstra, Capital Program Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Erik Galloway, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Project Scope and a Project Budget Adjustment with Lim and Nascirmento Engineering Corporation to Expand the Scope of the Development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate for the Construction of the Interstate 215/State Route 60 East Junction Between the Box Springs Overcrossing and Day Street Undercrossing STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: . 1) Approve an amendment to the project scope (Attachment 1) for the =215/SR-60 East Junction project and increase of the project budget (Attachment 2) from $35.35 million to $55.742 million; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-039-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 07-31-039-00, with Lim and Nascimento Engineering Corporation (`LAN) based on the negotiated project scope, schedule; and cost that is attached to this agenda item for a base amount of $1,533,452, plus 23.9 % contingency amount of $366, 548, to cover potential changes in scope for a total not to exceed amount of $1.9 million [$1.682 million of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds and $218,000 of Measure A as local match'I, which addresses the additional design fees required for expansion of the original project scope to incorporate elements from the Caltrans design sequencing project and additional portions from the Segment 7 project; and 3) ` Forward to the Commission for final action. Agenda Item 11 32 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Summary At its July 12, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the award of Agreement' No. 07-31-039-00 to LAN for the development of the PS&E for the construction of two new high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane structures at the l 215/SR-60 "East: Junction", between Box Springs overcrossing and Day Street : undercrossing. This ;project is necessary to close the gap that will exist between. the SR-60 HOV lanes recently constructed by the Commission in Moreno Valley and the HOV lanes on the SR-60/1-215 being constructed as part of the Caltrans design sequencing project on 1-215. This gap was created when, due to budget constraints, elements of . Segment 7 construction were deleted from the design sequencing project. In recent months, Caltrans has requested that additional Segment 7 elements` (defined in Attachment 1) be deferred from the design sequencing project to the 1-215/SR-60 East Junction project. Inclusion of these additionalelements requires adjustment to both the design and construction budgets as well as the existing`: design contract with LAN. All of the subject scope of work for this I-21 5/SR-60 ;. East . Junction project was addressed in the environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) developed for the 1-215 Design Sequencing project. 1-215 Design Sequencing and, 1-215/SR-60 East Junction Projects The project report for the SR-60/SR-91 /1-215 (EA 08-466902) design sequencing ; project, dated April 27, 2001, .was segmented into seven parts. Segment 7 of the project included two, pairs of HOV connectors at the East Junction; ._o one pair of connectors was to be_ between the west and east legs of the interchange and the other pair between the west and south legs. Due to funding : constraints, Segment 7 could not be constructed at the same time as the other six segments, which are currently under construction. Caltrans and the Commission agreed to split the work included in Segment 7 into two separate projects; the 1-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV connector project and a subsequent project to deliver the balance of the Segment 7. work. Staff' and Caltrans reviewedthe remaining. Segment 7 work and determined that .it would be beneficial to the public and adjacent cities to proceed with the design and construction of .some portions as part of the I-215/SR-60 East Junction HOV connector project. Agenda, Item 11 33 • The design sequencing elements and portions of the Segment 7 project proposed to be included with the 1-215/SR-60 East Junction project have already been environmentally cleared as part of the 1-215 design sequencing project. These elements are listed in Attachment 1 as additional project scope. The benefits that will result by designing and constructing these elements as part of the .I-215/SR-60 East Junction project are: • • • • Improved traffic flow on the west bound SR-60; Traffic congestion will be addressed on Box Springs Road; A reduction of "throw away" items of work, (e.g. pavement, guardrail, ramp realignment, etc.) if the original project scope was constructed; Reduction in the amount of time the west bound .Box Springs off ramp is closed for realignment; and Northbound (westbound 60) Box Springs ramp will be constructed in its ultimate location. If these: portions. of the Segment 7 project are not designed and constructed as part of the 1-215/SR=60 East Junction project, a future environmental re-evaluation may be required A potential re-evaluation of the environmental document would delay the improvernents, and such a delay could have an impact on cost. n order to implement this project in the minimum amount of time, the Commission has requested that Ca!trans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) delegate the authority to allow the Commission to advertise, award, and administer the construction package. Funding/Budget Background At its June 5, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved programming of $2.5 million in funding ($2,213,250 of federal CMAQ program funds and $286,750 of Measure A funds) . for the design of the I-215/SR-60 fast Junction project. In addition, approximately $28.8 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding was committed for construction consisting of $20.733 million in STIP Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds and $8.117 million in STIP Region Improvement Program (RIP).. At its September 12, 2007 Commission meeting, an additional $4 million was approved for the right-of-way phase for a total project budget of $35.35 million. An amendment :to the project budget and consultant contract is necessary to incorporate the additional design sequencing Segment 7 elements and associated right-of-way , engineering, which were not identified and included in the original Agreement No. 07=31-039-00. Theadditional scope is detailed in Attachment 1. Agenda Item 1.1 - 34 The revised project estimate is $55.742 million, which reflects an estimated project cost increase of '$20.392 million due to this additional scope. The revised budget is detailed in Attachment 2. Funding for the 1-215/SR-60 East Junction project is proposed as follows;: PS&E Design CMAQ 1989 Measure A (match) $3,895,320 504,680 Total $4,400,000 Reflects proposed PS&E increase of $1.9 million (total from $2.5 $4.4 million) Right -of -Way *CMAQ 1989 Measure A (match) $3,541,2`00 458,800 Total $4000,000 *The right-of-way phase was approved at September. 12, 2007 Commission meeting. The amount of funds approved for CMAQ was $4 million. This agenda item corrects the CMAQ funds for the right-of-way phase to $3,541,200. The Measure A funds of $458,800 were approved correctly. Construction/Construction Support STIP-IIP $20,733,000 STP-R1P 8,117,000 **Federal STP and/or CMAQ CMAQ 18,492,000 Total $47,342,000 **Staff is proposing to fund the uncommitted constructionarnount with federal funding sources such as Surface Transportation Program (STP) and/or CMAQ, whichever funding source is available. Construction estimates are currently being refined and will be brought back to the Commission at a later date. At its January 11, 2006 meeting, the Commission approved the :programming for : the 2006.STIP and reaffirmed its commitment to maintain funding for the 1-215/SR 60 East Junction project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Budget and Implementation Committee approve the additional scope for the project, the revised Agenda Item 1 1 35 • • • project budget of $55.742 million, and Amendment No. 1 with LAN for the incorporation of the additional project scope as detailed in Attachment 1. LAN has developed a revised scope, schedule, and cost summary for the I-215/SR-60 East Junction project, which is included in Attachment 3. The total project cost for the proposed scope of work for Amendment No. 1 is $1.9 million. This will bring the total project not to exceed contract value (including the original agreement for $2.5 million and Amendment No. 1 for $1.9 million) to $4.4 million for the PS&E phase. The $1.9 million is proposed to be funded by $1.682 million of CMAQ funds and $218,000 of Measure A as local match. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $1,900,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ and Measure A Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 222 31 41403 P3017 $1,682,000 222 31 81102 P3017 $1,900,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: �ak vzin Date: 09/19/2007 Attachments: 1) Additional Project Scope 2) Project Budget 3) LAN Engineering — Additional Scope, Revised Schedule, and Cost Agenda Item 11 36 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 ADDITIONAL PROJECT SCOPE • Realigning the north frontage road, Box Springs Road, (4-5 lanes wide) • Demolish the existing frontage road and bridge over the Railroad (RR) tracks • Construct a new bridge over the RR tracks for the frontage road • Widen the northbound (NB) 1-215 bridge over the RR tracks Include Ca!trans Design Sequencing Construction Elements - East Junction original Bridge Widening Scope (proposed contract change order for Design Sequencing project) - Final Widening of Bridge to its ultimate width • Re -align the NB off -ramp to Box Springs interchange Realign to ramp's ultimate location • Add a third lane to the westbound (WB) SR-60 connector to act as a Deceleration Lane about 300m long ( not the full third lane back to Day Street) • Utility Relocation, Coordination and/or Protection • Right of Way Engineering for the acquisition of properties for the the realignment of Box Springs Road the widening of WB 1-215/SR-60 prior to Box Springs Overcrossing • Environmental Permitting for frontage road relocation and utility relocations 37 • ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY I-215/SR-60 East Junction Project IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE EA 08-449311 07-31-039 -2151SR-60 East Junction Previous Project Budget Additional Budget Required New Projected Budget Right of Way $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 Design $2,500,000 $1,900,000 $4,400,000. Roadway Construction $26,675,000 $16,510,000 $43,185,000 Construction Management / Construction Support $2,175,000 $1,982,000 $4,157,000 GRAND TOTAL $35,350,000 $20,392,000 $55,742,000 38 • • • ATTACHMENT 3 LAN ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL SCOPE, REVISED SCHEDULE, AND COST 39 • 5 / SR-60 East Junction EW HOV Connectors Cost Proposal • • ESTIMATE PROPOSAL PS&E - Scope Increase NB Ultimate Scope increase Pro ject Senior Civil CivilBridge Engineer Civil Engineer Assist. Engineer Senior Engineer Bridge Engineer Assist. Bridge Engineer CADD Admin! Clerical LAN Roll Up Subconsultant TestisManager ASSUMPTIONS ClasMcations Average Direct Hourly Rate by C13316cseon Fee Rate =10.36 OH Rate =123.% 359.00 $200.00 359.00 $1e0.00 Wee $14500 $35.00 $85.85 $5905 S180.00 $47a0 $145.00 $3500 $85.86 53500 $85.88 Moo $51.33 8,984 $1 211 387 12,500 0 $309,184 $0 $1,533,071 Task Descriptions Firm/Firms Assigned to Task Estimated Hours per Task HisLabor Subtotal Subtotal �� Hrs Subtotal Labor Subtotal ODC Subtotal WBS 100 Project Management / Controls AMA PM for an extra 12-1 LAN 50 50 100 $17,250 $17,250 WBS 205 OBTPERMITS/AGREMNTS & ROUTE ADOPTIONS - $0 $0 WBS 20505 Determine Required Permits Possible deleniaticn ofweta LAN $1,525 5 5 10 $1,525 WBS 205.10 Obtain Permits Possible 1602 or 401 or 4 LAN 10 10 20 $2,309 $2,309 WBS 205.15 Obtain Railroad Agreements RCTC to hands!. Already Douglas Eng_ $0 WBS 205.25 Prepare Agreement for Materials Sites ('d deeded) none LAN 0 - $0 $0 WBS 100.15 Project Management - PS & E Component Adnl PM work on PS&E LAN 70 70 $14,000 $14,00o WBS 105 PREP BASE MAPS & PLAN SHEETS - $0 $0 WBS 185.05 Review and Update Project Information adnl effort LAN 0 0 - $0 $0 WBS 185.10 Perfoml Design Surveys Adni survey work rqd Associated $0 $0 WBS 185,10 Surveying Coordination/Management RR & Tie-in Associated $0 WBS 185.10 Control Survey & Base Data Review RAN acquisition Associated $d WB5185.10 Prepare Base Mapping Parcel descriptions Associated $0 WBS 185.10 Design Data Surveys Associated $0 WBS 185.15 Perform Preliminary Design / Update Geometric Approval Drawings Revise CAD's LAN 0 0 0 0 - $0 $0 WBS 188.20 Prepare Engineering Reports LAN 0 0 - $0 $0 WBS 185.20.10 Hydrology and Hydraulics Report additional effort LAN 5 40 0 45 $6,800 $6,800 WBS 18520.15 Geotechnical Report/Pavement/Materials Frontage Rd additional effort Kleinfelder 824,291 $24,291 WBS 18520.15 Geotechnicel Report/Pavement/Materials Tie -Back Wall Use Caltrans data Kleinfelder $0 $0 WBS 185.20.15 Geotechnical Reporl/Pavement/Matedals RCB additional effort Kleinfelder $0 $0 WBS 185.25 Determine Right of Way Requirements NEW WORK LAN 10 10 20 40 $4,576 $4,576 WBS 190 PREP STRUC SITE PLANS NEW WORK LAN 2 4 4 8 18 $2,307 $2,307 WBS 210 PREP PRELIM STRUC DSGN DATA WBS 210.04 Type Selection Rpt/ Mtg - Frontage road NEW WORK LAN 24 16 100 100 120 120 480 $58,486 2,000 $50,456 WBS 210.05 Type Selection Rpt / Mtg - NB Ult NEW WORK LAN 24 16 65 65 75 120 365 $43,927 $43,927 WBS 210.01 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 210.02 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 210.03 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 215.50 Foundation Field Investgason Frontage Rd NEWWORK Kleinfelder $23,329 $23,329 WBS 215.50 Foundation Field lnvestgation Tie -back wall Use Caltrans data Kleinfelder $0 $0 WB5215.50 Foundation Field lnvestgation RCB NEWWORK Kleinfelder SO $0 WBS 215.55 Foundation Report and Log of Test Borings Frontage Rd NEW WORK Kleinfelder $45,7 9i45,7 WBS 215.55 Foundation Report and Log of Test Borings Tie -Back Wall Use Caltrans data Kleinfelder SO $0 $0 $0 WBS 215.55 Foundation Report and Log of Test Borings RCB NEW WORK Kleinfelder $0 $0 WBS 215 PREP STRUC GENERAL PLANS $0 WBS 215.04 Prepare Structure General Plans for Structures- Frontage road NEW WORK LAN 8 24 32 32 40 136 $16,252 $16,262 WBS 215.05 Prepare Structure General Plans for Structures- NB Ult NEW WORK LAN 5 24 32 32 40 138 $16,282 $16,262 WBS 215.06 Prepare Structure General Plans for Structures -Tie -back wall NEWWORK Dokken $6,885 $8,686 WBS 215.02 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 215.03 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 240 PREP DRAFT STRUC PS&E $0 $0 WBS 240.04 Prepare Draft Structure PS&E for Structures- Frontage road NEW WORK LAN 24 320 400 420 480 1,644 $191,272 2,000 $193,272 WBS 24005 Prepare Draft Structure PS&E for SWctures - NB Ult NEW WORK LAN 24 290 365 375 480 1,534 $177,633 2,000 $179,533 WBS 24008 Prepare Draft Structure PS&E for Structures -Tie -back wall NEW WORK Dokken $31425 $31,425 WBS 240.02 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 240.03 LAN - $0 $0 VMS 24004.15 Check Design & Plan Sheets - Frontage Road NEW WORK LAN 24 100 140 140 120 524 $53,423 750 $64,173 WBS 240.05.15 Check Design & Plan Sheets - NB Ult NEW WORK LAN 24 85 120 120 100 449 $54,689 750 $55,439 WBS 240.05.15 Check Design &Plan Sheets -Tie -back wall NEW WORK Dokken $27,064 827,004 WBS 240.02.15 Dokken $0 WBS 240 03.15 Dokken $0 WBS 250 PREP FNL STRUC PS&E PKG - $0 $0 NBS 250.10 04 Finalize Structures PS&E Package - Frontage road NEW WORK LAN 24 105 210 210 260 809 $92,403 2,500 $94,903 WBS 250.1005 Finalize Structures PS&E Package - NB Ult NEW WORK LAN 24 105 210 210 260 809 $92.403 2,500 $94,903 WBS 250.10 08 Finalize Structures PS&E Package -Tie-back wall NEW WORK Dokken $5,996 $5,995 WBS 250.10 02 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 250.10 03 LAN - $0 $0 WBS 230 PREP DRAFT PS&E - $0 $0 WBS 230.05 Prepare Draft Roadway Plans additional effort LAN 40 75 75 190 $23,714 $23,714 WBS 230.15 Prepare Draft Traffic Plansadditional effort Lin Consulting fsTu„- VVBS 230.15 Prepare Draft Traffic Plans (Staging) additional effort LAN 5 10 15 10 40 $5,634 $5,534 WBS 230.20 Prepare Transportation Management Plan (Th1Sj additional effort Lin Consulting $0 WB5230.25 Prepare Draft Utility Plans additional effort LAN 5 40 45 $4,234 $4,234 WBS 230.33 Prepare Draft Drainage Plans additional effort LAN 15 40 40 95 511,834 $11,634 WBS 230.35 Prepare Draft Specifications additional effort LAN 15 20 10 45 $5,913 $5,913 WBS 23035 Prepare Draft Spenficetiont adddionale on - 'Lin Consulting' $894 SL194 WBS 230.40 Prepare Draft PS&E Quantities and Estimates .additional effort Lin Consulting $622 $622 WBS 230.40 Prepare Draft PS&E Quantities and Estimates additional effort LAN 5 5 25 10 45 $4,285 $4,285 WBS 230.55 Incorporate Structures Draft PS & E additional effort LAN 5 5 10 $1,525 $1,525 WBS 230.80 Review and Update Project Information for PS&E Package additional effort LAN 5 5 10 $1,525 $1,525 40 • • 5 / SR-60 East Junction EW HOV Connectors Cost Proposal ESTIMATE PROPOSAL PS&E - Scope Increase NB Ultimate Scope increase Clasfications Pm1wt Manager Senior Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Assist. Civil Engineer Senior Bridge Engineer entlge Engineer Assist. Bridge Engineer CAOD AdmiN Clerical LAN Roll Up Subconsultant Totals ASSUMPTIONS Average Direct Ho dy Rafe by Cieslacallan Fee Rate= 10.% OH Rate= 123.% $58.00 5200.00 $5900 $100.00 $47.00 $145.00 $3500 58586 $5800 $160.00 S4).00 $14500 535.00 WAS S95.00 MAO $2500 $61.33 8,984 $1,211,387 12,500 0 $309,164 $0 51,533,071 Task DOSCTIpgOn3 Finn/Firms Assigned to Task Estimated Hours per Task Hn Subtotal Labor Subtotal ODC Hrs Subtotal Labor ODC Subtotal Subtotal WETS 256 CIRCULATFJREV& PREP FNL DISTRICT PS&E PRO SO $p WBS 255.05 Circulate & Review Draft District PS&E Package additional effort LAN 5 5 $725 $725 WBS 255.10 Update PS&E Package additional effort LAN 5 10 15 30 $3,538 $3,538 WBS 255.10 ' - _ _ '$ Lin Consulting $7,9 $7,9 Update PS&E Package Dokken $0 D $0 o WBS 255.15 Perform Environmental Reevaluation (8 needed) All costs for LSA included ur LSA $0 PM 10/2.5 LSA $0 Air Quality Update Optional LSA $0 NES (MI) LSA $0 Re-evaluation/Validation LSA $0 Optional Comprehensive Technical Update LSA $0 Meetings/Project Mana ement LSA $0 WBS 255.20 Prepare Final District PS&E Package =, "'± adtlitiona6etfott.. Lin Consulting $4 878 $4j67$ VVBS 255.20 Prepare Final Distinct PS&E Package additional effort LAN 170 443 520 1,133 $136,080 $136,080 WBS 255.25 Prepare Geotedlnical Infomlation Handout additional effod LAN 5 5 $725 $725 VVBS 255.30 Prepare Materials Information Handout additional effort LAN 5 5 $725 $725 WBS 255.35 Prepare Staking Notes additional effort Assocated $1 000 $1 000 WBS 255.40 Prepare Resident Engineers File additional effort LAN 5 5 15 25 $2,813 $2813 VMS 260 PREP CONTRACT ROCS (Ready to Ltat/Adverdse) - $0 $0 WBS 260.05 PS&E Received additional effort LAN 2 5 7 $1,045 $1 045 WBS 260.10 Produce Check Prints additional effort LAN 5 5 $429 $429 WBS 260.15 Prepare Draft Contract Documents additional effort LAN 10 10 10 30 $3,909 $3,909 WES 260.15.30 Environmental Certification at RTL no increase LAN 0 0 - $0 $0 WB5266 ADVERTISE/OPEN BIDS/AWARD& APPROVE CONTRACT - $0 $0 WBS 265.05 Prepare Project for Advertising additional effort LAN $0 $O WBS 265.25 Respond to Inquiries (ADVERTISE/AWARD) additional effort LAN - $0 $0 WBS 100.25 Protect Management- Riahl of Way Component NEW WORK 40 40 $8000 $8000 WBS 200 COORDINATE UTIL • $0 $0 WBS 200.05 Perform Preliminary Utility Verification additional effort LAN 5 5 10 $1,229 $1,229 WBS 200.10 Determine Utility Locations (Potholing) and Prepare Conflict Maps additional effort LAN 5 5 10 $1,525 $1,525 ABS 200.10 Potholing and Utility Surveying additional effort Associated $1000 $1 00D WBS 200.15 Utility Conflict Resolution additional effort LAN 10 10 $1,600 $1,600 WBS 20020 Implement 1 ty Relocation Plan additional effort Douglas Eno_ $0 $0 WBS 20025 Manage the J66ty Relocation additional effort Douglas Enq_ $0 $0 WBS 220 PERF R1W ENGRG $o $0 WBS 220.05 Retrace and Perpetuate Frosting Land Net for RAN Acquisition NEW WORK Associated $0.00 $0 WBS 220.15 Prepare Right of Way Maps (if Required) NEW WORK Associated $0.00 $0 WBS 300 PERF FNL R/W ENGRG ACTIVITIES $0 $0 WBS 300.05 Monument the Right of Way and Prepare Monumentation Maps additional effort Associated $1,000.00 $1,000 VVBS 300.35 Prepare Right of Way Record Map additional effort Associated $1 000 00 $1 000 WBS 100.20 Project Management- Construction Component 150 40 $33,434 S33,434 WBS 270 PERF CONSTR ENGRG & GENERAL CONTRACT ADMIN (Support) additional effort LAN 40 50 50 40 10 - $25,098 $25,098 VVBS 270 Construction Support additional effort Lin Consulting $462.00 $482 WBS 285 Construction Sup port CCO additional effort LAN 50 $10,000 $10,000 WBS 290 Construction Support -Claims additional effort LAN 50 510,000 $10,000 VVBS 295 ACPT CONTRACT/PREP FNL CONSTR EST & PREP FNL RPT additional effort LAN 20 10 10 10 10 10 5 - $11,265 $11,265 WBS 295.15 Prepare As -Built Plans additional effort LAN 40 20 20 350 20 - $45,378 $45,378 41 Sub Consonant totals AE 4,000 LSA 108,415 LIN Klien Dokken 30,252 93,346 73,171 TOTAL 309,184 AGENDA ITEM 12 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director Michael Blomquist, Toll Project Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Parsons Transportation Group to Provide Preliminary Engineering Services, Project Report, and 'Environmental Document for. Improvements to State Route 91 in the Eastbound Direction and to the State Route 71 /91 Interchange, from Approximately % Mile West of Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the City of Corona STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 08-31-015-00 to Parsons Transportation Group to provide preliminary engineering services for the preparation of Ca!trans project report and environmental document (PR/ED) for the proposed improvements to SR-91, in the eastbound direction and to the SR-71 /91 Interchange, from approximately % mile west of Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the city of Corona. At this time, staff is negotiating with Parsons Transportation Group and staff expects to complete negotiations and bring a final contract to the October 10, 2007 Commission meeting; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal- counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In order to initiate project development on the projects identified in the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan, staff initiated a request for qualifications (RFQ) to create an available list of consultants to perform necessary work on the PR/ED for the new projects. This selection process was completed and ranked a list of firms approved by the Commission at its July 2007 meeting. Staff has Agenda Item 12 42 proceeded to negotiate with the firms on this approved Fist in order of ranking and project size as summarized in the following table. Corridor Project Limits Proposed Improvements Total Project Cost (Millions) Status -215 1-15/1-215 Interchange to Scott Rd. Add 1 mixed flow (Mf) lane each direction $ 62 Contract Awarded to PBS&J in July 2007 1-215 Scott Rd. to Nuevo Rd. Add 1 MF Lane each direction $173 Contract Awarded to PBS&J in July 2007 1-215 Nuevo Rd. to Box Springs Rd. Add 1 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane each direction $182 Staff currently negotiating` with URS SR-91 / SR-71 Green River Rd. to Serfas Club Dr. Add eastbound collector distributor system and direct connector $99 Staff currently negotiating with Parsons Transportation Group 1-10 San Bernardino County Line to SR-60 Add eastbound truck climbing lane $47 Staff to start. negotiation . with 'HDR as funds become available Staff has been negotiating with Parsons Transportation Group to provide preliminary engineering services for the preparation of PR/ED for the proposed, . improvements to SR-91, in the eastbound direction and to the SR-71 /91 Interchange, from approximately IA mile west of Green River 'Road to Serfas. Club Drive in the city of Corona. At this time, staff is : negotiating with Parsons Transportation Group and expects to complete negotiations and bring a final contract to the October 10, 2007 Commission meeting. Agenda Item 12 43 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: To be determined Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A/Commercial Paper Budget Ad ustment: TBD GLA No.: 303 31 81101 P3021 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ Date: 09/18/2007 Agenda Item 12 44 u AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Min Saysay, 'Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Spotless Janitorial Services to Provide Cleaning and Grounds Maintenance for the Five Metrolink Stations in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve selection of and award 'Agreement No. 08-24-023-00 to Spotless Janitorial Services (SJS) ! to provide cleaning and grounds maintenance services at the five Commission -owned Metrolink stations; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is the owner and operator of ` five Metrolink stations in Riverside County. Station cleaning and grounds maintenance services are an important component in attracting the Metrolink rider as well as preserving the property investments of the Commission. In June 2007, the Commission authorized staff! to release a request for proposals (RFP) for cleaning and grounds maintenance services for the Commission -owned and operated Metrolink stations. Calendar of Events Distribution of RFP Deadline for Proposal Submittal by 2:00 p.m. Interviews of all Proposers June 26, 2007 July 24, 2007 August 14, 2007 Consideration by Budget and Implementation Committee September 24, 2007 Commission Approval of Selection October 10, 2007 Agenda Item 13 45 Selection Process Staff received proposals from four firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from the Commission staff, Metrolin'k. and Bechtel. The selection panel reviewed all proposals and concluded that all four firms would ' be invited to be interviewed by the selection panel. The criteria used by the selection panel were based on qualifications of the firm, staffing and project organization, work plan, cost and price, and completeness of response. The evaluation panel ranked the four firms as follows: Top Ranked Spotless Janitorial Services . Second Jefferson Transitional Programs Third Woods Maintenance Services, Inc Fourth Kims Cleaning Service After careful :evaluation of the ;proposals based on the criteria stated in the ,RFP, the panel selected SJS as the top ranked company qualified to provide station cleaning and grounds maintenance services. SJS, as the most responsive bidder, demonstrates a high quality of service with proactive management and a clear understanding of the maintenance of the Metrolink stations. Based on the results of the selection panel, staff recommends the ' contract be awarded . to SJS for the cleaning and grounds maintenance of the Metrolink stations. Cost will be based on a firm fixed price and the term of the contract is three years with two one-year contract extension options to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Commission. The total contract value is $19.6.,380. A budget of $38,185 for FY ,2007/08 has been included in the current fiscal year's budget. Financial Information Yes FY 2007/08 $ 38,185 In :Fiscal Year Budget:' N/A N/A Year: FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Amount: $ 65,460 $ 65460.. N/A: FY 2010/11 $ 27,275 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 103 24.73317 _P4001, P4002, P4003, P4004, and P4006 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ,1tv Date: 09/1-8/2007 . Agenda Item 13 46 AGENDA ITEM 14 • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Aaron Hake, Staff Analyst John Standiford, 'Public Affairs Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative .Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position on SB 974 (Lowenthal); 2) Adopt proposed amendments to SB 974 and authorize staff to transmit the amendments to state leaders; 3) Approve a priority list of projects for funding by any container fee revenue; 4) Adopt an OPPOSE position on the following federal bills: a) S.2019 (Hutchison, R-Texas); and b) H.R. 3510 (Peterson, R-Pennsylvania) 5) Adopt a SUPPORT position of the SR-241 Foothill South toll road extension; 6) Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Status Report; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. State Legislative Update SB 974 (Lowenthal) - Container Fees The final weeks of the legislative session included a flurry of activity surrounding goods movement. As the Assembly held up a Senate bill to implement the Trade Corridor Improvement fund (TGIF), focus quickly shifted to legislation _regarding container fees. Commission staff and representatives were involved in negotiations on bill language that would have committed at least $600 million of container fee revenue to grade separations in Riverside County. While remaining neutral on the legal and policy merits of a legislated container fee, Commission representatives sought to maximize Riverside County's benefit from any bill dealing with revenue for goods movement projects. Agenda Item 14 47 These efforts were put on hold when Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), the authorof the container` fee legislation, and Governor Schwarzenegger reached an _ agreement to put the bill aside and work together over the fall on the issue:. Looming in the backdrop was the prospect of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach unveiling an agreement with the private sector on a voluntary . container premium that could supplant ,the need for a legislated container fee if Riverside County grade separations are adequately funded. A day later, amendments were made to Senator LLowenthal's bill without guaranteed funding for Riverside County while creating a regionally imbalanced joint powers authority responsible for allocating container fee revenue. While acknowledging Senator Low.enthal's expressed intentions to serve the needs of: Riverside .County, staff finds the current version of the bill, SB` 974, to be problematic. Further, staff believes that it is .important for the Commission to register a position on SB 974 ahead of discussions in Sacramento this fall. While it is likely that a legislated container fee will be tied up in courts for years before it is implemented and the prospects of a Governor's veto loom large, the Commission and its allies should seek to. remain active in any dialogue over new revenue for goods movement projects from any source. further, the Commission's official participation in bills such ,as SB 974. can inform the negotiations surrounding voluntary private container premiums and other funding sources. Therefore, staff has provided as an attachment to this item a summary and ;analysis of SB 974, as well as a recommended position and amendments that would better recognize the goods movement priorities of Riverside County. Based on the attached analysis of SB 974 as amended on September' 5 2007, staff recommends the Commission adopt an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position on the bill. Further, staff recommends the Commission adopt the amendments' and project list contained in the attachment and relay them to state leaders who will be involved in crafting SB 974 this fall and next year. End -of -Session Recap of Commission -Sponsored Bills The Commission was very active in the 2007 legislative session, sponsoring two bills, which would ultimately require an additional year of work . in the capitol. The Commission- partnered with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to co-sponsor AB 1295, authored by Assemblyman Todd Spitzer. The purpose. of the bill is to -allow OCTA tomodify the franchise which governs the express lanes on SR-91 :so that the Commission can proceed with extending the . express lanes into Riverside County, and to authorize the Commission to collect tolls on the Riverside County extension. Reflecting the two counties' continuing alliance, elected officials and staff worked throughout the session with Mr. Spitzer to advance the legislation. :The bill cleared the Assembly Transportation Committee with the help of Chairman Pedro Nava Agenda Item 14 48 (D-Santa Barbara), but "stalled in Assembly Appropriations Committee. Both agencies continue to . work with members of the legislature to allow much needed improvements to SR-91 to go' forward. On a concurrent path, authorization for planned express lanes on Interstate 15 continues to move forward with the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The 1-15 project will be approved through a processestablished in 2006 by Speaker Fabian Nunez's AB 1467. The Speaker's bill calls for the CTC to .develop eligibility criteria for four new high occupancy toll (HOT). lane projects. Following CTC's finding of eligibility, the 1.15 project will require separate legislation to finalize the Commission's authority to move forward, which the Commission intends to seek in 2008. Finally, the Commission sought legislation to enhance the delivery of the Perris Valley Line (PVL) Metrolink extension. Assemblyman John Benoit (R=Palm Desert) authored AB 1240 to authorize the Commission to utilize existing contracting authority available to transit agencies throughout California, including the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). The legislation stalled when public employee unions opposed the bill. The Commission continues to work with Assemblyman Benoit and SCR'RA to shape a_ proposal that will enable the Commission to better deliver the PVL. Relinquishment of SR-79 and SR-111 Awaits Governor's Decision A bill authored .by Senator Jim Battin (R-La Quinta) to relinquish portions of SR-79 and SR-1 1 1 to the cities of Temecula, San Jacinto and Hemet and La Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio and Palm Desert respectively, is now on the Governor's desk. This bill would provide cities with greater local control in setting transportation priorities for their residents: Federal Legislative Update Senate Approves Transportation Appropriations Before recessing for religious holidays in mid September, the U.S. Senate approved the FY 2008 transportation appropriations bill. The bill includes funding for key Comrnission priorities: • PVL Metrolink Extension: $3 million from Senator Feinstein; and • Alameda Corridor East grade separations in the city of Riverside: $1 million from Senators Boxer. and Feinstein. The House of -Representatives approved its version of the FY 2008 transportation appropriations bill in June; the two chambers will next hold conference to work out differences between the two bills before sending a final product to the President's desk. Agenda Item 14 49 However, the final bill will likely spend more than President Bush has requested in his proposed FY 2008 budget, which sets -up a possible veto from the President. Texas Senators Introduce Legislation Prohibiting Toll Programs on Interstate Highways Republican .Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas have introduced S.201.:9 in the U.S. Senate to prohibit the implementation of new tolling programs on highways built : using federal funds. Although the Senators are responding to developments in Texas regarding that state's aggressive direction towards _privatizing infrastructure,if enacted S.2019 could inhibit the Commission's implementation of planned express lanes on :1-15. Absent a larger legislative vehicle such as a federal transportation reauthorization bill, it will be difficult for S.2019 to move forward; the bill could :also merely be a tool for political posturing. Nonetheless, due to its potential adverse impact on the Commission's adopted delivery plans, staff recommends the Commission adopt an OPPOSE position on S.2019. Representative John Peterson (R-Pennsylvania) has also introduced mirroring legislation in the ' House of Representatives, likely in response to that state's desire to toll` 1-80. For the same reasons as S.2019, staff recommends an OPPOSE position to H.R. 3510. Staff suggests that these bills' authors could amend the legislation to be limited in scope to interstate highways in their home states or exclude the tolling of new capacity from prohibition. Transportation Corridor Agencies Request Commission Support of SR-241 Extension At the August 2007 meeting of the. Budget and Implementation Committee, members of the committee moved to withhold recording a position on the proposed extension of the SR-241 toll road in South Orange County. The committee cited concerns about taking positions on projects in other counties and setting a precedent of interfering in politically controversial issues outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. Commission staff has since received formal written correspondence from the Transportation Corridor Agencies. (TCA), which is the lead agency on the SR-241 extension project, requesting the Commission's support of the project. OCTA has also officially supported the project. > At the request of Commissioner Jeff Miller, who is Chairman of the bkounty State Route 91 Advisory Committee, staff has returned to the Committee with a recommendation to support the extension of the SR-241 toll road. Concern over the future of the project has been heightened in recent months as a provision has been inserted in the House version of the FY 2008 defense appropriations Agenda (tern 114 • • 50 • • • act, which would eliminate an easement from the federal government which is needed to complete the project. Congressmen Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Darrel Issa (R-Vista) have been high profile supporters of the project and leaders against the amendment to the defense bill. Additionally, the project's website indicates over 8,000 individual Southern California residents have officially registered their support for the extension. Attachments: 1) SB 974 (Lowenthal) Summary, Analysis, Amendments, Project List 2) Correspondence from TCA 3) OCTA Letter of Support for SR-241 4) Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 14 51 • • SB 974 (Lowenthal) Summary, Analysis, Proposed Amendments, and Project List Summary Senate Bill 974 (Lowenthal) imposes a $30 per twenty -foot equivalent (TEU) container fee on each container processed through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland. The intent of the container fee is to generate new revenue for projects that mitigate against air quality and infrastructure impacts of increasing trade volumes through the ports. Considering the high impact on Riverside County of goods moving along the Alameda Corridor East, especially at at -grade crossings, the container fee proposed in SB 974 is a potential funding source for the Commission's prioritized program of grade separations. SB 974 authorizes the container fee to be levied at both San Pedro Bay ports beginning January 1, 2009..The revenue is to be collected by each port and remitted in equal halves to two separate funds. Half of the revenue will be dedicated to the "San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund," which will be available for expenditure by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the purposes of mitigating. air pollution caused by the movement of container cargo to and from the ports. The other half of the revenue will be dedicated to the "San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund." This fund will be available for expenditure by a new joint -powers authority created by SB 974, named the Southern California Goods Movement Authority. The exclusive purpose of the congestion relief fund is for funding infrastructure projects that improve the flow and efficiency of container cargo to and from the ports. SB 974 explicitly states that at -grade crossings on the Alameda Corridor East in Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties are eligible for funding from the congestion relief trust fund, as well as Colton Crossing, on -dock infrastructure at the ports, and rail capacity enhancements that do not disproportionately impact low- income communities. Projects that improve air quality are to be given priority for funding. The bill does not specify if non -container fee matching funds are required. The Southern California Goods Movement Authority is created by SB 974 as the responsible entity for developing a one-time list of infrastructure projects to be funded by container fees. The Authority consists of nine voting members, six of which represent Los Angeles County.. SB 974 gives one vote to each of the following entities: (1) Port of Los Angeles, (2) Port of Long Beach, (3) City of Los Angeles, (4) City of Long Beach, (5) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (6) Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, (7) Orange County Transportation Authority, (8) Riverside County Transportation Commission, (8) San Bernardino Associated Governments. Action by the Authority requires only a majority vote. 52 Between January 1, 2008 and April 1, 2008 the Authority is required to develop a priority list of projects to be funded by the container fee and submit it to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for approval. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) must also be consulted. The CTC must approve a project :list by September: 1 2008. The Authority can remove projects from the `'list which are fully funded or are deemed no longer worthy of funding; however, the bill does not appear _ to allow projects to be added or exchanged after CTC approval. The Authority is also required to hold public hearings to receive input on the project list, with at least one hearing to be held near the ports. Analysis Although the language of SB 974 mandates the Authority to take into account the entire rail corridor servicing the ports, the governing structure gives de minimis influence to the non -Los Angeles County corridor, let alone the Riverside County. The impact of goods movement on the Alameda Corridor East in Riverside, 'San Bernardino and Orange Counties is well documented and widely acknowledged by elected and administration officials in Sacramento. Yet, SB 974 does not go far enough to recognize the air quality, congestion, and quality of life burdens borne by the residents of !Riverside County. SB 974 lacks a -sunset date for the container fee or a definition of how much revenue is to be collected over the Fife of the program and what is the total expected value of the projects to be funded. Without definitions of how much revenue is to be raised and what volume of projects is to be funded, there arises uncertainty as to what should be the scope of the one-time :project list. further, the one-time project Fist does not contain flexibility for projects: to be added or swapped when projects .become fully funded or higher priorities arise over the course of the program. In short, the legislation leaves a great deal of 'latitude over: the scope of the program to a regionally imbalanced governing board, but only gives it one chance before projects are set in stone. Finally, 'SB 974 requires the new joint -powers authority: to, "consult" with SCAG in developing the project list. SCAG's consultation role is left vague in the legislation. Consultation could be interpreted a variety of ways that could add additional bureaucratic processes on top of this new government entity .and cornplicate decision - making. Allowing : broad latitude for participation by another . organization has the potential to further diminish Riverside County's position, to ensure necessary funding to goods movement projects in the Inland Empire. Staff recommendation Based on the above analysis of SB 974 as amended on September 5, 2007, staff recommends the Commission adopt an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position on the bill. Further, staff recommends the Commission propose the following amendments to state leaders who will be involved in crafting SB 974 this fall and next year: 53 • • Guarantee a minimum level of funding in statuteto each county on the Alameda Corridor East for an initial round of goods movement projects, with project selection for this initial round determined by each county; • Provide regional balance in representation on the board of the Southern California Goods Movement Authority, recognizing the significant impacts of goods movement on Riverside County; • Provide flexibility for project lists to be modified after :their . adoption to reflect changing priorities and funding situations; • Specify a non -container fee matching requirement for projects funded by container .fees; and • Delete the requirement that SCAG be consulted in the, adoption of project lists. Further, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following list of grade separations as the .top -priority projects which should be funded as part of any voluntary agreement or legislation that creates revenue for goods movement via a container fee or "premium". This list is consistent with the Commission's adopted Grade Separation Funding Strategy (October 2006). Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Project Columbia Ave/BNSF & UP Grade Separation Sunset Ave/UP Grade Separation Ave 48/Dillon Rd/UP Grade Separation Chicago Ave/BNSF & UP Grade Separation Magnolia Ave/BNSF Grade Separation 3rd Street/BNSF & UP Grade Separation McKinley St/BNSF Grade Separation Magnolia Ave/UP Grade Separation Iowa Ave/BNSF & UP Grade Separation Adams St/BNSF Grade Separation Auto Center Dr/BNSF Grade Separation Clay St/UP Grade Separation Center St/BNSF & UP Grade Separation Streeter Ave/UP Grade Separation Madison St/BNSF Grade Separation Jurupa Rd/UP Grade Separation Riverside Ave/UP Grade Separation Hargrave St/UP Grade Separation Smith Ave/BNSF Grade Separation 7th St/BNSF & UP Grade Separation Tyler St/BNSF Grade Separation 22nd St/UP Grade Separation. San Gorgonio Ave/UP Grade Separation 54 Jurisdiction City of Riverside City of Banning Cities of Coachella/Indio City of Riverside County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Corona City of Riverside City of Riverside City of Riverside City of Corona County of Riverside County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Riverside County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Banning City of Corona City of Riverside City of Riverside City of Banning City of Banning Cost (M) $21.0 $21.0 $21.7 $48.7 $26.7 $31.7 $109.2 $27.2 $19.0 $24.0 $27.0 $25.0 $36.3 $33.7 $19.0 $26.5 $27.0 $25.2 $31.4 $23.0 $27.0 $23.0 $23.5 24 Pafmyrita Av/13NSF & UP Grade Separation City of Riverside $23.0 25 Spruce St/BNSF & UP Grade Separation City of Riverside $27.0 TOTAL $7478 55 4113an Joaquin Hills orridor Agency Chairman: Jim Dahl San Clemente • • August 28, 2007 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES The Honorable Terry Henderson RCTC Chairwoman Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 3` I Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Chairwoman Henderson: Foothill/Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Lance MacLean Mission Viejo As Chairman of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, I am writing to request your support of the completion of the Foothill Transportation Corridor South, State Route 241. This is the final 16 mile segment of Orange County's public toll road system and would provide direct access from State Route 91 in Riverside to Interstate 5 just south of the Orange/San Diego County line. The Foothill -South project has been on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways since 1981. After six years of analysis by federal resource agencies, an alignment was chosen in . 2006 that accommodates the needs of the traveling public and also provides the most environmentally sensitive road possible. The Orange County Transportation Authority's long- term plans assume that the 241 will be completed. Completing the 241 will benefit all drivers throughout the Southern California region — whether it's commuters from the Inland Empire or commercial truck traffic from San Diego — by providing a complete congestion -free option to the I-5 through Orange County. Again, I respectfully request your support of the completion of the 241, which is crucial to the quality of life and economic future of the Southern California region. Sincerely, Lance MacLean Chairman Foothill/Eastem Transportation Corridor Agency Thomas E. Margro, Chief Executive Officer 125 PACIFICA, SUITE 100, IRVINE, CA 92618-3304 •. P.O. BOX 53770, IRVINE, CA 92619-3770 • 949/754-3400 FAX 949/754-3467 www.thetollroads.com Members: Aiiiso Viejo • Anaheim . Costa Mesa . County of Orange •:Dana Point Irvine . Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel . Laguna Woods . Lake Forest Mission Viejo • Newport Beach • Orange . Rancho Santa Margarita • Santa Ana • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano . Tustin • Yorba Linda 56 OCTA AFFILIATED AGENCIES Orange County Transit District Local Transportation Authority Service Au homy for Freeway Emergencies Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Congestion Management Agency. Service Autnon ly to Abandoned Vehicles February 27, 2007 Transportation Corridor Agencies The Honorable James Thor Chairman, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency The Honorable Carmen Cave Chairwoman, SanJuaquin Transportation Corridor Agency 125 Pacifica, Ste. 120 Irvine, CA 92618 Dear Chairman Thor and Chairwoman Cave, On behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors, I want to reiterate our support for the Foothill Transportation Corridor South Toll Road extension (Foothill -South). OCTA's plans rely on the transportation capacity provided by Foothill -South as an important regional facility that helps reduce future congestion on the 'San Diego Freeway (1-5) in south Orange County. Additionally, it is included in the Southern California. Association of Government's (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program. OCTA has supported the Foothill -South throughout the project development process. For example, OCTA approved changes to the 2004 Regional Transportation Improvement Program that allowed the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) to reduce the ultimate footprint of Foothill -South from 8, lanes to 6 lanes. This involved complex air quality conformity findings that allowed the reduced footprint to move ahead. In addition, the OCTA Board of Directors unanimously approved the Foothill -South extension in the baseline of the county's Long Range Transportation Plan on July 24, 2006. As you are aware, bothOCTA and TCA have conducted traffic forecasts for the south county area. OCTA -has recently reviewed potential differences between the two which has been questioned by some stakeholders. Upon detailed analysis, OCTA has concluded that the TCA model is consistent with OCTA modeling guidelines and produces similar congestion trends. In short, construction of the Foothill -South would provide congestion relief to the 1-5 in south Orange County. AA memo outlining the details of this analysis_ is attached; however, the following three points summarize the analysis: • The models are using consistent travel forecasting methodologies • Both predict similar volumes along study area boundaries • ... Both predict similar congestion patterns along the I-5 corridor Orange County Transportation Authority . 550 South Maier Street /P.O. Box 14184lOrange /California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) 57 February 27, 2007 The Honorable James Thor The Honorable Carmen Cave Page 2 OCTA remains strongly supportive of TCA`s efforts to complete Orange County's toll road system with the Foothill -South and bring needed congestion relief to the region. With five shared board members between our agencies, OCTA is fully engaged in, our joint efforts to improve transportation in Orange County and the region. We Took forward to our continued partnership. Sincerely, Carolyn V. Cavecche Chairman CVC:ds Attachment cc: Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Foothill-Eastem Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Board of Directors Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA William Woollett Jr., Chief Executive Officer, TCA Orange County State Legislative Delegation Orange County Congressional Delegation 58 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIO • .3< F': .<w ... .+� r ate' > S - ... ..\..: ..,... �T4i 'P. x.q,. a'f:iq j Pii!a�. �.i'�tf.,-.�,s.C-. > .: Z�.. \'Q.'... .`h.%C T-. :.♦ : . . % Y ...sI . ..w>Q� r .. ... .. 1.Y.��zh.a'. :�y �'N. ��." <. �. 1��. i A'. < i .. M�1 �� .... STATE LEGISLATION AB 291 (Jeffries & Benoit) This bill relinquishes state control of the portions of SR-74 within Lake Elsinore city Limits to the City Lake Elsinore. Held under submission in Senate Appropriations Committee — 08/30/07 Support 04/1 1 /07 AB 1240 (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. RCTC is the sponsor of this bill. Wearing cancelled at request of author. Two-year bill. Support 04/1 1 /07 AB 1351 (Levine) This bill establishes guidelines. for the expenditure of the $1 billion of State -Local Partnership Funding in Proposition 113. The bill is consistent with the intent of Prop. 1 B in supporting self-help counties, such as Riverside, match sales tax dollars with state dollars Held under submission in Senate Appropriations Committee — 08/30/07 Support 06/13/07 AJR 14 (Jeffries) 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. Enrolled and chaptered by Secretary of State — 07/03/07 Support 04/1 1 /07 SB 9 (Lowenthal) This bill is an evolving vehicle for establishing a process for the selection of transportation projects, to be funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement fund _(TCIF) of Proposition 1 B. The TCIF is a $2 billion fund. Held under submission in Senate Appropriations Committee — 08/3`0/07 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. Approved by Assembly Transportation Committee, amended, and referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee — 07/19/07 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. Amended to become an education bill. 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 59 z:: E' ... �3 sue' .., ., �.. , _ � .. �s u, �'_ "" ., .. x .., , <.. SB 53 This bill requires- ,Caltrans to establish performance measures that will Placed on inactive file on ; Support 2/14/07 (Ducheny) 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 g g,. programming. decisions impact the overall condition of the state highway system request of Assemblymember Bass - '09/04/07 - (in terms of distressed lane miles, bridge conditions, and life cycle . Costs). SB 53 would require Caltrans to consult with agencies such as-: RCTC in developing its performance measures. " - - SB 56 (Runner) This bill establishes a 10-year pilot program for design -build projects, administered by the CTC. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee under submission - Support 2/14/07 - 06/01 /07 SB 224 (Battin) This bill relinquishes state control of SR-111 and SR-79 to local jurisdictions. SR-1 1 1 is relinquished within the city limits of La Enrolled and to Governor's desk - 09/1 1 /07 Support 04/1 1 /07 Quinta, Indian Wells, Indio, and Palm Desert. SR-79 is relinquished within the city limits of Temecula, San Jacinto and Hemet. SB 375 This bill would require regional transportation planning agencies to Held under submission in Oppose 06/13/07 (Steinberg) adopt "preferred growth scenarios" that reduce vehicle miles Assembly Appropriations traveled per household. The amount of reduced vehicle miles traveled to be reduced would be part of an emissions inventory to be completed by CARB. Additional provisions would require the CTC to adopt guidelines for the use of travel demand models that meet a number of standards and would require the state to ensure that projects that are included . in the Federal Transportation Improvement Committee - 08/30/07 Program reflect this orientation.toward- "preferred growth scenarios." SB 748 This bill establishes the. criteria for the State -Local Partnership Set for first hearing in Assembly Oppose 06./13/07 ('Corbett) program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill Appropriations Committee, Unless broadly defines agencies who may apply for funding from the program and also broadly includes voter -approved taxes as eligible matching funds: cancelled at request of author - 08/30/07 Amended SB 872 This bill establishes the criteria for the State -Local Partnership Held in Senate Appropriations Support 04/1 1 /07 (Ackerman) program created when voters approved Proposition 1 B. The bill allocates $200 million per year statewide over five FY's beginning FY Committee under submission -" 05/31 /07 10-11. Funding goes only to self-helpcounties and to projects with a minimum cost of: $25 million. l9 L0/ L L/L0 ao3.!uoiN L0/OZ/90 eola!ww00 ainlon.asei jul uo!leLiodsueal u! pa!npayos dm!ieN uo!le!s!6al 914. }o Lied asp s! speomei ya.!nn 6u!.ep.o6eu aoj wspegoew nnau d •s#gafoad-0y!A!0 j.o aaeys !eaapaj. peseenui ue pue 6u!punj !euomppe sepn!ou! Hp ayl •Aoue!all.la A6aaua .enoidw! pue a6uego .alew!!o ele6mw d!ay ueo AoHod uo!.evodsue.13.1.egl sAenn sessaappe sep!noad !!!q s!yl (NW -Q. 1aelsaag0) 6OLZ '8'H LO/ l L/170 laoddng LO/Z L/C0 — aeu!wwo0 wao1a1:1 1u9wuJ9n00 pup 1g6!siano esnoH o� palialau :aa1.1.!wwo0 suee!N '8 sAem esnoH o pa uejeu 'uWuow/00 6 $ o� do pesingw!eJ eq /quo Aew l!suea3. e!!ynn ta�uow/gL L $ do 6upped esangw!aa Aew sJeAo!dwe `A!luesaad •yluow/OOZ$ luewes.mgw!ei 6upped pue luewesangw!eJ l!suen aol seeAo!dwe a!ayl Jell° Aew sieAo!du.we 1.4eueq a.6upl et�� sezn nbe inq s!ul (VW -Q `ua9A0DON) 5Lin .a.H NOL V7SIJ37 7 b'!13033 URGENCY ITEM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 24, 2007 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Program Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Contribution Agreement for 1-215 Corridor Improvements — Design Sequencing Project for Adjustments to Funding Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 03-31-064-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 03-31-064 (Caltrans No. 08-1207 A/1); to reflect adjustments in Measure A funding; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and, 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Interstate 215 Corridor Improvement — Design Sequencing project is nearing completion and will begin opening major project segments starting the end of 2007. The original contribution agreement with Caltrans indicates that adjustments to funding would require amending the agreement to reflect fund changes. Commission staff has repeatedly updated funding throughout the construction of the project to provide the utmost flexibility in delivering this project on schedule. The adjustments previously approved by the Commission have been incorporated into the attached draft amendment to Agreement No. 03-31-064 (Caltrans No. 08-1207 A/1). Staff recommends approving the agreement and authorizing the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement. URGENCY ITEM Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $10,000,000 $ 20,000,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Ad ustment: No Yes GLA No.: 222 31 81301 P3006 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)Uz444,4,it Date: 09/24/2007 WOMAN] P, 08-Riv-60-PM 11.5/14.0 08-Riv-91-PM 20.3/21.6 08-Riv-215-PM 37.4/43.9 Widen I-215 from 6 to 8 lanes Construct AUX lanes, truck by-pass Lane, truck climbing lane, and Improve mainline and interchanges EA 334844 District Agreement No. 8-1207 A/1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT This AMENDMENT NO. 1 to AGREEMENT NO. 8-1207, entered into effective on , 2007, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC." RECITALS 1. STATE and RCTC, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to the State Highway System within RCTC's jurisdiction. 2. The parties hereto entered into Agreement 08-1207 on April 9, 2003, under which a State Highway improvement consisting of widening Interstate 215 (I-215) from 6 lanes to 8 lanes, constructing auxiliary lanes, truck by-pass and climbing lane and improving mainline and interchanges on 1-215, referred to herein as "PROJECT" was to be partially financed. 3. It has been determined that an increase of $30,000,000 is needed to meet PROJECT obligations and RCTC has agreed to use $30,000,000 of Measure A -Local funds allocated to PROJECT. 4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement 8-1207 shall remain in effect. This Amendment shall deem to be part of the Agreement. DRAM : September 21, 2007 1 District Agreement No. 8-1207 A/1 IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Under State Agrees, Section I, the following Article 5 is hereby added and made a part of Agreement No. 8-1207 and will read as follows: I 5. "To submit an initial billing in the amount of $10,000,000 to RCTC immediately following execution of this Amendment to Agreement. Thereafter, to prepare and submit progress billing statements to RCTC for construction costs." 2. Under RCTC Agrees, Section II, the following Article 5 is hereby added and made a part of Agreement No. 8-1207 and will read as follows: 5. "Following execution of this Amendment to Agreement, to deposit with STATE upon fifteen (15) days of receipt of invoice, the amount of $10,000,000, using Measure A -Local funds. Said amount shall represent a portion of PROJECT construction costs. Thereafter, to pay the amount as shown in the progress statements provided by STATE." 3. Exhibits A and B are replaced in their entirety by the attached new Exhibits A and B. SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE: DRAFT: September 21, 2007 2 District Agreement No. 8-1207 A/1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILL KEMPTON Director By: ERIC HALEY Executive Director By: MICHAEL A. PEROVICH District Director By: Legal Counsel BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER Certified as to Funds: By: District Budget Manager Approved as to Form and Procedure: By: Attorney, Department of Transportation Certified as to Procedure: By: Accounting Administrator DRAFT: September 21, 2007 3 EXHIBIT "A" Contribution Letter for State Administered Projects Date Local Agency Agreement No. State E. A. No. Revision No. 31-Jul-07 RCTC 08 - 1207 08-RIV-334841 3 Local - Federal Fund Type Local - Federal Contributor Amount Reimbursement Ratio Match Fund Type Match Amount Current Total Previous Total . Proposed Change CMAQ $8,374,000 88.53% TCRP $1,085,000 $9,459,000 TCRP Subtotal = $1,085,000 CMAQ $6,668,000 88.53% Measure A $864,000 $7,532,000 RSTP $13,327,000 88.53% Measure A $1,741,000 $15,068,000 Measure A Subtotal = $2,605,000 Grand Total = $28,369,000 $3,690,000 $32,059,000 Notes: 1) Identify each Local Federal fund type and match on separate lines with current and previous contributor totals towards the State - Administered project. 2) A separate finance letter is required to identify the type and amount of funds to be authorized, allocated, and/or applied to each phase of the work by STATE. 3) An amendment to this contribution letter is required for any change to the type and/or amount of funds contributed towards the State Administered project or changes to the EA. 4) Local Agency is responsible for all programming changes to the RTIP, FTIP and/or STIP. Local Agency Signature Caltrans Project Manager Signature D08 05 / 30 EXHIBIT "B11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF ACCOUNTING LOCAL PROGRAM ACCOUNTING BRANCH ATTN: John Peterson Project sponsored by: I) State _Yes_ 2) Local Agency (Reimbursement work) No Overhead Rate Date: July 30, 2007 EA M (Current Phase): Local Programs Project Contributor Agency: 'Agreement #:08-1207_Revision _aiii94 N: (%) RCTC 3_ Project Legation: On Rh, 215 From Eucalyptus Ave IC to Columbia Ave IC, On Route 60 from Main St IC to 60/91/215 Jet and from 60/215 Jet to Day St IC, and On Route 91 from University Ave to 60/91/215 Jct. State Administrated Phases of Work «. ***Local Program Funds (51000) ***Local Program Funds (SI000) '•" Other Funds ($1000) Totab Federal %: 88.53 Match%: 11.47 Federal %: 88.53 Match%: 11.47 g gg `j t RIP z `I Fund Type: CMAQ TCRP M'sure A RSTP M'sute TCRP Measure lIP GRIP LIP RIP STATE SUPPORT Phase Ptmn Code: 400.000 710.870 400.000 400.000 400.000 710.870 400.000 025.700 075.600 075.400 025.700 075.600 - PE/Environmental "0" So Design "1" 514,148 52,101 $6,685 122,934 R/W Support "2" S12,152 S1,997 S14,149 Construction Engineering "3" $18,913 $4,935 $6,480 $30,32 18 STATE CAPITAL Phase Pegm Code: 400.000 710.870 400.000 _ 400.000 400.000 710.870 400.000 025.700 075.600 075.463 025.700 075.600 .�' s}Yg @( _ Y-avg RPM Capital "9" 512,515 570,366 $24,397 5107,278 Construction Capital "4" $15,042 S1,085 $864 513,327 51,741 $34,189 S30,000 531,444 $176,784 $4,699 S26,625 $335,800 m TOTALS S15,042 S1,085 $864 513,327 $1,741 534,189 530,000 - 543,959 $247,150 $69,610 511,735 541,787 $510,489 NOTES: > Identify type of Loral Program Funds such as RSTP, DEMO, with reimbursement percentages. Also include copy of allocation > Identity other funds which include State -Federal Funds such as Developer funds, etc. > Provide Program codes such as 20.10...(State Support), 20,20....(Stak o Identity Co-op Agreement / or Contribution Agreement # (include 0o Identify any Sub Jobs for each phase and fund source if applicable ***Include All the hinds requhed for the rarreal tame and a0 the RCTC advanced 631,324 of Meas A funds through AB 3090 to support CMiAQ, and type letter with ST1P STIP RIP, Capital), copy of the (identify in Loral Program of match Funds such as STIP Match, TCRP, SHOPP, Local Sales Tax, Match. STIP IIP, State funds such as SHOPP, TCRP and Local funds such as Saks Tax, See: htto://adse.dotea.eov/ASC/Codine Manuals/cha0ter 07findex.htm in FY 2006/07. agreement if not remarks) Funds / Match identified already provided to Local Programs) in previous phases (include any changes) The AB 3090 cash reimbursement was received by RCTC project allocation in FY 2003/04. (1) Project Manager Name: (2) Program Coordinator (3) OLP Area Engineer Jamal Elsaleh Calnet: 8-670-6710 Signature* Signature: Signature:: Name: Name: Calnet: Calnet:: REMARICS:_This revision (No. 3) is to increase This amount was approved by RCTC Board total local Measure hand by $30,000,000. in July 2007. ATTACHMENTS: RTIP/FTIP Listing / Amendments_ Environmental -Clearance Federal Authonzaion -R/W Certification (E76)_ Agreements_ Allocation Letter: _ -- - --