Loading...
11 November 11, 2009 Commission88243 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Thursday, November 12, 2009 LOCATION: PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION CENTER 277 North Avenida Caballeros Palm Springs, California 92262 Commissioners Chair: Bob Magee 1" Vice Chair: Bob Buster 2nd Vice Chair: Greg Pettis Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside To Be Appointed, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Robert Crain, City of Blythe Ray Quinto / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Eduardo Garcia / Steven Hernandez, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick J. Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Scott Mann, City of Menifee Jesse Molina / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Jim Ferguson / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ron Meepos / Alan Seman, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Thursday, November 12, 2009 PALM SPRINGS CONVENTION CENTER 277 North Avenida Caballeros Palm Springs, CA 92262 In comp/iance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 14, 2009 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. if there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT AUDIT Page f Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the audited financial statements for the FY 2007/08 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). 7B. CLOSE-OUT AUDIT Page 14 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) Program, Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529, Project No. PPM 06-6054(042). 7C. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REVIEWS Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file a report on the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) FY 2009 Financial Management Oversight (FMO) Review of the Commission; and 2) Receive and file a report on the FTA's FY 2009 Triennial Review of the Commission. Page 20 • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 3 7D. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS Page 71 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve a report on the internal audit of: 1) Right of Way Management Process; 2) Project Management Process; 3) Transit Provider Services Management; and 4) EDEN Implementation Processes. 7E. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 AND 2007/08 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 97 1) Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2006/07; and 2) Receive and file the TDA and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2007/08. 7F. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Page 127 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended June 30, 2009. 7G. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2009. Page 133 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 4 7H. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPROGRAMMING FOR STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 135 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve reprogramming $2 million of State Transportation Improvement (STIP) Program Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds from the 71 /91 interchange project to the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP); and 2) Approve programming of $4 million federal earmark funds to the 71 /91 interchange project. 71. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 ALLOCATION PLAN AND 2010 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND ESTIMATE Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 2009/10 Allocation Plan and 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) fund estimate report. 7J. CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 139 1) Formally accept the California High -Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA) invitation to join as a participating agency as part of the environmental impact report/statement (EIR/EIS) process for the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire high-speed train (HST) project; 2) Direct staff to work closely with the CHSRA and affected local jurisdictions in Riverside County to ensure a thorough and comprehensive analysis of high-speed rail service for Riverside County to include the study of potential alignments along with Interstates 15 and 215; and 3) Convene and conduct meetings of the Commission's High -Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee to consider and provide input on the environmental process for the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire project with periodic updates to the entire Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 5 7K. FISCAL YEAR 2009 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT — RIVERSIDE AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION Page 147 Overview This item is for the Commission to allocate $570,000 to the city of Riverside (Riverside) in support of the Riverside Avenue grade separation project. 7L. STATE ROUTE 91 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES PROJECT — RIGHT OF WAY AND DESIGN FUNDING INCREASE AND UTILITY AGREEMENTS Page 150 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following options for right of way and design costs related to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes project: Option 1: $5.4 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds; or Option 2: $3,983,850 of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and/or Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds and $1,416,150 of Measure A funds as local match; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with Caltrans to reflect funding changes and to execute utility agreements related to the SR-91 HOV lanes project on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve a budget transfer of $1,416,150 from the SR-91 HOV lanes project right of way acquisition expenditures to the final design expenditure in the amount of $516,150 and the right of way support services expenditure in the amount of $900,000 in the FY 2009/10 budget. 7M. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT REPROGRAMMING OPTIONS Page 153 Overview This item is for the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to approve the reprogramming of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) highway funds resulting from project savings to regional, high priority projects that meet the eligibility and timeline requirements of ARRA. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 6 8. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ROUTE 74/INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 154 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-31-080-00 to Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs) to provide construction management, materials testing, and surveying services for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project, in the city of Perris, based on the scope and cost included in Attachment 1, for the base amount of $3,786,428, plus a contingency amount of $513,572, for a total not to exceed amount of $4.3 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; 4) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 10-31-025-00 with Caltrans for construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange project; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the cooperative agreement and future non -funding related amendments to this agreement. 9. FUNDING MODIFICATION FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY MEASURE A AND JOBS ACCESS REVERSE COMMUTE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS Page 232 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the reallocation of FY 2007 $58,319 Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County (BGCSC) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); 2) Approve programming of Measure A specialized transit funds to BGCSC in the amount of $82,048 for a total Measure A award of $462,141 with a revised local match requirement of $231,035; 3) Approve the reduction of $31,420 in Measure A specialized transit funds from RTA; and 4} Amend RTA's and BGCSC's current Measure A, JARC, and New Freedom (NF) agreements to reflect the proposed funding award modifications. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda November 12, 2009 Page 7 • 10. COACHELLA VALLEY RAIL STUDY UPDATE • • Page 236 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Coachella Valley Rail Study. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 9, 2009, Board Room, County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California. r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET NOVEMBER 12, 2009 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS \m c(' V�Scm eGu nn ,Q�er -� �\.sm Q 9 ar l aw . � tm W-- i�n-� s {:110,traT'IALA71:;,i' /keyil-�Sve. �5r2,i.)etS Pv ne.t FaL,.� , fi-g2tal°< %Tv k,& 4-fe/Y ,vkPflee,ei _le,/,-�-S' 61 e.v"" U`(MV-f- _.1--L\PO t 0 R�Jv ��Pc)-� ' /117 /260- S Elite 5',d '2'6�/0/ c�� sia4 (.t)4 i API /,o---c-oe 11V- x.e4--------- ,�i� � / /7 / �%l�' r U cAt j 4124,. e /jj/nub( !"' C!.////��"" V • fa LI j� �� / / r-aA-(A— c �pp ,J_PL;w- 45 T ��0e r via if hir n i cAtee U) 1?-t ��A�-,►.1 G4 �+a�'p II a a�4e) IC E r7LrVA /1/10,,wNo vgGGq ,ija mirsion4 vtewa l` �Lo(y 1+-r-1 k �� f�'� n \v`'cr✓e6, Cet cA Ali v v b \ ) v4 s ?) friv N j Nl 0 T RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL NOVEMBER 12, 2009 Present _ Absent -----=, - County - of Riverside, District I - 0 County of Riverside, District II _ 0 A, County bfiliviredei,-District ill _ 0 - - ' #2fy To Be Appointed, District IV 0 .0-. County- bf.RNer--.sid- ©strict V ,„Er ' n - - City of Banning City,- 1 , „ City of Blythe City f C sa City of Canyon Lake City`of CotheditLiCity City of Coachella_ City' of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of-HeMet----=' City of Indian Wells City of Indio- ;. City of La Quinta City of L6k-e=-Elsinlar-e-Tr' City of Menifee City Of Moreno :Malley , - City of Murrieta Cj _ City:Of o o .017( City of Palm Desert . - _ _ - _ - _ City of .Paiht-S - - - _ _ City of Perris City of-136ri City of_Riverside, City of S.Sti,j-d-diiito City of Temecula ' O O O City of Wiloo ar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 ,I7rO - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Bob Magee at 9:32 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Chair Magee led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Marion Ashley Roger Berg Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Scott Farnam Jim Ferguson Eduardo Garcia Frank Hall Terry Henderson Darcy Kuenzi Robin Lowe Ron Meepos 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Magee Scott Matas Glenn Miller Jesse Molina Patrick J. Mullany Greg Pettis James Potts Steve Pougnet Ray Quinto Ron Roberts Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Ray Wolfe Commissioners Absent Joseph DeConinck Rick Gibbs County of Riverside, D4 Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager, stated the Commission, in partnership with Mobility 21, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Southern California Association of Governments, and Western Riverside Council of Governments, hosted a workshop on Advancing Goods Movement in the Inland Empire and included updating the Commission's video on goods movement projects. MBI Media updated and nominated the video for a 2009 Telly Award. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 2 Mary McCormick, MBI Media, announced the Commission received a 2009 Telly Award for Perfection and Excellence in Business Communication. Mike Myers, city of Moreno Valley, expressed support for Agenda Item 7D, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Recommendations for Programming Funds" specifically Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, and stated he would be available if the Commission had any questions for the city of Moreno Valley. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 M/S/C (Henderson/Stone) to approve the minutes of September 9, 2009, meeting. Abstain: Farnam and Meepos 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chair Magee announced additional information for Agenda Item 9, "Eligibility for Measure A Local Streets and Roads Funding". 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Roger Berg requested to pull Agenda Item 7C, "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Fiscal Year 2009/10 Budget Adjustments", and Agenda Item 7D, "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Recommendations for Programming Funds" for further discussion. M/S/C (Ashley/Craton) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1, 2009. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 3 7B. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES WITH KPMG CORPORATE FINANCE, LLC 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-026-07, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement 06-66-026-00, for On -Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services with KPMG Corporate Finance, LLC (KPMG) to continue providing on -call financial advisory services for the proposed State Route 91 and Interstate 15 corridor improvement projects for the amount of $329,736; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7E. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXTENSION FOR THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO Grant the city of San Jacinto (San Jacinto) an extension to February 2010, for approved SB 821 program funds for the installation of concrete sidewalk and handicap ramps along the south side of Commonwealth Avenue from Hewitt Street to Girard Avenue. 7F. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT FUNDS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS 1) Adopt Resolution No. 09-016, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Purpose of Applying and/or Accepting Grants Awarded to the Commission's Rail Program from the Proposition 1B - Public Transportation Modernization, Improvements, and Service Enhancement Account Program "; 2) Allocate FY 2008/09 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds as follows: • $178,536 to the city of Banning; • $120,000 to the city of Beaumont; • $312,552 to the city of Corona; • $1,500,000 to the city of Riverside; • $2,828,307 to the Commission's Commuter Rail Program; • $140,067 to the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); • $2,700,735 to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); • $2,273,111 to SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 4 3) Approve budget adjustments to increase revenues and other financing sources for a net total of $685,000 and transfers out by $729,000; and 4) Amend the Commission's Rail Program FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the Proposition 1 B funds of $870,637 for the La Sierra Multimodal Station Project. 7G. FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2009 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS 1) Adopt the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the Local Review Committee; 2) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); and 3) Certify by Resolution No. 09-018, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional. Transportation Plan", that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan. 7H. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program. 8. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, provided an overview of the professional services contract with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., to perform project and construction management (PCM) services on the State Route 91 corridor improvement project, discussing the following areas: • Commission goals and SR-91 project mission; • 10-Year Delivery Plan projects and status of project development; • PCM role and contract phasing; • PCM procurement summary and introduction of the consultant team; • Updated financial feasibility and measured approach to design -build work; and • Staff recommendations. In response to Commissioner Jeff Stone's questions regarding the selection process, Michael Blomquist replied as follows: 1) Four firms submitted a written proposal — CALTROP Corporation, PB Americas, Inc., Parsons • • • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 5 Transportation Group, Inc., and URS Washington Division; 2) The panel consisted of Kip Field, city of Corona; Ray Wolfe, Ca!trans District 08; Kirk Avila, Orange County Transportation Authority; and John Standiford, and Michael Blomquist, Commission staff; 3) The four firms were ranked and the top two firms were selected for interviews — Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. and PB Americas, Inc. He discussed various distinguishing aspects between the two firms. 4) The savings bonus in Exhibit "C", Section 5.1.1 was developed to incentivize the contract to align the consultant's performance with the Commission's goals. He explained how the savings bonus will be allocated. Commissioner Stone discussed his concerns about firms not staying within contingency and potentially walking off the job. He requested information on Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. history, staying within contingency, any lawsuits against any transportation agencies or municipalities, or any contractual dispute. Kevin Haboian, Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. Project Principal, stated Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. has never sued a governmental agency or municipality over any type of contractual dispute, money, personnel, or otherwise. Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. is a firm that takes pride in finishing what it starts. In response to Commissioner Stone's question, Kevin Haboian replied the contingency is utilized at Commission staff's discretion. He stated through the course of other projects, additional work was needed and the contingency was used. With regard to the current scope, Kevin Haboian explained the firm takes pride in committing to what was agreed upon and will honor it. In response to Commissioner Stone's question if the firm has ever threatened or walked off a job, or had any type of contractual dispute, Kevin Haboian replied the firm takes pride in working with its partners to resolve an issue amicably. Commissioner Stone explained there have been challenging experiences and believes it is appropriate, given the magnitude of this project, to ask questions and expressed his gratitude to Kevin Haboian for addressing them. In response to Commissioner Steve Adams' question regarding an option to hire locally to help stimulate the local economy, Michael Blomquist replied Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. has a local office in the city of Ontario and its partners on the project maintain offices in the city of Riverside. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Adams expressed the importance of hiring within Riverside County in order to stimulate the local economy and suggested at least 50 percent of workers are hired from Riverside County. Anne Mayer replied the Commission has not adopted a local preference policy although it has been discussed. However, by limiting or controlling who is able to seek the Commission's contracts, the Commission is limiting its ability to hire those who are most qualified to perform the work. Commissioner Bob Buster cautioned against local preference stating the Commission could carry out more projects if a premium is not being paid for local preference. He stated local preference may not lead to an overall net savings. He expressed his gratitude to Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for attending the Commission meeting, for the approach the firm has taken on this project, and how the firm works with other agencies. In response to Commissioner James Potts' request for clarification regarding the advertising of this project, Michael Blomquist replied the RFP for this project was advertised in the Press Enterprise and on the Commission's website. Anne Mayer added that based on a comparison with other Commission projects, there were a number of very large engineering firms that did not submit a written RFP either on their own or in conjunction with other large firms. She suggested that those firms are likely waiting for the design -build phase. Commissioner Henderson commended staff for its thorough RFP process and for moving forward on schedule. M/S/C (Stone/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve the consultant selection process and award Agreement No. 09-31-081-00 to Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. to provide project and construction management (PCM) services for phase 1 of the SR-91 widening and extension of the 91 Express Lanes design -build project in the total not to exceed amount of $39.8 million including contingency of $4,260,701; 2) Authorize staff to proceed with a portion of the phase 1 work through a limited notice to proceed (NOP) in the amount of $1,974,656; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 7 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project; 5) Approve an expenditure transfer within the existing project budget of $13 million from right of way acquisition to PCM services; 6) Authorize staff to proceed with the balance of phase 1 work following successful completion of the first portion of phase 1 work; and 7) Authorize staff to negotiate the scope and fee for phase 2 work and bring back to the Commission at a later date a separate request for authorization of the phase 2 work. Abstain: Molina 9. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FUNDING John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, provided a brief update for the eligibility and participation of the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) for Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding. Commissioner Berg expressed several concerns about the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. He stated Beaumont had a Community Facilities District (CFD) since 1993, and came into the TUMF program with the understanding that it will work with the system already in place. Commissioner Berg cited information from the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Revenue Projections Report by David Taussig and Associates, Inc., September 24, 2004, demonstrating the multitude and magnitude of exemptions granted by various cities to developers, noting that only the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Moreno Valley, and Perris granted no exemptions. He also cited information related to Beaumont remittance to the TUMF program and per capita ranking. He cited the Measure A ballot, section five of the ordinance, and believes the Commission has an option to administer .its own TUMF program. He then referred to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Beaumont in 2004 regarding the property that was located the south of Beaumont that was taken for the MSHCP. He stated that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors subsequently reneged the MOU that resulted in the loss of over $130 million in eligible TUMF facilities and $26 million in Measure A funds for Beaumont to build these facilities. He discussed projects under construction or completed by Beaumont totaling 25 miles of roads improvements. He then cited an issue of the TUMF Communicator published by WRCOG that spotlighted Beaumont's TUMF projects. He stated he believes WRCOG is amiss as it Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 8 does not understand the program it administers. He suggested Beaumont's Measure A funds be placed in an escrow account until the lawsuit is settled. He expressed WRCOG continues to change the TUMF program and believes there are other options available for the Commission. He explained the Commission has an option to have a different TUMF program that fits in with the cities programs. Commissioner Stone stated he appreciated the argument that Commissioner Berg presented on behalf of Beaumont. He explained the importance of maintaining the integrity of the TUMF program and to ensure that all member agencies remit TUMF with the legitimate exemptions that can be garnered as a way of developmental agreements. He explained WRCOG made the decision on the premise that Beaumont used creative mechanisms to avoid paying WRCOG TUMF and chose to keep those fees and solely determine the regional infrastructure needed. Commissioner Stone explained Beaumont built regional infrastructure that is not on the TUMF list, which invalidates the expenditure. In accordance with the Measure A program, if you do not participate in the TUMF program, you do not receive Measure A funds. He stated the Board of Supervisors did what was necessary related to the MOU. Additionally, Beaumont has not remitted almost $60 million to the TUMF program. Commissioner Stone stated the he believes allowing Beaumont to remain in the program would have undermined the credibility of WRCOG. He stated the Commission needed to satisfy the terms of Measure A. He stated WRCOG and the Commission worked hard to come up with realistic solutions to the issue. He expressed that Beaumont should not be entitled to any Measure A funds and supports the staff recommendation. Commissioner Berg disputed Commissioner Stone's regarding TUMF funds being utilized on non-TUMF facilities in Beaumont, stating that Commissioner Stone does not have any back up documentation to support this allegation. He expressed that the Commission would be remiss in its duties if all the information was not provided and suggested WRCOG produce all documentation against Beaumont along with the legitimate exemptions granted for other cities. Chair Magee stated there are several Commissioners waiting to speak and requested Commissioners keep the discussion civil and concise. Commissioner Stone expressed that Commissioner Berg is incorrect in stating that the information had not been provided on behalf of WRCOG. WRCOG had provided a plethora of information to Beaumont and waited for a response, clarification, or verification. He stated directly to Commissioner Berg that the Commission and WRCOG have not received this information • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 9 and believes Beaumont is insubordinate. He expressed to Commissioner Berg that he should be admonished for the comments he has made, which are irresponsible. Commissioner Stone stated the information was provided to Beaumont's city manager demonstrating that Beaumont has not been a good participant in the WRCOG process and taken the funds that were earmarked for WRCOG and used for Beaumont's own priorities. Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi concurred with certain comments made by Commissioner Stone and motioned to approve the staff recommendation. Commissioner Craton explained that all other cities contribute to WRCOG TUMF program with the purpose of setting priorities for the entire region. She stated that Beaumont improved its city at the expense of other cities and therefore concurredwith the staff recommendation. Commissioner Buster stated most of this discussion would be more suited at WRCOG. He expressed there should be greater communication on this issue at WRCOG and regrets there has not been open communication with Beaumont. Commissioner Buster discussed the development and rationale of the TUMF program to facilitate joint planning within the region, noting initial delays in the renewal of Measure A and the inception of the TUMF program resulted in a number of exemptions. He lamented that Beaumont never saw the vision. Beaumont apparently saw a vision where it could not only build TUMF roads, but have this regional funding to construct roads within the city without any contact or interaction with either the county or the neighboring cities within that zone. He suggested continuing these discussions at WRCOG in an attempt to avoid legal fees, which would be better used to improve roads and the regional program. Commissioner Berg thanked Commissioner Buster for his comments and stated that Beaumont did not want to participate in the TUMF program. He discussed the CFDs already in place prior to the establishment for the TUMF program. He stated Beaumont utilized TUMF funds to built roads that were TUMF facilities. In response to Commissioner Stone, he is not being insubordinate as he does not work for the county of Riverside or WRCOG. He stated that he will present his case as he sees fit in order to communicate the issue. He expressed his belief that Beaumont has not been treated fairly by WRCOG. Commissioner Berg asked legal counsel if there is an option that the TUMF program could be administered by WRCOG or the Commission. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, replied that in accordance with Measure A, either the Commission or WRCOG could administer the TUMF program, however, not at the same time. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 10 Chair Magee asked Commissioner Berg if he would yield the floor. Commissioner Berg concurred. Commissioner Marion Ashley discussed the number of exemptions and the difficulty in trying to define them. He stated WRCOG tried to determine what those exemptions were in working with Beaumont, however, it could not be resolved. He believes the Commission does not know the entire story and concurs with Commissioner Berg in that aspect. He expressed it is unfortunate it will be determined in a legal process. In response to Commissioner John Tavaglione's request for clarification by legal counsel regarding Commissioner Berg's statement about the county reneging on an MOU, which he believes was related to the MSHCP land of the Potrero Creek property, Steve DeBaun replied he has not studied the MOU recently, however he believes that MOU was entirely related to the MSHCP. Commissioner Tavaglione clarified that the Potrero Creek property was critical to the MSHCP or Measure A would have been invalid. M/S/C (Kuenzi/Lowe) to allocate Beaumont's current and ongoing share of Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding to the Western Riverside County Regional Arterial Program, based on Western Riverside Council of Government's (WRCOG) determination of Beaumont's noncompliance with the WRCOG Transportation, Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. No: Berg Abstain: Molina and Mullany 10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented an overview of the federal and state legislative activities and various bill positions, highlighting the following areas: • Governor acts on key bills — AB 403 (Eng), AB 798 (Nava), SB 372 (Kehoe), and SB 679 (Wolk); • Expiration of SAFETEA-LU; • National competition for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); • California submits $4.8 billion application for high-speed rail; • • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 11 • Transportation Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations; and • Monitor — SAFETEA-LU extension, TIGER awards, THUD FY 2009 appropriations, Governor's Tax Commission, and hearings in Sacramento. Aaron Hake stated the Governor's Tax Commission has come out with a report and the Legislature is expected to discuss it. He said the transportation impacts appear to have been averted and staff will provide an update. M/S/C to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 7C. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 7D. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING FUNDS Commissioner Berg, in reference to the city of Temecula's French Valley Parkway interchange project at 1-15, asked why right of way for this project was not obtained when the project was originally developed. Anne Mayer replied that in order to build a new interchange, additional right of way needs to be acquired. She stated that every new and existing interchanges requiring modification in Riverside County and require new right of way. She added this project will enhance regional circulation. Commissioner Berg asked why TUMF funds are being used for right of way on this project and expressed concern regarding exemptions. Commissioner Buster responded by providing background information on development approvals and a growth limit measure, specifically in Southwest Riverside County, prior to the incorporation by the city of Temecula (Temecula). During this time, a large number of developments were approved by the county for development in the French Valley. Subsequently, Temecula and the county tried to set aside as much right of way as possible for the French Valley Parkway interchange project. He added that Riverside County's growth projections have not been matched with adequate planning. He then Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 12 suggested the current dispute with Beaumont needs to be resolved and turn the focus to adequate planning and funding for the future. At; Commissioner Berg's request, Commissioner Buster confirmed the county did not acquire the right of way for State Route 79 widening between Thompson Road to Domenigoni Parkway when those developments were done in French Valley. Commissioner Ron Roberts stated several commercial and residential units were built prior to the incorporation of Temecula and therefore Temecula was unable to purchase any property necessary for the French Valley Parkway interchange until recently due to the federal restrictions and guidelines. In reference to the transfer of funds from the bypass, Temecula is at a stale mate on the alignment as it is proposed to go through an Indian reservation and a casino. He stated Temecula is willing to donate those funds to the Winchester Road widening project as it is shovel ready. Commissioner Berg stated he is unclear regarding the funding and does not understand the correlation with the federal government and the right of way acquisition. He then discussed the importance of the bypass project at Potrero Boulevard and expressed concern for the funding. Anne Mayer replied with respect to complying with federal requirements, all projects using any state or federal funding are required to follow the Title 23 federal requirements. If an agency does not comply with the federal requirements, the project is deemed ineligible for federal reimbursement. Anne Mayer stated with respect to the TUMF projects in the Commission's Regional Arterial program, the Commission approved 22 projects several years ago. The Commission manages those projects in the program based on what is included in the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study, which defines what a regional arterial project is and how much TUMF can be spent on each project. The Commission is obligated to allow that project to move forward as long as each jurisdiction is following the guidelines. Additionally, it is not within the Commission's purview to monitor whether or not a project has road or bridge district implications. M/S/C (Stone/Spiegel) to approve FY 2009/10 budget adjustments resulting in a net increase to expenditures of $5.746 million related to the following Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial projects. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 13 Agency Project Name Project No. Net Increase/ (Decrease) Corona El Cerrito Road (Bedford Canyon Road to 1-15) 5101 $ 233,000 Corona Green River Road (Dominguez Ranch Road to SR-91) 5103 I $1,898,000) County of Riverside Reche Canyon Road/Reche Vista Drive (Heacock Boulevard to San Bernardino County Line) 5107 $ 18,000 Riverside Van Buren Boulevard IC at SR-91 5108 $3,559,000 County of Riverside Schleisman Road IC at 1-15 5113 $ 115,000 County of Riverside Van Buren Boulevard (Washington Avenue to Wood Road) 5116 $ 95,000 San Jacinto Ramona Expressway (7th Street to Cedar Avenue) 5118 ($ 8,000) Temecula French Valley Parkway IC at 1-15 5119 $3,532,000 Temecula 1-15/SR-79 South IC 5120 $ 100,000 No: Berg M/S/C (Stone/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-040-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-72-040-00, with the city of Moreno Valley to program funds for right of way for the Perris Boulevard improvement project, Cactus Avenue to the Perris Valley Storm Drain Lateral 8, in the amount of $1.521 million; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-041-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 06-72-041-00, with the city of Moreno Valley to program funds for right of way for the Perris Boulevard improvement project, Ironwood Avenue to Manzanita Avenue, in the amount of $631,000; 3) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore to reprogram $1 million of the $6 million previously requested for the right of way phase to the environmental phase on the Interstate 15 Railroad Canyon Road interchange improvement project; 4) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-521-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 06-72-521-00, with the county of Riverside to reprogram an estimated $4.326 million from its Eastern Bypass projects to the State Route 79 widening project, Thompson Road to Domenigoni Parkway, for right of way purposes; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 14 5) Approve the net increases to the FY 2009/10 budget as follows: • $6.478 million for right of way expenditures; • $379,000 for design expenditures; • $550,000 for preliminary engineering expenditures; • $392,000 for construction expenditures; 6) Approve deferring future Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programming requests until such time that TUMF revenues increase; and 7) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. No: Berg 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 12A. Anne Mayer announced: • Public scoping meetings for the California High -Speed Train System from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire section will be held on October 19 in the city of Murrieta, October 20 in the city of Corona, and October 22 in the city of Riverside; and • A letter will be going out to all the city managers as well as the transit agencies that sales tax revenues are in such condition there is concern about next year's budget. 12B. Commissioner Roberts asked staff to verify there will be a quorum for the next November 12 Commission meeting due to other conferences. Anne Mayer confirmed staff is aware of the conflict and verified there will be a quorum. 12C. Commissioner Buster asked about the last of the three bond rating agencies and the Commission's credit rating. Anne Mayer replied the last rating came in at an AA + and confirmed the Commission has maintained its credit rating with all three credit rating firms. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 15 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: BNSF Rail Right of Way on San Bernardino Subdivision from Riverside Downtown Station to Highgrove Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Property Owner: Richard Weicher for BNSF Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment There were no announcements from the Closed Session item. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, November 12, 2009, Palm Springs Convention Center, 277 North Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs, California. Respectfully submitted, OEutv^°-451-&_. Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Audit AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the audited financial statements for the FY 2007/08 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During FY 2007/08, the Commission received the initial funding under the Proposition 1 B PTMISEA program for the Commission's commuter rail program. A separate audit of the PTMISEA funds is required and was completed in January 2009. The audit report includes an unqualified opinion. There were no compliance matters or deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that were considered to be material weaknesses. Attachment: Audited Financial Statements for the FY 2007/08 PTMISEA Agenda Item 7A 1 • Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial and Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2008 McGladrey& Pullen Certified Public Accountants McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is a member firm of RSM International, an affiliation of separate and irdependenl legal enElies. • • Contents Independent Auditor's Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information 1-2 Financial Statements Balance Sheet 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance 4 Notes to Financial Statements 5-6 Supplementary Information Combining Balance Sheet —by Project 7 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance —by Project 8 Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards 9-10 • • • McGladrey& Pullen Certified Public Accountants Independent Auditor's Report on the Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2008, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2008, and the change in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account of the Commission, as of June 30, 2008, and the change in financial position, thereof for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standardds we have also issued our report dated January 29, 2009 on our consideration of the Commission's intemal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a fund of the Commission, has not presented a Management's Discussion and Analysis as required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 that the GASB has determined is necessary to supplement, although not required to be a part of, the financial statements. McGladrey 8 Pullen, LIP is a member firm of ASM International, an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements of the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a fund of the Commission, taken as a whole. The schedules, listed in the table of contents as supplementary information, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements of the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. f/es�e_,Acm. Riverside, California January 29, 2009 2 5 • • Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, A Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Balance Sheet June 30, 2008 Assets Cash and Investments With County Treasurer Interest Receivable Total assets Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 3,477,714 14,790 $ 3,492,504 Liabilities Total liabilities Fund Balance Reserved Rail projects Total fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance See Notes to Financial Statements. 3 3,492,504 3,492,504 $ 3,492,504 6 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, A Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Year Ended June 30, 2008 Revenues: State allocations $ 3,477,714 Interest 14,790 Total revenues 3,492,504 Expenditures: Rail Net change in fund balance 3,492,504 Fund balance at beginning of year Fund balance at end of year $ 3,492,504 See Notes to Financial Statements. 4 7 • • • Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 1. Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies On November 7, 2006, the voters of Califomia approved the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Bond Act or Proposition 16). Proposition 18 induded a program of funding in the amount of $4 billion to be deposited in the Public Transportation Modemization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). A significant portion of the PTMISEA funds is to be made available to project sponsors in Califomia for eligible public transportation projects. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) owns and operates fire commuter rail stations in Riverside County. As a project sponsor, the Commission has applied for and obtained approval for PTMISEA funds for various projects related to its commuter rail stations. These funds are accounted for in the Measure A Western County Rail Capital Special Revenue Fund in a project account (Account). The significant revenue to the Account is derived from allocations approved by the Controller of the State of California (Controller). The accounting policies of the Commission conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States as applicable to governmental units. A summary of the Commission's significant accounting policies is as follows: Presentation: The accompanying financial statements of the Account are intended to present the financial position and the changes in financial position of only that portion of the governmental activities of the Commission that is attributable to the transactions of the Public Transportation Modemization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a Fund of the Commission. They do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the Commission as of June 30, 2008 and the changes in its financial position, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Basis of accounting: The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in the PTMISEA Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are recorded when they are expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, and revenue is recorded when it becomes both measurable and available. "Measurable" means the amount of the transaction can be determined, and "available" means collectible within the current period, or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. Funding: Project sponsors may submit applications for funding of eligible transit capital projects to the Califomia Department of Transportation, which approves projects for funding. Eligible projects include rehabilitation, safety, or modernization improvements; capital service enhancements or expansions; new capital projects; bus rapid transit improvements; and rolling stock procurement, rehabilitation, expansion or replacement. The Controller will disburse funds upon receipt of the approved PTMISEA projects. Funds must be encumbered within three years of receipt and must be expended within three years of being encumbered. Cash: It is the Commission's policy to deposit all funds received with the County of Riverside Tax Collector -Treasurer for investment until the funds are required for disbursement. Interest income is earned while these funds are so deposited. Expenditures: Expenditures represent rail capital projects as identified in PTMISEA applications submitted by the Commission. 5 8 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Notes to Financial Statements Note 2. Cash and Investments With County Treasurer The funds in the County Treasury are pooled with those of other entities in the County and invested in accordance with the County's investment policy. These pooled funds are carried at fair value. Fair value is based on quoted market prices and/or direct bids, when needed, from government dealers on some variable or floating rate items. Moneys in the Account are legally required to be deposited in the County Treasury pool. An Investment Oversight Committee has been established by the County, which acts as a regulator of the pool. As of June 30, 2008, the Account has $3,477,714 included in the Commission's investment with the Riverside County Treasury, with an average maturity of 445 days. This investment was rated Aaa/MR1 by Moody's Investors Service and AAAN1+ by Fitch Ratings. 6 9 • Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, A Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Balance Sheet —By Project June 30, 2008 Assets Project Perris Multimodal Station Facility Rehabilitation Total Cash and Investments With County Treasurer $ 1,000,000 $ 2,477,714 $ 3,477,714 Interest Receivable 9,464 5,326 14,790 Total assets $ 1,009,464 $ 2,483,040 $ 3,492,504 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities $ $ $ Total liabilities Fund Balance Reserved Rail projects 1,009,464 2,483,040 3,492,504 Total fund balance 1,009,464 2,483,040 3,492,504 Total liabilities and fund balance $ 1,009,464 $ 2,483,040 $ 3,492,504 7 10 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, A Fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance —By Project Year Ended June 30, 2008 Project Perris Muhimodal Station Facility Rehabilitation Total Revenues State allocations $ 1,000,000 $ 2,477,714 $ 3,477,714 Interest 9,464 5,326 14,790 Total revenues 1,009,464 2,483,040 3,492,504 Expenditures Rail Net change in fund balance 1,009,464 2,483,040 3,492,504 Fund balance at beginning of year Fund balance at end of year $ 1,009,464 $ 2,483,040 $ 3,492,504 8 11 • McGladrey& Pullen Certified Ptbitr Accountants Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, Califomia We have audited the financial statements of the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account, a fund of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2008, and have issued our report thereon dated January 29, 2009. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Commission's intemal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Commission's intemal control over financial reporting. A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's intemal control. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. This included those provisions of laws and regulations identified in the Transportation Development Act of 1971, as amended, and corresponding regulations of the California Govemment Code. However, McGladrey 8 Pollen, LLP is a member firm of RSM hriernabonal, an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities. 9 12 providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Commission, the Board of Commissioners, and the State of California's Department of Transportation and State Controller's Mice, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than those specified parties. �sy2e.e„e_. LGf' Riverside, Califomia January 29, 2009 10 13 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Close-out Audit AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) Program, Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529, Project No. PPM 06-6054(042). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is a recipient of STIP PPM funds and submitted reimbursement claims totaling $953,000 under Project No. PPM06-6054(042). A close-out audit of this project is required and was completed In July 2009. The auditor examined management's assertion regarding the reimbursement claims submitted, charges for costs incurred, and compliance and opined that the assertion is fairly stated in all material respects based on the requirements of the State of California Department of Transportation. Attachment: Compliance with Requirements Applicable to the STIP PPM Program, Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529 Project No. PPM 06-6054(042) Agenda Item 7B 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to the State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529 Project No. PPM06-6054(042) For the Period July 14, 2005 through June 30, 2008 Submitted by TCBA THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES,PC 21250 Hawthome Blvd. Suite 150 Torrance, CA 90503 PH 310.792.4640 . Fx 310.792.4331 . www.tcba.com Headquarters: Washington, DC 15 Table of Contents Page Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to the State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Program 1 Report of Riverside County Transportation Commission's Compliance Declarations in Connection with the State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program State Agreement No. 06-66-529 Project No. PPM06-6054(042) 3 16 THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES, PC CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS AND MANAGEMENT, SYSTEMS, AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS 21250 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD 1101 15T" STREET, N.W. 100 PEARL STREET SUITE 150 SUITE 400 14T" FLOOR TORRANCE. CA 90503 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 HARTFORD, CT 06103 310-792-4640 202-737-3300 203-249-7246 FAX: 310-792.4331 FAX: 202-737-2684 FAX: 203-275-6504 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROGRAM To the Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California We have examined management's assertion, included in the Final Project Expenditure Report dated March 2, 2009, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) complied with the following requirements, which are identified in the Master Agreement Administering Agency -State Agreement for State Funded Projects and Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529, Project No. PPM06-6054 (042): • The reimbursements claims for the STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program submitted to the State of California Department of Transportation were for expenditures for transportation purposes used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution. • The reimbursement claims submitted to the State of California Department of Transportation for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program (Project No. PPM06-6054(042) is supported by payment vouchers and cancelled check- • The charges for the various categories of eligible project costs incurred by the RCTC are frilly supported and recorded in the RCTC's accounting records in accordance with generally accounting principles. • The RCTC complied with CFR 49 Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for State and Local Governments, and OMB A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments. Such requirements are applicable to its reimbursement claim to the State Transportation Improvement Program, which are identified in the Final Project Expenditure Report dated March 2, 2009, for the period July 14, 2005 through June 30, 2008. Management of the RCTC is responsible for the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination. 17 Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion about the RCTC's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe our examination provides a basis for our opinion. In our opinion, management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the requirements established by the State of California Department of Transportation. The report is intended solely for the information and use of the RCTC and the State of California Department of Transportation and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Torrance, CA t , July 21, 2009 2 18 • • • Riverside County ransportation Commission July 21, 2009 Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, California Mailing Address: Post Office Box 12008 • Riverside, California 92502-2208 Phone (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • wunu rctc mg REPORT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S COMPLIANCE DECLARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROGRAM STATE AGREEMENT NO.06-66-529, PROJECT NO. PPM06-6054(042) In connection with the State Transportation Improvement Program (STEP) Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Program Fund Transfer Agreement No. 06-66-529, Project No. PPM06-6054(042), we make the following compliance declarations: 1. Reimbursements claims for the STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program submitted to the State of California Department of Transportation were for expenditures for transportation purposes used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 2. The reimbursement claims submitted to the State of California Department of Transportation for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program (Project No. PPM06-6054(042) are supported by payment vouchers and cancelled check. 3. The charges for the various categories of eligible project costs incurred by the RCTC are fully supported and recorded in the RCTC's accounting records in accordance with generally accounting principles. 4. The RCTC complied with CFR 49 Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for State and Local Governments, and OMB A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments. 5. We have complied with all reporting and timing conditions required by the aforementioned agreement. 6_ Total reimbursable costs associated with the STIP, Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program for the contract period July 14, 2005 through June 30, 2008 were $953,000. AI V `.i jv li Anne Mayer, Executive Director esia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 3 19 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Transit Administration Reviews AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file a report on the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) FY 2009 Financial Management Oversight (FMO) Review of the Commission; and 2) Receive and file a report on the FTA's FY 2009 Triennial Review of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past year, the FTA has conducted two reviews of the Commission. The first was the FMO review completed in May 2009. This was the first FMO review of the Commission, and its purpose was to assess whether the financial and administrative systems, which process federal funds, were adequate and performing acceptably. The second was the triennial review, which is an assessment of compliance with federal requirements determined by the examination of grant management practices and program implementation. The triennial review, which has been performed on a regular basis every three years, was completed in August 2009. As a result of the evaluation of the Commission's financial management system and internal controls, the FMO review included three reportable, or significant, deficiencies and two advisory comments, as follows: Reportable Deficiencies • Grants management reporting needs improvement • Fixed asset record needs improvement • Lack of a disaster recovery plan Agenda Item 7C 20 Advisory Comments • Other procurements generally not in compliance with FTA requirements • Financial status reports not reported on an accrual basis A status report on the recommendations pertaining to the reportable deficiencies was recently submitted to the FTA, resulting in closing two of the three findings. The FMO review report, including management's responses, and the status report are attached to this staff report. There were no deficiencies resulting from the FY 2009 FTA Triennial Review. The final report is also included with this staff report. Attachments: 1) FY 2009 FTA Financial Management Oversight Review Report 2) FY 2009 FTA Financial Management Oversight Review Status of Findings 3) FY 2009 FTA Triennial Review Report Agenda Item 7C • • 21 Q U S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Ms.. Anne Mayer Executive Directot Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Stteet, 3ni Floor Riverside, California 92501 REGION IX Arizona California Hawaii, Nevada, Guam American Samoa Northem Mariana Islands JUN + 12006 ATTACHMENT 1 201 Mission Street Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839 415-744-3133 415-744-2726 (fax) Re: Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Management Dearhr►�f' Oversight Review Final Report ayes: Ihank you for assisting ETA's contractors, Lopez and Company, LLP in performing the Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Management Ovetsight (FMO) Review of the Riverside County Transportation Conunission (RCTC). The purpose of this review was to assess whether the financial and administrative systems, which process Federal funds, were adequate and performing acceptably. Our contractors performed interviews and selected financial documents for review during December 2008 and January 2009. Although not an audit, the FMO review is the FIA's assessment of grantees' financial management systems in order to determine whether they are sufficient to process Federal funds and petfoxm adequately.. The criteria used for the FMO review are found in 49 CFR Part 18, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (the Common Rule).." FIA has evaluated your financial management system and internal controls. There were three reportable and two advisory recommendations. We would appreciate receiving your update of corrective actions completed for these recommendations within the time flame shown in the Final Report. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ms Melanie Robertson at 415-744-2737, or Mr_ Richard Riggs, at (714) 889-9919. Enclosure Cc: Ihetesia Trevino, RC -IC Sincerely, eslie I. Rogets Regional Administrator 22 • Lopez and Company, LLP Certified Public Accountants and Business Consultants FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT REVIEW OF Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California Performed for U.S Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Prepared by — Lopez and Company, LLP Contract No.. D 1'F'1-60-06-F-00040 Task Order No.. CA-27-5002 Report Date: February 3, 2009 Draft Report Submission Date: March 10, 2009 Final Report Submission Date: May 6, 2009 3452 East Foothill Boulevard • Suite 820 • Pao.dcna • California 91107 Phone: 626-583-1116 • Fax 626-577-8439 • www Iopeallp corn 23 • • • Table of Contents REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS».........».».....,,.......,»., »»........».„.,1 SECTION I DESCRIPTION OF THE GRANTEE „ ,.... 2 SECTION II MATERIAL WEAKNESSES „,......„ ........ ........»»_.......... _.,....,....... 4 SECTION III SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES 5 1111 GRANTS MANAGEMENT REPORIING NEEDS IMPROVEMENI _... 6 III.2 FIXED ASSEI RECORD NEEDS IMPROVEMENT „.,. 9 III.3 LACK OF A DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN „ „..,. 11 SECTION 1V ADVISORY COMMENTS _....13 IV.1 OTHER PROCUREMENIS GENERALLY NOI IN COMPLIANCE WITH FTA REQUIREMENTS--14 IV.2 FINANCIAL STATUS REPORTS NOI REPORTED ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS ._........ 16 SECTION VI - STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ,.._.„.............20 SECTION VII - GRANTEE'S FULL RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES... ...... 21 24 • Lopez and Company, T T P Certified Public Accountants and Business Consultants Report of Independent Accountants To the Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region IX We understand that the Federal Itansit Administration (FTA) has awarded Riverside County Transportation Commission the grants listed in Section I of this report, We have examined management's assertion included in its Representation Letter dated February 3, 2009, that Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCIC) maintained effective internal control over its compliance with FTA financial management system requirements as of February 3, 2009, as set fotth in Section VI of this report, based on 49 CFR Part 18 "Uniform Administtative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" (Common Rule), Section 18.20, "Standards for Financial Management Systems." Management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over RCIC's fmancial management system requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of the financial management system, testing and evaluating the design and opetating effectiveness of the financial management system, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.. We believe that out examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion Our examination does not provide a legal determination on RCTC's financial management system requirements Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure or financial management system, misstatements due to enor of fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of the financial management system to future periods are subject to the tisk that the financial management system may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies ea procedures may detetiorate. In our opinion, management's assertion that RCTC maintained effective internal control over its compliance with FIA financial management system requirements as of Febtuary 3, 2009, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the critetia established by the FTA as set forth in Section VI of the report. In our opinion, management's assertion that RCTC maintained an effective financial management system as of February 3, 2009, is fairly stated, in all material respects, to meet the ctiteria established by F TA as set forth in Section VI of this report. Lopez and Company, LLP February 3, 2009 1 3452 East Foothill Boulevaazd • Suite 820 • Pasadena • California 91107 Phone 626-583-1116 • Fax: 626-577-8439 • www lopezllp corn 25 SECTION I Description of the Grantee The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCIC) was established by state legislative statute (AB 12'76, Chapter 1333) in September 1976 The Commission was initially governed by a board of' seven Commissioners representing the interests of communities within Riverside County. Today, RCIC's membership has expanded to 32 Commissioners, which is comprised of an elected official from each of the county's 27 incorporated cities, all five county supervisors and a non- voting ex-officio member from Caltrans District 8 appointed by the Governor. The member jurisdictions include the following entities: County of Riverside City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Snrines City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Lake Elsinore City of La Quinta City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Munieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Penis City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San .Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Riverside County is geographically located in Southern California, stretching nearly 200 miles across, the county is bordered by San Bernardino County on the north, Orange County on the west, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south, and the Colorado River on the east. Riverside County was created in 1893 from parts of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties.. Based upon the 2000 U.S. Census, the county's population was 1..5 million. The .January 2008 California Department of Finance (DOE) estimate reports a countywide population of 2.09 million, the fourth largest in the state. The most populous cities in the service area are Riverside (296,842), Moreno Valley (183,860), Corona (147,428), Temecula (101,057), and Murrieta (100,173). the State Legislature established RCIC in 1976, with a mission statement to plan and program transportation improvements for Riverside County_ To this end, AMC was designated a Regional Transportation Planning Agency for state transportation planning and programming purposes. Specifically, the agency was assigned responsibility for short-range transportation planning and programming; distribution of federal, state and local funding for highway, mass transportation, rail, and non -motorized travel; and administrative responsibility for other transportation programs. Among the programs RCIC is responsible for administering is the Transportation Development Act, including the allocation and disbursement of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Iransit Assistance (SIA) funds to the seven public transit operators in the county, as well commuter rail operations (see Metrolink below). Over time, both local and state mandates have expanded the scope of RCTC's responsibilities the most notable expansion of authority was the enactment by the county's electorate in 1988 of Measure A, a 20-year, local one-half of one percent sales tax dedicated to transportation system 2 26 improvements in the county through .June 2009. Ihis measure was reauthorized in 2002 for a 30- year period commencing in .July 2009 and ending in 2039.Ihe sales tax revenue generated allows RCIC to exercise strong leadership in the arena of identifying and funding transportation projects.. State legislation also expanded RCTC's responsibilities in several ways. First, the agency was assigned the responsibility for being the county's congestion management agency, Second, it assumed responsibility for allocating and programming federal funding from the Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality Funds and Iransportation Enhancement Funds. Ihird, the agency programs 75 percent of the state highway funding for capital improvements to the county's roadway system. In addition, in collaboration with Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, RCIC is a founding partner of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the region's Metrolink commuter rail service provider. Four members from RCIC's governing board (including two alternates) serve on SCRRA's governing board, As of February .3, 2009, RCIC had seven (7) open F TA Grants- The open grants are summarized as follows: Funding Awarded Grant No. Code Amount Year CA-90-Y152-00 5307 $ 2,907,000 2001 CA-90-Y542-00 5307 $ 1,000,000 2006 CA-90-Y637-01 5307-2 $ 6,157,453 2007 CA-90-Y6'79-00 5307-1 $ 443,000 2007 CA-95-X031-00 5307-3 $15,000,000 2006 CA-95-X069-00 CA-03-0799-00 • 5307-3 $ 500,000 2008 5309-5 $ 1,960,000 2007 3 27 Description Prelim. Design upgrade of San Jacinto North Main Corona Parking St Project Development—PVL 5307 Funds North Main Corona Parking St SIP North Main Corona Parking Str —CMAQ Flex Project Development Penis Valley Line- STP Project Development Perris Valley Line SECTION H Material Weaknesses For purposes of this examination, a material weakness in a financial management system is defined as a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, in the design or operation of one or more components of the financial management system that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement will not be prevented or detected by management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.. No material weaknesses were Identified during the course of' this review. a 28 • • • SECTION III Significant Deficiencies A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, in the design or operation of one or more components of the financial management system which could adversely affect RCIC's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial and related data reliably consistent with the requirements of'49 CFR I8..20, as set forth in Section VI such that there is more than remote likelihood that a misstatement that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Ihese are not considered material weaknesses in the grantee's financial management system, as previously defined.. These conditions and recommendations are provided below, with notation of the standard impacted, discussion of the significance of the condition, a summary of the grantee's proposed corrective actions and an evaluation thereof:. 5 29 SECTION III Significant Deficiencies III.1 Grants Management Reporting Needs Improvement Condition The grantee did not accurately report Cumulative Total Outlays or Iotal Unliquidated Obligations on three grants for which Quattetly Narrative Reports Milestone/Progress Reports were submitted for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2008, and the Narrative Comments did not provide adequate information to assess the status of the three capital projects, Recommendation The grantee should establish procedures to ensure that the Quarterly Milestone/Progtess Reports include complete and accurate project data and status information required to satisfy F TA guidelines. The submitted data should be properly reviewed and approved prior to being submitted to FTA. the grantee should fully implement this cotreetive action by 90 days after the final report is released. Standards Impacted FIA Circular 5010.ID Chapter. II1, Patagraph 3(c) Reporting Requirements-Milestone/Progtess Reports. ".. _ .Each milestone/progress report should include the following data: 1. Address each activity line item within the approved grant unless F TA advises otherwise.. 2. Include a discussion of all budget or schedule changes. 3. Fot each milestone, include otiginal estimated completion date, revised estimated completion date, and the actual completion date if applicable.. 4. Provide the dates of expected or actual requests for bid, delivety, etc. 5. Provide a ntrative desetiption of projects, status, specification prepatation, bid solicitation, resolution of protests, and contract awards. 6, Analyze significant project cost variants... 7. Include reasons why any scheduled milestones or completion dates were not met.. . 8.. Provide a list of all outstanding claims exceeding $100,000 and all claims settled... 9. Include a list of all change orders and amounts exceeding $100,000... . 6 30 • • SECTION III Significant Deficiencies ITU Grants Management Reporting Needs Improvement (cont.) Discussion Erroneous statistical information for Iotal Outlays, Total Unliquidated Obligations, and Estimated Completion Date were included in the Financial Status Report (FSR) for September .30, 2008, and inadequate project status information was included in the Milestone/Prngress Report Section of Quarterly Narrative Reports for the following three giants_ a) Grant No. CA-95-X031-00 (North Main Corona Parking Structure) - (1) The FSR for September 30, 2008, included overstated cumulative total outlays of $9,775,413.86, when total outlays per the Finance Department Project Detail Report was $8,006,563.66 The FSR unliquidated obligations of $15,518,237.66 was also overstated based on the Finance Department Invoices History Report that reported an amount of` $10,608,.347.00. The FSR reported estimate at completion (EAC) costs of $25,293,651.52 based on total outlays and unliquidated obligations, was approximately $6.7 million overstated based on Finance Department Accounting Records, and approximately $4.2 million greater than the Owen Transtech Construction Management repotted EAC. The Owen Transtech EAC included a Contract Contingency Amount of $1,999,917.00, which Craig Melicher, Owen Iranstech Project Manager, and Stephen Bennett, Bechtel Infiasttucture Cotpmation Construction Manager, only anticipate utilizing approximately 50% of the Contingency the F SR EAC should have repotted the $19.2 million that currently is under contract the Contingency Amount, including the probable amount that will be needed should have been discussed in the natative section of the FSR. The EAC submitted was significantly overstated, and was not supported by Finance Department, or Program Management information.. (2) The submitted FSR Revised Estimated Completion Date was August 31, 2009, when the Owen Iranstech Estimated Completion Date was .June 10, 2009. (3) The F SR included an errot in the statistical cost information reported which resulted in Part 3: Item 1 reporting a negative balance of $265,000 as the Unobligated Balance of Federal Funds. RCIC acknowledged the errot on an immediate basis and submitted a revised FSR (4) the Milestone/Progress Report included a listing of specific tasks completed during the quarter, but did not provide a time -phased schedule, so there is no way of assessing based on the tasks completed the impact on the schedule (whether the project is ahead of, or behind, the program schedule). No narrative comments were included regarding significant accomplishments and the impact on the schedule, or discussion of any areas of issues of concern that require management action, or FTA attention. b) Grant No. CA-90-Y152-00 (Penis Valley Line Rail Extension) - (1) The FSR for September 30, 2008, reported ovetstated cumulative total outlays of $3,621,88000, when total outlays per the Finance Department Project Detail Repott was $3,268,037.81. The FSR repotted unliquidated obligations of $11,381,46400 was understated, based on the Finance Department Invoices History Report reported amount of $11,616,037..81. The FSR EAC reported of $15,00.3,344.00 based on total outlays and unliquidated obligations, was overstated by $119,185.45_ 7 31 SECTION III Significant Deficiencies DU Grants Management Reporting Needs Improvement (cont.). (2) The submitted Revised Estimated Completion Date was April 30, 2009, which is inconsistent with the RCIC Quarterly Progress Report dated September 2008, that reported a completion date of June 10, 2009. (3) As was the case on Grant No. CA-95-X031-00 discussed above, the Milestone/Progress Report primarily included a summarization of completed tasks and activities, that does not satisfy the required grant line item time -phased grant status information required including discussion of areas or items that require RCTC management action, or F TA attention c) Grant No. CA-90-Y637-01 (Perris Valley Rail Line Extension) — (1) The FSR for September. 30, 2008, reported Period and Cumulative Iotal Outlays of $9,435,135, even though the grant was executed on September 4, 2008, and basically no expenditures were incurred at the report date. At the time this was brought to their attention, RCTC again acknowledged the error on an immediate basis, and as was the case on Grant No CA-90-Y152-00 above, submitted a revised FSR with negative period expenditures of ($9,435,135) to zero out the reported outlays. The erroneous Total Outlays reported was for Cnant No. CA-90-Y542-00, which is for the North Main Corona Parking Structure.. (2) The submitted Original Estimated Completion Dates reported are erroneous and inconsistent with reported dates for both Grant No. CA-95-X031-00 (North Main Corona Parking Structure — subparagraph a) above), and Grant No.. CA-90-Y152- 00 (Penis Valley Line Rail Extension — subparagraph b) above), although obviously the schedule reported should have been consistent with the second grant for the same activity (Perris Valley Rail Line Extension).. (.3) the same Milestone/Progress Report comments as included in Grant No.. CA-90-Y152-00 (Perris Valley Line Rail Extension) was reported. As discussed in item b) above, the data presented does not satisfy the detailed time -phased grant status information required including discussion of areas or items that require RCTC management action or FTA attention. Summary of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC will prepare detailed, written desk procedures regarding (a) the proper preparation of the Financial Status Report (FSR) including required source documentation and reconciliation activities, and (b) the requited review and approval of FSR and project status information included in the Milestone/Progress Section of the Quarterly Narrative Reportsthe desk procedutes related to the preparation of quarterly F IA reporting will be completed and implemented by .June 10, 2009.. Evaluation of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCIC's response is adequate 8 32 • • SECTION III Significant Deficiencies III.2 Fixed Asset Record Needs Improvement Condition RCIC's fixed assets records were incomplete. Recommendation RCIC should update the fixed asset listing to record and maintain the required information on fixed assets acquired using FIA funds. This would include description, identification number, acquisition date, cost, percentage of federal participation; grant project undet which it was procured, location, who holds title, and condition. the grantee should fully implement this corrective action 90 days after the final report. Standards Impacted 49 CFR § 18.20(bx3) Internal Control. "Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal property, and other assets" Specifically with respect to fixed asset records, 49 CFR §18.32(d) requires that grantees and sub -grantees must maintain a fixed asset control system providing detailed property records for assets acquired under a grant or sub -grant, and including procedures to provide reasonable assurance that safeguards are present to prevent or detect unauthorized acquisitions, use or disposition of the property, and that maintenance procedures are implemented for such assets. FTA Circular 5010.1D, Chapter IV, 3 (Equipment) (k)(3), "Property records must be maintained by the grantee.. Records must include a description, identification number; procurement source, acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the giant ptject under which it was procured, location, use and condition, and any disposition data, including the date of disposal and sale price, or, where applicable, the method used to determine its fair market value.. The grantee should also state who holds the title to the equipment." Discussion Our review disclosed fixed asset records did not include the location of the asset, percentage of FIA funds utilized, condition of the asset, and the titleholder. All other required information was contained on the fixed asset record. RC IC did provide the required asset information subsequent to our review of the inventory record, but the information was not included in the fixed asset listing inventoty record as required. 9 33 SECTION III Significant Deficiencies III.2 Fixed Asset Record Needs Improvement (cont.) Summary of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC is in the process of implementing a new financial management system that will include a fixed assets module that will incorporate the following fields not currently tracked: location of the asset, percentage of F TA funds utilized, condition of the asset, and the titleholder_ Until the new financial management system is implemented, RCTC will maintain the fixed asqet records in the exiting module, supplemented by an excel spreadsheet application to track required information not included in the current financial management system. RCTC anticipates the fixed asset module to be fully implemented within approximately one year, and the data currently not tracked will continue to be tracked manually until the new system is fully operational Evaluation of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC's response is adequate.. 10 34 • • • SECTION III Significant Deficiencies 1113 Lack of a Disaster Recovery .Plan Condition the grantee did not have a written management information system (MIS) Disaster. Recovery Plan. Recommendations The grantee should: (1) prepare a written MIS Disaster Recovery Plan, (2) establish a system for periodic testing for the plan, (3) secure Board approval of the plan, and (4) train personnel, as appropriate, on the plan. The grantee should fully implement this corrective action by 180 days after the final report is released. Standards Impacted 49 CFR § I8.20(bx3) Internal Controls. `Effective controls and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal property, and other assets.. Grantees and subgrantees must adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes." F IA Circular 5010.1D, Chapter VI, §2(e)(I)(f) — Standards of Internal Management Control and Audit Resolution — General. "The grantee's information system must reliably provide needed operating and financial data for decision -making and performance reviews." Discussion It is generally recognized that business continuity or disaster recovery planning is a vital activity necessary to protect the well being of an organization as agencies continue to depend on computer - supported information.. The grantee has implemented a back-up plan, but has not prepared a written Disaster Recovery Plan. When an event considered less than a disaster occurs and data recovery can occur in a relatively short period of time, a back-up processing plan is sufficient, However, a Disaster Recovery Plan is required when an event occurs that disables transit business systems for an extended time and computer systems become inoperable and/or offices are inaccessible. A Disaster Recovery Plan is a culmination of documentation that describes the details on how to recover mission critical operations — financial and business — in addition to identifying the resources required to effect recovery operations. Provision should also be made for the plan to be reviewed, tested and updated when significant system changes are implemented. Multiple best practices references and web sites of recovery strategies/methods/plans are readily available and accessible to the grantee in fulfilling this obligation 11 35 SECTION III Significant Deficiencies III.3 Lack of a Disaster Recovery Plan (cont.) Summary of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC's management a serfs that the current back-up procedures should allow for timely access to the electronic information required for the resumption of business operations. However, RCIC has committed to the preparation of a Disaster Recovery Plan within the next 180 days, with the assistance of the Riverside County Information Department. RCIC is a tenant in a Riverside County Building. Evaluation of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC's response is adequate. 12 36 • • SECTION IV ADVISORY COMMENTS For purposes of this review, advisory comments do not represent deficiencies in the design or operation of the financial management system, which could adversely affect the grantee's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial and related data consistent with the requirements of the Common Rule as set forth in Section VI. However; the following matters came to our attention during the course of our test work, and we offer them to the grantee's management as an opportunity for improvement.. These comments and recommendations are provided below with our discussion 13 37 SECTION IV Advisory Comments IV.1 Other Procurements Generally Not in Compliance with FTA Requirements Condition RC C's procurement files wete not centtally located and they were not adequately safe guarded. In addition in reviewing RCTC's non-FTA funded procurements we found that several of those procurements were not negotiated in accordance with RCIC's Procurement Manual. Standard Impacted 49 CFR § 18.20(b)(3) Internal Controls. "Effective controls and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal propetty, and other assets.. Grantees and subwantees must adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes.." 49 CFR §18.36 (b)(3) Procurement Standards.. "Grantees and subgrantees shall use their own procurement procedures.... provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal Law, including the requirements and standards identified in this section" Master Agreement; §15(a) Procurement — Federal Standards. "The Recipient agrees to comply with applicable Procurement Standards of 49 CFR §18..36.... and supplementary regulations and directives, patticularly FIA Circulat 4220.ID, "T'hird Party Contracting Requirements" and any revision thereof. The F TA Best Practices Procurement Manual contains additional guidance " Recommendation RCTC should maintain all procurement files in a centralized location, and stored in locked filing cabinets. All procurements should be negotiated in accordance with RCIC's Procurement Manual and there should be adequate justification for the basis of the contract type awarded.. This will allow RCIC to drawdown all applicable expenditures that are determined to be allowable and allocable to a F TA funded project. Discussion Our transaction testing of procurement files included some that were not related to FTA grant funding. It took RCTC several days to locate the required procurement supporting data because files are not maintained in a centtalized depattment or location.. Purchase orders are located in the Accounting Department, and all supporting justification and documentation for the purchase orders is located with the purchase requestor. In addition, when reviewing the North Main Corona Parking Structure procurement files, we found that change orders were not in the Procurement File, and the supporting justification and documentation for change orders were maintained by Craig Melichet, Owens Transtech Project Manager. All records supporting the procurements should be maintained in a centralized location, including data supporting change orders to the project Centralized 14 38 • • • SECTION IV Advisory Comments IV.1 Other Procurements Generally Not in Compliance with FTA Requirements (cont.) procurement records provide RCIC with the supporting documentation necessary to support procurement history.. RCIC has hired a procurement manager and has initiated a process to have procurement files and supporting documentation stored in a centralized location in locked file cabinets.. Summary of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCIC concurs that procurement files should generally be maintained in a centralized, secure location. The new financial management system cutrently being implemented will include procurement -related modules and tools that will result in imptoved files organization, content and security. RCIC assetts that procurement information should be maintained on -site during major ptject consttuction, but agrees that at project completion, the information should be transferred and stored in a centralized system. In July 2008 RCTC hired a procurement manager whose chatter is review and improvement of'ptocurement practices, and centtalization and maintenance of procurement documentation. RCIC further stated that all procurements, regardless of their dollar value, were handled consistent the requirements of their funding source(s), their enabling legislation, applicable state laws, and good business practices. Evaluation of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCTC's response is adequate. 15 39 SECTION IV Advisory Comments IV.2 Financial Status Reports not Reported on an Accrual Basis Condition the FSRs are not being done on an accrual basis. RCM does not prepare monthly of quarterly acctual or adjusting entries in their general ledger system.. The only accrual entries are prepared at fiscal year end in conjunction with the annual financial statement auditthe only costs being drawndown on FTA grants currently are preliminary design engineering related to the Pettis Valley Rail Line Extension, and construction related to the North Main Corona Parking Sttucture and Pettis Multimodal Facility. Ihere currently is no material cost impact to the F SR's not being reported on an accrual basis. Recommendation RCTC should continue to monitor major capital projects funded by FTA grants, and if the failure to submit quarterly FSRs on an accrual basis matetially distotts the Total Outlays reported, quarterly accruals for FSR repotting should be initiated. Standards impacted 49 CFR § 18..41(b)(2) "Accounting Basis Each grantee will report program outlays and program income on a cash of accrual basis as prescribed by the awarding agency.. If the Federal agency requires accrual information and the grantee's accounting records are not normally kept on the accrual basis, the gtantee shall not be required to convert its accounting system but shall develop such accrual information through analysis of the documentation on hand." FTA C 5010.1 C, Chapter. III, 5 c "Milestone/Progress Reports Electronic financial status reporting is required for all capital grants covered under this circular, as well as combination capitaUoperafrng grant. These quarterly reports are to be submitted electronically. These reports are to be submitted for all non -construction and construction projects on an accrual basis.." Discussion None of the quarterly FSR reporting has been submitted on an accrual basis.. At this time, however, the failure to report on an accrual basis is not materially distorting the Iotal Outlays reported. This is attributable to drawdowns being restricted to major contractor activities relating to construction on the North Main Corona Parking Structure and Pettis Multimodal Facility, and the design engineering of the Penis Valley Line, and the quatterly invoicing coinciding with the FSR submission dates.. At such time as the invoicing for grant funded activities does not coincide with the FSR submission dates, and there is a material impact to required FSR quarterly reporting, RCIC will be required to initiate quarterly accruals in compliance with F TA requirements. 16 40 SECTION IV Advisory Comments IV.2 Financial Status Reports not Reported on an Accrual Basis (cont.) ,Summary of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RC IC concurs that the requirement for quarterly accruals for F SR reporting should be determined based on a review of accounting records for three business days following the end of the quarter. This procedure will be included in the desk procedures referred to in their response to 111.1 above. The accruals would be for FSR reporting purposes only, and would not be recorded in the accounting system records until year-end. Evaluation of Grantee's Proposed Corrective Action RCIC's response is adequate.. • • 17 41 SECTION V—SUMNIARY OF FINDINGS Finding Stanards impacted 1111 Grants Management Reporting Needs improvement FCA Circular 5010.1D Chapter III, Paragraph 3(e) Reporting Requirements-Milestone/Progress Reports. `...Each milestoneinrogress report should include the following data: • Address each activity line nein within the approved grant untess FPA advises otherwise. • include a discussion of all budget or schedule changes. • For each milestone, include onguud estimated completion date, revised estunated completion date, and the actual completion date if applicable, • Provide the dates of expected or actual requests for bid, delivery, etc. • Provide a narrative description of prpleets, status, specification preparation, bid solicitation, resolution of Protests, and contract awards. • Anatyre significant project cost variants... • include reasons why any scheduled milestones or completion dates were not met... • Provide a list of all outstanding claims exceeding $100,000 and all claims settled... • inetude a list of all change orders and amounts exceeding $100,000. _ 18 Recommendation The grantee should establish procedures to ensure that the Quarterly Milestone/Progress Reports. include complete and accurate project data and status information needed to satisfy PTA guidelines. The report data should be properly reviewed and approved prior to being submitted to PTA Corrective Action Hate The grantee should fully nmpiement this corrective action by 90 days after the final report • • 111.2 Fixed Asset Record Needs Improvement 111.3 Lack of a Disaster Recovery Plan • 49 CFR § 18.20(6)(3) Internal Control. "Effective control and accountability must be mamtamed for all grant and subgrard cash, real and persemal property, and other assets." Specifically with respect to fixed asset records, 49 al § 1832(d) requires that grantees and sub -grantees must maintain a fired asset control system providing detailed property records for assets acquired under a gram or sub grant, and including procedures to provide reasonable assurance that safeguards are present to prevent or detect unauthorized acquisitions, use or disposition of the property, and that mavaenance procedures are implemented for such assets. FM Circular5010.1D, Chapter IV,, 3 (Equipment) (103), "Pmperry retards must be mamlained by the grantee. Records must include a description, identification number, procurement source, acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the grant project under which it was procured, location, use and condition, and any disposition data, including the date of disposal and sale price, or, where applicable, the method used to determine its fair market value. The grantee should also state who holds the title to the equipment." 49 CFR §18.20(bX3) "Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, rest and personal property, and other assets. Grantees and subgrantees must adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authonzed purposes." FTA Circular 5010.1D, Chapter VI, §2(e)(IXf) — Standards of Internal Management Control and Audit Resolution — General. "The grantee's information system must reliably provide needed operating and financial data for decision - making and performance reviews." 19 RCTC should update the fixed asset listing to record and maintain the required information on fixed assets acquired using FTA funds. This would include description, identification number, acquisition date, cost, percentage of federal participation; grant project under which it was procured, location, who holds title, and condition. The grantee should (1) prepare a written MIS disaster recovery plan, (2) establish a system of tests for the plan, (3) secure Board approval of the plan, and (4) tram personnel, as sapropnate, on the plan. The grantee should fully implemented this corrective action 90 days after the final retort The grantee should fully nmpleinent this corrective action by 180 days after the final report is released. SECTION VI — STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The Federal Iransit Administration (F TA) has established the following criteria as standards for financial management systems of F IA grantees. Unless otherwise noted, these critetia are drawn fiom 49 CFR Part I8, Uniform Administtative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (Common Rule), §18..20, Standards for Financial Management Systems_ Additional guidance for applying many of these criteria is provided in various circulars issued by the F TA, U S. Department of Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 18.20(b)(1) Financial Reporting. Grantees must have procedures to provide reasonable assurance that "Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial result of financially assisted activities must be made in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the grant or subgrant." 18.20(bx2) Accounting Records. "Grantees and subgrantees must maintain records, which adequately identify the source and application of funds provided for financially -assisted activities. These records must contain information pertaining to grant or subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays or expenditures, and income." the grantee's project financial accounting system must interface with the grantee's overall financial management system I8.20(bx3) Internal Control, "Effective conttol and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal property, and other assets " 18.20(b)(4) Budget Control.. "Actual expenditures or outlays must be compared with budgeted amounts for each grant or subgrant. Financial information must be related to performance or productivity data, including, the development of unit cost information whenever appropriate or specifically required in the grant or subgrant agreement " 18.20(b)(5) Allowable Cost "Applicable OMB cost principles, agency program regulations, and the terms of grant and subgrant agreements will be followed in determining the reasonableness, allowability and allocability of costs " If' indirect costs are being charged to the grant, grantees must prepare a cost allocation plan that is approved by its cognizant agency. 18.20(b)(6) Source Documentation "Accounting records must be supported by such source documentation as canceled checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, contract and subgrant award documents, etc.." 1820(bx7) Cash Management. "Procedures for minimizing the time elapsing between the transfet of funds from the U.S. Ireasury and disbursement by grantees and subgrantees must be followed whenever advance payment procedures ate used. Grantees must establish reasonable procedures to ensure the receipt of reports on subgtantee's cash balances and cash disbursements in sufficient time to enable them to prepare complete and accurate cash transaction reports to the awarding agency When advances are made by letter -of -credit or electronic transfer of funds methods, the grantee must make drawdowns as close as possible to the time of making disbursements. Grantees must monitor cash drawdowns by their subgrantees to acstue that they conform substantially to the same standards of timing and amount as apply to advances to the grantees." 18..30 Project Change Accounting. The gantee's project financial accounting system must be able to document and track project changes that result in the need for additional funds, a revision in the scope or objectives of the project, or a need to extend the period of availability of funds of any other changes or budgetary ttansfer which would require the prior written approval of the F TA. 20 44 SECTION VII — Grantee's Full Response to Significant Deficiencies A summary of'the grantee's proposed corrective actions and an evaluation thereof were included in the body of the report Ihis section contains the grantee's complete response to the discussions and recommendations in Section III of the report. (This space left intentionally blank ) ?1 45 • • 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Moiling Address: P. O Box 12008 • Riverside, GA 92'502-2208 (951) 787-7141 • Fax (951) 787-7920 • wwwtdc org Riverside Camay Transportation Commission April 7, 2009 Mr. Leslie T.. Rogers Regional Administrator U S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 95-1839 Dear Mr. Rag We are in receipt of the draft report of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Financial Management Oversight (FMO) Review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. We understand that the consultant has issued an unqualified internal control opinion and that the FMO Review disclosed three significant deficiencies and two advisory comments. Our responses to these recommendations and advisory comments are included as attachments to this letter. If you have any questions regarding the responses, please contact Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, at (951) 787-7926 ncerely, nne Mayer Executive Director cc: Lopez and Company, LLP M Leslie Rogers, FTA March 31, 2009 Attachment 1 Responses to FM0 Review Significant Deficiencies Ili.1 Grants Management Reporting Needs improvement Condition: The grantee did not accurately report Cumulative Total Outlays or Total Unliquidated Obligations on three grants for which Quarterly Narrative Reports Milestone/Progress Reports were submitted for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2008, and the Narrative Comments did not provide adequate information to assess the status of the three capital projects. Recommendation: The grantee should establish procedures to ensure that the Quarterly Milestone/Progress Reports include complete and accurate project data and status information required to satisfy FTA guidelines. The submitted data should be properly reviewed and approved prior to being submitted to FTA. The grantee should fully implement this corrective action by 90 days after the final report is released. RCTC's Proposed Corrective Action: Management concurs with the consultant's recommendation. RCTC will prepare detailed, written desk procedures regarding the proper preparation and review of the Financial Status Report as well as project status information included in the Milestone/Progress Section of Quarterly Narrative Reports. These procedures will be in compliance with FTA guidelines. The desk procedures related to the preparation of quarterly FTA reporting will be completed and implemented by June 10, 2009. 11i.2 Fixed Asset Record Needs Improvement Condition: RCTC's fixed asset records were incomplete.. Recommendation: RCTC should update the fixed asset listing to record and maintain the required information on fixed assets acquired using FTA funds. This would include description, identification number, acquisition date, cost, percentage of federal participation, grant project under which it was procured, location, who holds title, and condition. The grantee should fully implement this corrective action 90 days after the final report. RCTC's Proposed Corrective Action: Currently RCTC owns and maintains two fixed assets that were acquired using FTA funds: the North Main Corona commuter rail station building and the La Sierra commuter rail station land_ Projects under development and/or construction that are FTA funded include the North Main Corona parking structure, Perris Multimodal Facility, and Perris Valley Line Metrolink extension. The fixed assets module for our current accounting i software includes a description, asset identification number, acquisition date, cost, indication of federal funding, and grant number under which it was procured, The current system does not have the capability to report the other required information (location, percentage of FTA funds utilized, condition, and titleholder). Management asserts that its frequent inspections of these properties ensures that these assets are properly safeguarded and maintained. RCTC is in the process of implementing a new financial management system, which will include a fixed assets module. Based on our current understanding of the capabilities of the new system, management is confident that substantially all of the required information can be included in this module. Until the fixed asset module of the new financial management system is implemented, RCTC will continue to maintain the fixed asset records in the existing module as supplemented by the spreadsheet application that was developed to include all other required information. Management anticipates that the new fixed asset module will be implemented in approximately one year following the implementation of the finance and personnel modules. 111.3 Lack of a Disaster Recovery Plan Condition: The grantee did not have a written management information system (MIS) Disaster Recovery Plan. Recommendation: The grantee should: (1) prepare a written MIS Disaster Recovery Plan, (2) establish a system for periodic testing for the plan, (3) secure Board approval of the plan, and (4) train personnel, as appropriate, on the plan. The grantee should fully implement this corrective action by 180 days after the final report is released. RCTC's Proposed Corrective Action: Management concurs that a written disaster recovery plan is needed and should be tested by trained personnel; however, it is important to note that RCTC is not a traditional "transit system" as discussed in Section I, Description of the Grantee. Accordingly, management asserts that current back-up procedures should allow for timely access to electronic information to provide for the resumption of business operations, which do not include the operation of a traditional transit system. Over the next 180 days, RCTC will coordinate the preparation of a disaster recovery plan with the Riverside County Information Technology Department, as RCTC utilizes its infrastructure since RCTC is a tenant in the Riverside County Administration Building.. Leslie Rogers, FTA March 31, 2009 Attachment 2 Responses to FMO Review Advisory Comments IV.1 Other Procurements Generally Not in Compliance with FTA Requirements Condition: RCTC's procurement files were not centrally located and they were not adequately safeguarded. In addition in reviewing RCTC's non-FTA funded procurements we found that several of those procurements were not negotiated in accordance with RCTC's Procurement Manual Recommendation: RCTC should maintain all procurement files in a centralized location, and stored in locked filing cabinets. All procurements should be negotiated in accordance with RCTC's Procurement Manual and there should be adequate justification for the basis of the contract type awarded. This will allow RCTC to drawdown all applicable expenditures that are determined to be allowable and allocable to a FTA funded project. RCTC's Proposed Corrective Action: Management concurs that procurement files should generally be in a centralized, secured location_ In July 2008, RCTC hired a procurement manager, and, in December 2008, a procurement administrator was hired to assist the procurement manager in the implementation of a centralized procurement function, including the compilation of comprehensive policies and procedures and the maintenance of centralized, secured procurement files. The new financial management system will include procurement -related modules and tools that are expected to result in more efficient and effective business processes to accomplish these goals. As to the location of change orders and related supporting documentation for the construction contract pertaining to the North Main Corona parking structure, the requested information was obtained at the jobsite's construction office The construction of the new parking structure is an FTA funded project, and the jobsite office is considered an extension of RCTC's operations during the construction period. Since daily access to this information is required at the jobsite, the information will be transferred to a centralized system upon the completion of construction. Review and modification of the current procedure will be part of the Commission's goal for overall centralization of procurement documentation as well as the maintenance of complete project files.. As the Procurement and Assets Manager continues to review and refine the Commission's procurement procedures, the Commission's Procurement Manual will be revised to include additional procurement options. Management is confident that the FTA-funded procurements were handled in accordance with the requirements of Circular 4220.1. All other procurements, regardless of their 49 dollar value, were handled and will continue to be handled in accordance with the requirements of their funding source(s), the Commission's enabling legislation, and all applicable state laws as well as good business practices as applicable to the circumstance. IV.2 Financial Status Reports not Reported on an Accrual Basis Condition. The FSRs are not being done on an accrual basis.. RCTC does not prepare monthly or quarterly accrual or adjusting entries in their general ledger system. The only accrual entries are prepared at fiscal year end in conjunction with the annual financial statement audit. The only costs being drawndown on FTA grants currently are preliminary design engineering related to the Perris Valley Rail Line Extension, and construction related to the North Main Corona Parking Structure and Perris Multimodal Facility. There currently is no material cost impact to the FSR's not being reported on an accrual basis. Recommendation: ROTC should continue to monitor major capital projects funded by FTA grants, and if the failure to submit quarterly FSRs on an accrual basis materially distorts the Total Outlays reported, quarterly accruals for FSR reporting should be initiated. RCTC's Proposed Corrective Action: Management concurs that quarterly accruals for FSR reporting will be determined based on a review of the accounting records for the three business days following the end of a quarter, as allowed by FTA Circular 5010.1 D. This procedure will be included in the desk procedures referred to in our response to 111.1, Grants Management Reporting Needs Improvement. Such accruals would be for FSR reporting purposes only and would not be recorded in the accounting system records, except at year end.. Management provided information to the consultants that no accruals to the FSR data would have been required for the period reviewed. Similar to most agencies with general govemment operations, RCTC's accounting records are maintained on a cash basis during the year and accrual adjustments are recorded as part of the year end closing process • Riverside County Transportation Commission 2009 Financial Management Oversight Review Status of Findings: Significant Deficiencies September 9, 2009 • Finding Recommendation Proposed Corrective Action Status as of 9/9/09 Grants Management The grantee should establish RCTC will prepare detailed, written desk RCTC has prepared Reporting Needs procedures to ensure that the Quarterly procedures regarding (a) the proper detailed, written Improvement Milestone/Progress Reports include preparation of the Financial Status Report procedures regarding the complete and accurate project data and (FSR) including required source quarterly FTA reporting. status information required to satisfy FTA guidelines. The submitted data documentation and reconciliation activities, and (b) the required review and approval of These procedures were implemented beginning should be properly reviewed and FSR and project status information included with the quarter ended approved prior to being submitted to in the Milestone/Progress Section of the June 30, 2009. FTA. Quarterly Narrative Reports. The desk procedures related to the preparation of quarterly FTA reporting will be completed and implemented by June 10, 2009. Fixed Asset Record RCTC should update the fixed asset RCTC is in the process of implementing a RCTC is maintaining the Needs Improvement listing to record and maintain the new financial management system that will fixed asset records in the required information on fixed assets include a fixed assets module that will existing financial acquired using FTA funds. This would include description, identification incorporate the following fields not currently tracked: location of the asset, percentage of management system, which is supplemented by number, acquisition date, cost, percentage of federal participation; FTA funds utilized, condition of the asset, and the titleholder. Until the new financial the excel spreadsheet application that tracks grant project under which it was management system is implemented, RCTC the other required procured, location, who holds title, and will maintain the fixed asset records in the information. The new condition. The grantee should fully existing module, supplemented by an excel system's fixed asset implement this corrective action 90 spreadsheet application to track required module should be days after the final report. information not included in the current financial management system. RCTC anticipates the fixed asset module to be fully implemented within approximately one year, and the data currently not tracked will continue to be tracked manually until the new system is fully operational. implemented by June 30, 2010. 1 Z 1N3WHDVJ_I J Riverside County Transportation Commission 2009 Financial Management Oversight Review Status of Findings: Significant Deficiencies September 9, 2009 Finding Recommendation Proposed Corrective Action Status as of 9/9/09 Lack of a Disaster The grantee should: (1) prepare a written RCTC's management asserts that the RCTC is in the process of Recovery Plan MIS Disaster Recovery Plan, (2) establish a current back-up procedures should allow preparing the Disaster system for periodic testing for the plan, (3) for timely access to the electronic Recovery Plan. It will be secure Board approval of the plan, and (4) information required for the resumption of submitted to the train personnel, as appropriate, on the plan. business operations. However, RCTC has Commission's Executive The grantee should fully implement this committed to the preparation of a Committee for approval corrective action by 180 days after the final report is released. Disaster Recovery Plan within the next 180 days, with the assistance of the at its November 11, 2009 meeting. Riverside County Information Department. RCTC is a tenant in a Riverside County building. 2 • • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P..O Box 12008 4080 Lemon St., 371Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Msi11)�e : REGION 1X Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands ATTACHMENT 3 201 Mission Street Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839 415-744-3133 415-744-2726 (fax) Re: FY 2009 Triennial Review Final Report Enclosed is a copy of the final report of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) biennial Review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCIC), as required by 49 USC 5307 (i). Although less exacting than an audit, the biennial Review is the FTA's assessment of compliance with federal requirements determined by the examination of grant management practices and program implementation. No deficiencies were found in accordance with the FTA requirements in 17 of the 23 areas reviewed Six areas (Public Comment for Fare Increases and Service Reductions, Half -fare, Charter Bus, School Bus, NTD, and Drug and Alcohol Program) were not applicable Congratulations on an outstanding review. Please convey our appreciation to your staff for the assistance and cooperation they provided to the FTA review team.. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. Melanie Robertson of my staff at (415) 744-2737. Enclosure cc: (w/encl ): Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Sincerely, 6 �t eslie T Roge s Regional A 'stator 53 FINAL REPORT FY2009 TRIENNIAL REVIEW of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Riverside, California Desk Review: November 19, 2008 Site Visit: August 5-6, 2009 August 2009 Prepared for the Federal Transit Administration Region 9 San Francisco, California by CDI/DCI Joint Venture 55 • Table of Contents I. TRIENNIAL REVIEW BACKGROUND 1 II. REVIEW PROCESS 1 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RCTC 2 IV. RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 3 1. Legal 3 2. Financial 3 3. Technical 3 4. Satisfactory Continuing Control 4 5. Maintenance 4 6. Procurement 4 7. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) 4 8. Buy America 5 9. Suspension/Debarment 5 10. Lobbying 5 11. Planning/Program of Projects 5 12. Title VI 6 13. Public Comment Process for Fare Increases and Service Reductions 6 14. Half Fare 6 15. ADA 6 16. Charter Bus 7 17. School Bus 7 18. National Transit Database (NTD) 7 19. Safety and Security 7 20. Drug -Free Workplace 8 21. Drug and Alcohol Program 9 22. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 9 23. ITS Architecture 9 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 10 VI. TRANSIT SECURITY EXPENDITURES 11 VII. ATTENDEES 12 57 • I. TRIENNIAL REVIEW BACKGROUND The United States Code, chapter 53 of title 49, requires the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to perform reviews and evaluations of Urbanized Area Formula Grant activities at least every three years. This requirement is contained in 49 U.S.C. 5307(i). (2) At least once every 3 years, the Secretary shall review and evaluate completely the performance of a recipient in carrying out the recipient's program, specifically referring to compliance with statutory and administrative requirements and the extent to which actual program activities are consistent with the activities proposed under subsection (d) of this section and the planning process required under sections 5303-5306 of this title. (3) The Secretary may take appropriate action consistent with the review, audit and evaluation under this subsection, including making an appropriate adjustment in the amount of a grant or withdrawing the grant. The Triennial Review includes a review of the grantee's compliance in 23 different areas. The basic requirements for each of these areas are summarized below. This report presents the findings from the Triennial Review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission in Riverside, California. This review was performed in accordance with FTA procedures (published in FTA Order 9010.1B, April 5, 1993) and included preliminary reviews of documents on file at the Region 9 Office in San Francisco and on -site discussions and review of the procedures, practices, and records of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as deemed necessary. The review concentrated primarily on procedures and practices employed during the past three years; however, coverage was extended to earlier periods as needed to assess the policies in place and the management of grants. During the visit, administrative and statutory requirements were discussed, documents were reviewed, and facilities were toured. Specific documents examined during the Triennial Review are available in FTA's and the Riverside County Transportation Commission's files. II. REVIEW PROCESS The desk review was conducted in the Region 9 Office on November 19, 2008. Following the desk review, an agenda package was sent to the Riverside County Transportation Commission advising it of the site visit and indicating additional information that would be needed and issues that would be discussed. The site visit to Riverside, California occurred on August 5-6, 2009. The individuals participating in the review are listed in Section Vll of this report. 1 59 At the entrance conference, the purpose of the Triennial Review and the review process were discussed. During the site visit, urbanized area formula grant program administrative and statutory requirements were discussed and documents were reviewed. The Riverside County Transportation Commission's transit facilities were toured to provide an overview of activities related to FTA-funded projects. Samples of maintenance records for FTA-funded rail stations were inspected during the site visit. On completion of the review, an exit conference was held with the Riverside County Transportation Commission staff to discuss findings, corrective actions, and schedules. This information is summarized in the table in Section V of this report. A draft copy of this report was provided to the Riverside County Transportation Commission at the exit conference. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Formed in 1976, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is a special district governed by a 30-member board consisting of one representative from each city in Riverside County, all five County supervisors, and one non -voting state representative. The Commission provides short-range transportation planning and programming for Riverside County, which includes administration of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA) program. The LTF is derived from a 1/4 cent State sales tax and the STA were derived from a statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. a The RCTC was empowered in 1988 (Measure A) to collect a one-half of one percent sales tax for the purpose of improving the transportation system of the County. Measure A was extended in 2002 for an additional 30 years. In 1990 the California Legislature required the RCTC and transportation commissions of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernadino to join together and jointly develop a plan for regional transit services within the multi -county region. This effort resulted in the formation, in August 1991, of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a Joint Powers Agency (JPA). The SCRRA plans, designs, constructs, and administers the operation of regional passenger rail lines serving the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura. The SCRRA operates the regional rail system, Metrolink. RCTC primarily passes federal funds directly to SCRRA for the operation of Metrolink. Also, RCTC has directly participated in the construction management of the La -Sierra rail sta- tion and the North Main Corona rail station and parking structure. In addition, RCTC is the pro- ject lead for the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension and will use federal funds for the devel- opment and construction of the service. RCTC does not directly operate any rail service. There are three commuter rail lines that directly serve westem Riverside County. The rail lines are located in the Cities of Riverside, Corona, and the unincorporated area of the County. The service area population numbers approximately 900,000. There are five transit 2 60 • • • centers in the RCTC service area: Riverside -Downtown, the Pedley Station, Riverside -La Sierra, North Main Corona, and West Corona. Ongoing projects include the construction of a six -story concrete structure with 1,065 parking spaces located at the North Main Corona Metrolink Station, the Perris Valley Small Starts project that seeks to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris via the RCTC-owned San Jacinto Branch Line, and the cooperative effort with Riverside Transit Agency on the Perris Multimodal Transit Center in downtown Riverside. IV. RESULTS OF THE REVIEW The Triennial Review focused on the Riverside County Transportation Commission's compliance in 23 different areas. This section provides a discussion of the basic requirements and findings in each area. No deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements in 17 of the 23 areas. Six areas were not applicable. 1. Legal Basic Requirement: The grantee must be eligible and authorized under state and local law to request, receive, and dispense FTA funds and to execute and administer FTA funded projects. The authority to take all necessary action and responsibility on behalf of the grantee must be properly delegated and executed. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for legal. 2. Financial Basic Requirement: The grantee must demonstrate the ability to match and manage FTA grant funds, cover cost increases, cover operating deficits through long-term stable and reliable sources of revenue, maintain and operate federally funded facilities and equipment, and conduct an annual independent organization -wide audit in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for financial. 3. Technical Basic Requirement: The grantee must be able to implement the Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program of Projects in accordance with the grant application, Master Agreement, and all applicable laws and regulations, using sound management practices. 3 61 Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for technical. 4. Satisfactory Continuing Control Basic Requirement: The grantee must maintain control over real property, facilities, and equipment and ensure that they are used in transit service. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for satisfactory continuing control. 5. Maintenance Basic Requirement: The grantee must keep federally funded equipment and facilities in good operating order. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for maintenance. 6. Procurement Basic Requirement: FTA grantees will use their own procurement procedures that reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the process ensures competitive procurement and that the procedures conform to applicable federal law including 49 CFR Part 18, specifically Section 18.36 and FTA Circular 4220.1F, "Third Party Contracting Guidelines." Grantees will maintain a contract administration system that ensures that contractors perform in accordance with terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for procurement. 7. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Basic Requirement: The grantee must comply with the policy of DOT that DBEs, as defined in 49 CFR Part 26, are ensured nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Grantees also must create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT -assisted contracts; ensure that only firms that fully meet eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs; and assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with USDOT requirements for DBE. 4 • • 62 • • 8. Buy America Basic Requirement: Per FTA's "Buy America" requirements, federal funds may not be obligated unless steel, iron, and manufactured products used in FTA funded projects are produced in the United States, unless FTA has granted a waiver, or the product is subject to a general waiver. Rolling stock must have sixty percent domestic content and final assembly must take place in the United States. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Buy America. 9. Suspension/Debarment Basic Requirement: To protect the public interest and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in federal transactions, persons or entities, which by defined events or behavior, potentially threaten the integrity of federally administered programs, are excluded from participating in FTA assisted programs. Federal agencies use the government -wide nonprocurement debarment and suspension system to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible. Grantees are required to ensure to the best of their knowledge and belief that none of the grantee's "principals" (as defined in the governing regulation 2 CFR Part 180), subrecipients, and third -party contractors and subcontractors is debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in federally assisted transactions or procurements. Grantees are strongly encouraged to review the Excluded Parties Listing System (http://www.epls.gov/) before entering into any third party contracts. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for suspension/debarment. 10. Lobbying Basic Requirement: Recipients of federal grants and contracts exceeding $100,000 must certify compliance with Restrictions on Lobbying before they can receive funds. In addition, grantees are required to impose the lobbying restriction provisions on their contractors. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for lobbying. 11. Planning/Program of Projects Basic Requirement: The grantee must participate in the transportation planning process in accordance with FTA requirements, SAFETEA-LU, and the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Regulations. 5 63 Each recipient of a grant shall have complied with the public participation requirements of Section 5307(c)(1) through (7). Each recipient is required to develop, publish, afford an opportunity for a public hearing on, and submit for approval a Program of Projects (POP). Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for planning/POP. 12. Title VI Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program, or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The grantee must ensure that federally supported transit services and related benefits are distributed in an equitable manner. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for Title VI. 13. Public Comment Process for Fare Increases and Service Reductions Basic Requirement: The grantee is expected to have a written copy of a locally developed process to solicit and consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction of transportation services. Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services, so the requirement for a public comment process for fare increases and service reductions is not applicable. 14. Half Fare Basic Requirement: Grantees must ensure that elderly persons and persons with disabilities, or an individual presenting a Medicare card will be charged, during non -peak hours for transportation using or involving a facility or equipment of a project financed under Section 5307, not more than 50 percent of the peak hour fare. Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services, so the half -fare requirement is not applicable. 15. ADA Basic Requirement: Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provide that no entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with 6 • 64 the provision of transportation service. The law sets forth specific requirements for vehicle and facility accessibility and the provision of service, including complementary paratransit service. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for ADA. 16. Charter Bus Basic Requirement: FTA grantees are prohibited from using federally funded equipment and facilities to provide charter service if a registered private charter operator expresses interest in providing the service. The grantees are allowed to operate community based charter services exempted under the regulations; some irregular or limited duration services; and those that are covered by the exceptions. Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services, so the charter bus requirement is not applicable. 17. School Bus Basic Requirement: FTA grantees are prohibited from providing exclusive school bus service unless it qualifies under specified exceptions. In no case can federally funded equipment or facilities be used. Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services, so the school bus requirement is not applicable . 18. National Transit Database (NTD) Basic Requirement: Grantees that receive 5307 and 5311 grant funds must collect, record, and report financial and non -financial data in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and updated with the National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting Manual as required by 49 USC 5335(a). Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services, so the National Transit Database requirement is not applicable. 19. Safety and Security Basic Requirement: Any recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program funds must annually certify that it is spending at least one percent of such funds for transit security pro- jects or that such expenditures for security systems are not necessary. 7 65 Under the safety authority provisions of the Federal transit laws, the Secretary has the au- thority to investigate the operations of the grantee for any conditions that appear to create a seri- ous hazard of death or injury, especially to patrons of the transit service. States are required to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway systems through a designated oversight agency, per 49 CFR Part 659, Rail Fixed Guideway Systems, State Safety Oversight. Under security, a list of 17 Security and Emergency Management Action Items has been developed by FTA and the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Admini- stration (TSA). This list of 17 items, an update to the original FTA Top 20 security action items list, was developed in consultation with the public transportation industry through the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council, for which the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) serves as Executive Chair. Security and Emergency Management Action Items for Transit Agencies aim to elevate security readiness throughout the public transportation industry by establishing baseline measures that transit agencies should employ. The goal of FTA's Safety and Security Program is to achieve the highest practical level of safety and security in all modes of transit. To this end, FTA continuously promotes the awareness of safety and security throughout the transit community by establishing programs to collect and disseminate information on safety/security concepts and practices. In addition, FTA develops guidelines that transit systems can apply in the design of their procedures and by which to compare local actions. As such, many of the questions in this review area are designed to de- termine what efforts grantees have made to develop and implement safety, security, and emer- gency management plans. While there may not be specific requirements associated with all of the questions, grantees are encouraged to implement the plans, procedures, and programs refer- enced in these questions. For this reason, findings in this area will most often result in advisory comments rather than deficiencies. Findings: A summary of the RCTC's expenditures of Section 5307 funds for security projects is provided in Section VI of this report. During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the ETA's requirements for safety and security. 20. Drua-Free Workplace Basic Requirement: FTA grantees are required to maintain a drug -free workplace for all employees and to have an ongoing drug -free awareness program. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for drug -free workplace. 8 • • 66 • 21. Drug and Alcohol Program Basic Requirement: Grantees receiving FTA funds under Capital Grant (Section 5309), Urbanized Area Formula Grant (Section 5307), or Non -Urbanized Area Formula Grant (Section 5311) Programs must have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for all safety -sensitive employees. Findings: RCTC does not operate any transit services and has no safety sensitive employees, so requirements for the drug and alcohol program are not applicable. 22. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Basic Requirement: The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or physical or mental disability be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination in employment under any project, program, or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the federal transit laws. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for EEO. 23. ITS Architecture Basic Requirement: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects funded by the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account must conform to the National ITS Architecture, as well as to United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) adopted ITS Standards. Findings: During this Triennial Review of the RCTC, no deficiencies were found with the FTA requirements for ITS architecture. 9 67 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 1. Legal ND 2. Financial ND 3. Technical ND 4. Satisfactory Continuing Control ND 5. Maintenance ND 6. Procurement ND 7. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ND 8. Buy America ND 9. Suspension/ Debarment ND 10. Lobbying ND 11. Planning/POP ND 12. Title VI ND 13. Public Comment for Fare Increases and Service Reductions NA 14. Half Fare NA 15. ADA ND 16. Charter Bus NA 17. School Bus NA 18. National Transit Database NA 19. Safety and Security ND 20. Drug -Free Workplace ND 21. Drug and Alcohol Program 22. Equal Employment Opportunity 23. ITS Architecture NA ND ND Findings: ND = No Deficiencies; D = Deficient; AC — Advisory Comment; NA = Not Applicable; NR = Not Reviewed 10 68 • VI. TRANSIT SECURITY EXPENDITURES Does the grantee expend one percent or more of its Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds for transit security? FY2006: Yes x No FY2007: Yes No x FY2008: Yes x No If no, why does the grantee consider such expenditure unnecessary (check all that apply): No deficiency found from a threat and vulnerability assessment TSA/FTA Security and Emergency Management Action Items met or exceeded. x Other (please describe): RCTC does not operate transit service Total amount of 5307 Funds expended Amount of 5307 Funds expended on security $7,117 $3,794,491 - $125,801 Percent of 5307 Funds expended on security Infrastructure/Capital Improvement Security Projects. 5.3% 'p 3.3% Lighting, Fencing & Perimeter Control CCTV and Surveillance Technology $2,350 i $4,100 0 $42,454 ; $74,069 ' Communications Systems $667 $9,278 f Security Planning (a) Drills & Tabletop Exercises �a) Employee Security Training (a) Other Security -Related Infrastructure & Capital Improvements (please list): Operating/Personnel Expenditures (can only be used by agencies in areas with populations UNDER 200,000): Contracted Security Force In-house Security Force Other Security -Related Operating Expenditures (please list): �a) SAFETEA-LU amended the definition of a capital project to include: - projects to refine and develop security and emergency response plans; - the conduct of emergency response drills with public transportation agencies and local first response agencies; and - security training for public transportation employees. 11 69 VII. ATTENDEES RCTC Sheldon Peterson George Salas Theresia Trevino Richard Bryan Edda Rosso Brian Cunanan Martha Durbin Aaron Hake Robert Yates Fina Clemente Henry Nickel Min Saysay FTA Rail Manager/RCTC 951-787-7928 speterson@rctc.org Facilities Supervisor/Bechtel 951-453-5037 CFO/RCTC Bechtel/RCTC gsalas@rctc.org 951-787-7926 ttrevino@rctc.org 951-787-7962 rbryan@rctc.org RCTC/Capital Projects Mgr. 951-787-7141 Commuter Assistance Manager/RCTC Multimodal Staff Analyst Government Relations Manager 951-787-7943 erosso@retc.org bcunanan@rctc.org 951-787-4017 mdurbin@rctc.org 951-787-7965 ahake@rctc.org Multimodal Services Director 951-787-7905 Transit Program Manager Rail Analyst Property Manager, RCTC ryates@rctc.org 951-787-7989 flemente@rctc.org 951-787-7929 hnickel@rctc.org 951-787-7922 msaysay@rctc.org Melanie Robertson FTA Region 9 CDI/DCI 415-744-2737 I Melanie.Robertson@dot.gov Randall Pine Reviewer 12 785-841-7771 piner@earthlink.net 70 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Internal Audit Reports AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve a report on the internal audit of: 1) Right of Way Management Process; 2) Project Management Process; 3) Transit Provider Services Management; and 4) EDEN Implementation Processes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2007, the Commission approved the selection of KPMG LLP, (KPMG) to support the Commission's internal audit function. An agency -wide risk assessment of the Commission was conducted in 2008. Based on the risk assessment, an internal audit plan for the next three years was developed, including recommendations for future internal audit projects. In July 2008, the risk assessment and internal audit plan were presented to and approved by the Audit Ad Hoc Committee, as the Commission's audit committee or its equivalent. The initial internal audit project in 2008 was a high-level review of the Commission's Accounting and Finance function, which was presented to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee in October 2008. Two additional internal audit projects related to a review of the management processes for Right of Way and Capital Projects commenced in 2008 and were completed in 2009. The results of these two projects were as follows: Agenda Item 7D 71 Right of Way Management Process One low risk finding regarding policies and procedures updates was identified. Project Management Process One high risk finding regarding change order requirements was identified. Four process improvement recommendations were made regarding claim release waiver compliance, project budgets, contract execution, and documentation of policies and procedures. The 2009 audit plan included four internal audit projects: project management (phase 2), transit provider services, revenue cycle, and procurement and asset management. The Transit Provider Services Management project was recently completed. Due to the EDEN financial management system implementation, the revenue cycle project was replaced with the EDEN Implementation Processes project due to a revised risk assessment. The results of these two projects were as follows: Transit Provider Services Process One process improvement was identified regarding specialized transit provider service monitoring. EDEN Implementation Process Several process improvement recommendations were made regarding scope management and schedule management. The project management (phase 2) and procurement and asset management reviews have not been scheduled, as a reevaluation of the risk assessment and audit plan is necessary. Revisions to the assessment and audit plan will be presented to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee at a future meeting for consideration. Attached are the individual reports that include an executive summary of the projects and the observations, recommendations, and management's responses. KPMG's work was performed under the direction and oversight of the Commission, which was responsible for establishing the engagement objectives and approving the nature, timing, and extent of engagement activities. Staff has reviewed the reports that document the results of KPMG's engagement activities and recommends that the Audit Ad Hoc Committee approve these reports. Attachments: 1) Right of Way Management Process Review Report 2) Project Management Process Review Report 3) Transit Provider Services Review Report 4) EDEN Implementation Process Review Report Agenda Item 7D • 72 ATTACHMENT 1 Right of Way Management Process Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY May 20, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside, California Members of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee: We have performed a review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Right of Way (ROW) Management Process as of December 2008. This process supports the RCTC's Right of Way function. Fieldwork was conducted between December 8, 2008 and January 7, 2009. Our findings are summarized below. Executive Summary The ROW function is responsible for acquiring properties in which construction or development by RCTC is set to occur. The function consists of two employees and reports directly to Min Saysay, ROW Manager; and ultimately to Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director. To stay abreast of any proposed changes in governing regulations, a standing agreement has been established with Best, Best & Krieger to monitor and report those proposed changes to the ROW Manager. The scope of this review included a walk through of key areas within the ROW function and testing of a limited sample of related transactions. We focused our review on the following key areas of the ROW management process: • Regulatory compliance, • Acquisitions and relocations, • Communication with coordinating agencies, • Cost management, and • Schedule management. Based on the results of our interviews with the personnel responsible for the ROW function, review of documentation for sample transactions, and testing of controls surrounding the processes, it appears that controls within these processes are designed appropriately and operate effectively as management has intended. In addition, based on 73 RCTC Internal Audit Right of Way Management Process Review our gap analysis, RCTC's ROW policy and procedures appear to be in compliance with applicable regulations. The opportunities for improvement identified during this review are listed below. 2 74 RCTC Internal Audit Right of Way Management Process Review AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE We conducted this audit to determine if the control environment surrounding the Right of Way (ROW) management process includes adequate internal controls that operate effectively as management has intended. To achieve our objectives, we performed the following procedures: — Reviewed ROW policies and procedures related to regulatory compliance, coordination with stakeholders and agencies, cost management, and schedule management. — Conducted interviews with RCTC personnel to clarify our understanding of the policies and procedures listed above. Selected two ROW projects and tested transactions that occurred between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2008 to determine compliance with the RCTC, local, state and federal requirements for acquisitions, relocations, communication with coordinating agencies, cost management, and schedule management. No condemnation transactions had occurred during the period under review. — Conducted a gap analysis between RCTC ROW processes and coordinating agency requirements to identify compliance issues, missing controls, and process areas for improvement, if any. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Observation #1 Policies and Procedure Updates — Low Risk During our review of the ROW Policies and Procedures, we identified minor inaccuracies related to the current ROW management process. Failure to ensure the policies and procedures accurately reflect ongoing processes or current regulatory requirements may lead to operations errors and the appearance of internal non-compliance. 1. The ROW Polices and Procedures Section 6-4.2 states that "the Project Development Director is authorized to approve a settlement when the difference between the approved Just Compensation and the proposed settlement is no more than 10% in excess of the offer or no more than $100,000 of the offer." Per Min Saysay, ROW Manager, the Project Development Director no longer oversees ROW acquisitions and this responsibility has been assumed by the Project Delivery Director. 2. ROW Polices and Procedures Section 7-7.9 states that a Moving Cost Agreement should be created by the Relocation Agent and reviewed and approved by the ROW Manager. However, per Min Saysay, ROW manager, the Moving Cost Agreement is the compilation of the documents regarding the moving cost: the Moving Cost Reimbursement Claim, the Claim Transmittal Letter, the Business Self Move Agreement, and any supporting documentation. No Moving Cost Agreement document, as described in the ROW Polices and Procedures, exists. 3 75 RCTC Internal Audit Right of Way Management Process Review 3. ROW Polices and Procedures Section 6-6.2 states that it is the responsibility of RCTC to report to the IRS any real estate acquisitions greater than $599. However, the actual process is for the escrow company to report to the IRS and RCTC has no obligation to report. Recommendation #1 Management should update the ROW Polices and Procedures to accurately reflect ROW processes. Management should also implement an annual review to ensure that Policies and Procedures accurately reflect changes in internal processes. Management Response #1 Management concurs with the recommendation. The ROW Policies and Procedures will be revised and submitted to the Commission for approval. Additionally, these Policies and Procedures will be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that they properly reflect existing internal processes. \J-Ite4z4Le Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer 4 76 ATTACHMENT 2 Project Management Process Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY September 15, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside, California Members of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee: We have performed a review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC's) Project Management Process as of December 2008. This process supports RCTC's Capital Project Delivery function. Fieldwork was conducted between December 8, 2008 and March 4, 2009. The background, audit objectives and scope, as well as our findings are summarized below. Executive Summary The Capital Project Delivery function consists of the Project Development, Project Delivery, and Toll Programs teams supported by Bechtel, as staff augmentation. Each individual project is assigned a project management team comprising of a RCTC Project Manager and a Bechtel Project Coordinator. The Capital Project Delivery function reports to the Director of Project Development for financial programming, mega projects under development, and rail projects; Director of Project Delivery for highway projects; and Director of Toll Programs for toll projects. We conducted this review to determine if the control environment surrounding the Project Management process, from project inception to completion, includes adequate internal controls that operate effectively as management has intended, specifically related to the general management and coordination of construction projects, including oversight of contract compliance, schedule management, and cost management. 77 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review The scope of this review included a walk through of key areas within Capital Project Delivery such as project planning and budgeting, vendor bidding and selection, payment of vendors' invoices, project scheduling and coordination, and testing of a limited sample of related transactions for the Corona Main Parking Structure and I-215 North projects related to the following areas: • Verification of project activities to project scope defined in contracts, • Schedule management and status reporting including identification and management of problems and issues, • Cost management and project cost reporting, • Procurement and vendor selection, and • Assignment of accountability and coordination of work elements and participants. Based on the results of our interviews with the Project Management personnel including Bechtel and review of documentation pertaining to selected projects, we identified certain control deficiencies in the change orders processing. We also identified opportunities for improvement in the payment of vendor invoices, budgeting, contract negotiations, and general project management. Furthermore, we recommend conducting future management reviews of the Bechtel Contract, construction contracts terms and conditions, and policies and procedures surrounding the procurement process that are currently in development. Our detailed observations and recommendations are listed below. 2 78 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE We conducted a review of the Project Management Process in December 2008 and January 2009, with follow up through March 2009 and additional discussion regarding observations through July 2009. The objective of this review was to determine if the control environment surrounding the project management process, from project inception to completion, includes adequate internal controls that operate effectively as management has intended, specifically related to the general management and coordination of construction projects, including oversight of contract compliance, schedule management, and cost management. To achieve our objectives, we conducted the following procedures: — Reviewed the current processes for capital project delivery and assessed the strengths and weaknesses as compared to industry practices. — Conducted interviews with RCTC and Bechtel personnel to clarify our understanding of the above processes. — Reviewed project documentation for two judgmentally selected capital projects under way between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2008 to assess adherence to established protocols throughout the project delivery lifecycle. We tested one to two transactions per contract per project. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Observation #I —Change Order Requirements — High Risk Per RCTC management, the California Department of Transportation's Construction Manual (Caltrans Manual) should be utilized to determine documentation requirements for processing change orders. The Caltrans Manual requires utilization of the "force account analysis" to ensure that extra work specified in the change orders will be performed at agreed upon prices. This analysis should be performed prior to processing the change orders. "Force account analysis", as defined in Section 3-904B, "consist of adding specified markups to the actual cost of labor, equipment, and material used to perform the extra work." Per the Caltrans Manual, "calculations made to determine extra work at an agreed price are required to be filed with the contract or project records." We reviewed two out of nine change orders (20%) processed for the North Main Corona Parking Structure to date. Although the Project Coordinator stated that the "force account analysis" was completed for both change orders prior to approval, there was no documentation to evidence that appropriate calculations were made prior to approval of the change orders. Therefore, it was unclear whether RCTC was appropriately substantiating and justifying extra work. Although selected change orders represent less then one percent of the overall contract cost and thus, may not significantly impact RCTC, inconsistency in applying controls over change order processing may result in overpayments and lack of documentation to defend against contractor claims. 79 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review Recommendation #1 The RCTC Project Manager should verify if the analysis of the change orders for extra work at the agreed price using the force account method was completed and documented prior to acceptance and approval of change orders. Periodic audits of a sample of change orders should be conducted to ensure compliance with policies and procedures related to change orders. Management Response #1 Capital Projects (CP) management firmly believes that documentation of change orders is an essential and normal part of overseeing all construction projects. Procedures will be revised to fully document all change orders, even those considered to be of lesser significance, and that audits should continue to occur (internal and external) to assure compliance. It should be noted, however, that not all change orders utilize the force account method for their method of valuation (e.g., market value and cost/benefit analysis). Observation #2 —Claim Release Waiver Compliance — Process Improvement General Conditions Article 36 of the lump sum contract with McCarthy for the North Main Corona Parking Structure states that "in conjunction with each payment by the Contractor to the Subcontractor, Contractor shall provide a standard payment release form attached to these General Conditions as Exhibit `D', for the payment. Subcontractor shall be required to execute the release form, a copy of which shall be provided to the Commission." A Conditional Waiver represents that the Subcontractor releases the Commission from the liability of claim against Commission funds upon receipt of payment of the amount owed per the current invoice. An Unconditional Waiver represents that the Subcontractor has been paid a progress payment through the indicated time period and thus, unconditionally releases the Commission from liability of claim against Commission funds in the amount paid. Requiring Subcontractors to submit Claim Release Waivers protects the Commission against Subcontractors reopening or revisiting old issues at the end of the project and also provides the Commission early warning of potential Subcontractor claims. Monitoring and tracking Claim Release Waivers is good practice and allows the Commission an opportunity to identify and possibly mitigate potential claims before they become actual claims or stop payment notices against Commission funds. We noted that Conditional Waivers are not required per the Contract, but were included in Exhibit D. Therefore, we tested the McCarthy invoice dated October 2, 2008, in the amount of $1,360,480 to verify submittal of Unconditional waivers within two months of the invoice and for compliance with the contract requirements related to the Waiver submission and noted the following: 4 80 • RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review • Only two out of six Unconditional Waivers from the subcontractors were provided by the contractor within two months. • Three Unconditional Waivers were provided from subcontractors that were not identified as requesting payment on the October 2, 2008 invoice. In addition, RCTC provided a spreadsheet which is utilized for tracking subcontractors Claim Release Waivers who billed for each invoice period. We reviewed the spreadsheet pertaining to the invoice described above and noted the following: • One subcontractor, CMF, who billed on the invoice, was not identified on the spreadsheet. • One subcontractor, Thyseen Krupp Elevator, who was not identified as billing on the invoice, was identified on the spreadsheet. Subsequent to completion of our fieldwork, RCTC provided additional documentation completed by the Construction Manager to resolve the issues identified during the audit and provide evidence of the monitoring process. However, efficiency of the process appears to be impaired as multiple tracking spreadsheets are used and roles and responsibilities within the monitoring process may not be clearly defined. Recommendation #2 • RCTC should continue to monitor and track the submittal of Subcontractor Claim Release Waivers. RCTC should review the process to streamline documentation and clearly define roles and responsibilities within the monitoring process. • RCTC should review the contract language and consult with Counsel to assess the risk of not requiring Conditional Waivers, and to determine the appropriate approach. Based on the decision, General Conditions Article 36 and/or Exhibit D should be modified to clearly state RCTC's requirements. • Finally, RCTC should perform quarterly reviews of a sample of invoices to ensure all required Waivers were received. Management Response #2 CP management concurs with this recommendation. Observation #3 — Project Budgets — Process Improvement RCTC currently utilizes an annual budget methodology for funding its projects that provides for adequate review of the one year budget for each project but does not take into consideration multi -year implications. Recommendation #3 RCTC should consider preparing individual life span project budgets for all projects to allow for the establishment of a maximum fully loaded cost goal, easy tracking of project cost performances, setting expectations for the project team to 5 81 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review meet approved project budget goals, and enabling more efficient trend analysis and future budgeting. The budget should include line items for all soft and hard costs. RCTC should utilize the original approved project budget baseline to track against: l.) Budget Changes 2.) Revised Budget 3.) Remaining Commitments 4.) Cost to Date 5.) Estimated to complete 6.) Total costs projected 7.) Variances Management Response #3 RCTC is in the process of implementing an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) application entitled EDEN, to replace its legacy financial management system along with expanding RCTC's capabilities to provide improved project accounting and human resources/payroll services. The project accounting module will provide the capability to track the project budgets on a multi -year basis rather than on a single year basis for budgetary reporting purposes. As an ERP system, many of the matters noted in the recommendation can be tracked. Observation #4 —Contract Execution - Process Improvement Historically, Bechtel has taken the lead on contract negotiations on behalf of RCTC. The RCTC Project Managers and the Procurement Manager have not been consistently included in contract negotiations, potentially limiting their insight into the new contract prior to the contract execution Recommendation #4 RCTC should involve the Procurement Manager and Project Managers in the contract negotiations process, requiring the Procurement Manager and Project Managers to review proposed contract terms and make suggestions for improvements. RCTC Project Manager and the Procurement Manager expertise should benefit the negotiations in identifying potential issues with the contract terms that could be more favorable to RCTC or may be more appropriate given the projects characteristics. Management Response #4 Management concurs with the recommendation. As RCTC develops formal polices and procedures related to procurements and capital projects delivery, management intends to increase the role and responsibilities of the RCTC project managers and the procurement manager. Project managers will approve capital 6 82 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review procurement requests, the scope of work and solicitations, and proposal distribution packages prepared by Bechtel project coordinators. For proposal evaluations and contract negotiations, the RCTC project managers will determine the evaluation criteria, weighting, and project schedule; the members of the evaluation and negotiation teams; and assign tasks to negotiation team members. The RCTC project managers will coordinate procurements and related contract development and negotiations with the procurement manager. Observation #S — Documentation of Policies & Procedures — Process Improvement With the exception of the items identified above, the remaining processes reviewed operated as management intended consistent with industry practices. RCTC is currently working to document policies, procedures, and controls for the procurement process, scope management, schedule management, and reporting. Given the new and growing Capital Project Delivery team and complexity of project delivery processes, it would be beneficial to RCTC to expedite the documentation of the processes. Documented policies, procedures and controls serve as training and guidance tools and standardize the best approach to processes and controls enabling more effective and efficient delivery methodology. Recommendation #S RCTC should consider placing extra focus on developing written policies and procedures in a more aggressive timeframe to guide the procurement process, scope management, schedule management and cost reporting. This may be accomplished by dedicating personnel to modify the existing Bechtel or other transportation agencies' policies and procedures to meet the needs of RCTC. These policies should include guidelines on the following: 1.) Procurement planning including delivery guideline methodologies, Request for Qualifications, Request for Proposals and Invitation to Bid document boiler plates, contractor and consultant analysis and selection, contract negotiations, and contract award. 2.) Scope management including scope management plan, the creation of a project charter, definition of a work breakdown structure, guidelines regarding scope verification and acceptance, and change order management. 3.) Schedule management and reporting including schedule management plan, schedule development, schedule monitoring and reporting, and schedule integration on a project and program bases. 4.) Cost reporting including budgeting, forecasting, variance identification, and approval requirements. Management Response #S RCTC is currently developing procedures for Quality Assurance, Procurement, and Project Management to comply with grant requirements as well as generally 7 83 RCTC Internal Audit Project Management Process Review accepted practices, as applicable. Due to the significant expansion of the Capital Projects Delivery Team in the last couple of years and new projects to be undertaken, new policies and processes are being developed and will be formalized. The following are specific areas being addressed: 1.) Guidance related to revisions in the procurement policies and procedures will be developed to reflect the requirements of the new EDEN system as well as the specific procedures that best relate to the needs of RCTC. The majority of this effort will be completed within the next six to nine months. 2.) Project charters and work breakdown structure are prepared for highway projects with Caltrans, using its formats. Change order management procedures, as discussed earlier, will be revised. Project management plan procedures are under development with the assistance of Caltrans. 3.) RCTC is continually revising schedule monitoring and reporting practices, which vary depending on the type and size of project. Due to these factors, the documentation of schedule management procedures is a complex task that may be accomplished over a period of several years. 4.) While cost reporting procedures do exist, the implementation of EDEN is expected to improve the management of project costs. Cost reporting procedures will be developed in connection with the EDEN implementation. \l/faz ;41- Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer 8 84 ATTACHMENT 3 Transit Provider Services Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 7, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside, California Members of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee: We have performed a review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) Transit Provider Services' processes to administer specialized and public transit funds as of September 2009. This process is performed by the RCTC's Transit Department. Fieldwork was conducted between September 9, 2009 and September 24, 2009. The audit background, objectives and scope, as well as our findings are summarized below. Specialized Transit Funds The Transit Department's administration of specialized transit funds [Measure A and federal Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom (NF) funds] includes soliciting applications to fund specialized transit services, selecting providers to receive funds, executing funding agreements, reviewing federal fund reimbursement claims, monitoring fund recipient performance, and supporting Finance in disbursement of Measure A funds. Prior to 2009, only Measure A funds were used to fund specialized transit. With the addition of JARC and NF federal funding, the Transit Department and the Consolidated Transit Service Agencies (CTSA) developed and implemented an enhanced process to support disbursement of funds and monitor provider performance. This process was implemented during July 2009; however, the Transit Department management is 85 RCTC Internal Audit Transit Provider Services Review continually working to refine this process to be in compliance with Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reporting requirements. Substantial changes to previous operating policies were also implemented, as noted below. • Specialized transit recipients of Measure A and federal funds follow the same reporting requirements. Accordingly, the standard of reporting for local funds, which may be less stringent, has been strengthened to meet FTA requirements. • The specialized transit program is now a reimbursement -based program, in which RCTC (or the CTSA operators) pays for services rendered. Previously, the specialized transit program, which was funded solely by Measure A, was a cash advance program. With the influx of federal funds, which are on a reimbursement basis, all recipients including those receiving Measure A funds have been conformed to a reimbursement basis. In addition to meeting FTA requirements in the use of federal funds, these changes also emplace a stricter measure of control for RCTC with respect to the use and disposition of its Measure A funds. Public Transit Funds The Transit Department's process to administer public transit funds includes evaluating county public operators' Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), working with operators, the community, and RCTC to finalize SRTPs and funding amounts, reviewing operator reimbursement forms, monitoring the performance of public transit operators, and supporting Finance in distribution of funds. We conducted this review to determine if the control environment surrounding Transit Department processes includes adequate internal controls that operate effectively as management has intended, specifically related to the distribution and oversight of funds to providers and procedures for monitoring transit provider performance. To achieve our objectives, we reviewed current policies and procedures and conducted interviews with the Transit Department personnel to clarify our understanding of current processes. Additionally, we tested a sample of 3 specialized transit providers and 3 public transit operators to assess adherence to established protocols. Based on the results of our review, it appears that controls over the administration of public transit and specialized transit funds are designed appropriately and operate as management has intended. However, we identified opportunities for process improvement in the specialized transit monitoring process. Our detailed observations and recommendations are listed below. 2 86 • RCTC Internal Audit Transit Provider Services Review AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE We conducted this audit to determine if the control environment surrounding the Transit Department processes includes adequate internal controls that operate effectively as management has intended. Specifically, we reviewed processes to administer and disburse Measure A and federal funds to specialized transit providers. Additionally, we reviewed processes to administer and disburse Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds to public transit operators under the TDA. We also reviewed the monitoring process for specialized transit providers' and public transit operators' performance. To achieve our objectives, we performed the following procedures: — Reviewed policies and procedures for administration and disbursement of specialized and public transit funds and conducted interviews with Transit Department personnel to obtain an understanding of Transit Provider Services processes. Reviewed a sample of 3 specialized transit providers and 3 public transit providers receiving funds as of July 1, 2009 to assess RCTC adherence to established protocols for selecting fund awardees, monitoring provider performance, and disbursing funds. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Observation #1 Specialized Transit Provider Service Monitoring (Federal Fund Recipients) — Process Improvement The Transit Department developed the monitoring process for specialized transit providers' performance to assist public transit operators with disbursing specialized transit funds to specialized transit federal fund recipients. Under the current process, Transit Department personnel receive and review specialized transit providers' monthly federal reimbursement claims. Along with this claim, the provider submits a Quantitative Performance Report (QPR) report which lists the provider's service goals, as stated in the Provider Agreement, as well as actual service results for the current month. Transit Department personnel compare the provider's service goals to monthly service results as listed on the QPR report and identify variances over 20 percent. Transit Department personnel discuss these variances with providers to understand the cause and expected performance trends. Upon completion of this review, the Transit Department informs the provider to submit the claim to the operator for reimbursement. Based on our review of the documentation pertaining to this process for 3 selected providers, we noted the following: • Goals stated in the Provider Agreement for 2 out of 3 providers tested did not agree to the goals listed in the providers' QPRs. This resulted in comparing service results to 3 87 RCTC Internal Audit Transit Provider Services Review inaccurate goals, thus, precluding effective monitoring. The goals information has been corrected. • Although the QPR contains data for measuring providers' performance toward their goals, it does not calculate percentages toward achieving the goals or variances between the goals and current results to enable effective variance and trend analysis. Therefore, it is not apparent from the current report whether the provider is meeting the goals or if follow-up is required per current procedure. • Upon completion of the review of the provider's reimbursement claim, the Transit Department notifies the provider that the final claim appears to be accurate and can be submitted to the operator for reimbursement. However, the operators reimbursing the claim are not concurrently notified of the Transit Department's satisfactory review of the claim. This increases the risk that the operator may inappropriately reimburse the provider. Recommendation #1 • Transit Department personnel should reconcile providers' goals in the QPR to the goals stated in the Provider Agreement to ensure that goals on the QPR are accurate. • To effectively monitor variances between the provider goals per Agreement and actual operational results, a variance threshold requiring follow-up investigation should be formally established. The QPR may be enhanced with additional columns providing data on variances to assist in tracking providers' progress toward the goals stated in the Agreement. • The Transit Department should include the fund -disbursing operator on emails to the providers indicating completion of the review of the providers' claims. Enhancing the monitoring process as described will enable RCTC to provide fund - disbursing operators greater support in evaluating and monitoring the performance of federal fund recipients. Management Response #1 Management generally concurs with the recommendations. At this early stage of implementation of the monitoring process, monitoring goal attainment is not a priority. The goals per the agreements have been corrected in the QPR. Additionally, space is provided on the second page of the QPR for operators to indicate any significant changes in service such as non -attainment of goals and service modifications. Goal compliance is monitored routinely and plan actions are designed based on year-end results. In the future, the Transit Department will consider revising the QPR to add a column to track the cumulative percentage regarding goal attainment. The risk of an improper reimbursement to a provider by a CTSA is not considered significant, as the specialized transit providers are required to mail the approved final report and invoice to both RCTC and their respective CTSA. This step allows RCTC and 4 88 RCTC Internal Audit Transit Provider Services Review the CTSAs to communicate any inconsistencies in the QPR and invoice. However, Transit Department management has recently implemented a procedure to concurrently communicate to the CTSAs the approval of the QPRs and invoices. Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer 5 89 ATTACHMENT 4 EDEN Implementation Process Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 8, 2009 Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit Ad Hoc Committee Riverside, California Members of the Audit Ad Hoc Committee: We have performed a review of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's EDEN implementation processes between March and September 2009. Our findings are summarized below. Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission selected an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) application, EDEN, which is developed and maintained by Tyler Technologies, to replace its legacy Financial Management System along with expanding the Commission's capabilities to provide improved project accounting and Human Resources / payroll services. To support this implementation, RCTC retained Tyler Technologies as its systems integrator and Schafer Consulting to provide project management support. Internal Audit provided real time systems implementation review for RCTC. EDEN is being implemented in four phases as follows: • Phase 1 included finance related modules of EDEN (General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Purchasing, Contract Management, and Project Accounting). As part of the implementation, there was a substantial amount of configuration, reengineering and data conversion. The original completion date for Phase 1 was July 2009. As the RCTC Project Manager gained greater insight into the complexity of the project and the time required to complete the tasks within Phase 1, the completion date was 90 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review extended to September 2009. Implementation of these modules was completed in September 2009. • Phase 2 will include personnel modules (Human Resources / Payroll). These modules' implementation date has not been determined. These modules will not require data conversion or reengineering. The first time configuration will be required. • Phase 3 will include modules that are considered by Tyler Technologies as auxiliary modules (Fixed Assets, Budget Preparation, Position Budgeting, Accounts Receivable and GASB Reporting). These modules' implementation date has not been set. Configuration and limited data conversion will be required. The amount of reengineering is unknown at this time. • Phase 4 will include web -based applications (Executive Dashboards, Web AP and Web Contract Management). These modules' implementation date has not been set. Configuration and limited data conversion will be required. The amount of reengineering is unknown at this time. Internal Audit provided assistance for Phase I only. The review of the EDEN implementation was structured to assess potential risks associated with implementation, management's implementation plans and structure, and the control environment associated with implementing the system to determine if adequate management controls and systems implementation processes have been established that comply with leading practices from recognized sources (i.e. the Project Management Institute (PMI) or the Software Engineering Institute (SEI)). To achieve our objectives, we reviewed project documentation and conducted discussions with RCTC project management leadership to identify potential areas of risk based upon standard practices in packaged application implementations. We also participated in initial project meetings to assess the proposed processes against better practices in project management. Furthermore, we reviewed the results of the "fit gap analysis" of the application requirements conducted by Schafer Consulting to assess whether potential risks exist for RCTC in acceptance of the application by its end users and in the ability of the application to support the business needs of the Commission. Additionally, we assessed, through the use of industry standards, the effectiveness of the project controls in the following areas, on a monthly basis: Project management including identification and management of scope, risks and issues, assessment of project schedule variance and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. Cost management, project cost reporting and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. Staffing management. Based on our review of the project documentation and interviews with the project management, the RCTC project manager (PM) did an excellent job in working through 2 91 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review the challenges that developed during the project. She used her resources, both internal and external, very effectively once the roles were defined. However, during our review, we found that the initial project controls were not to industry standards particularly in the areas of scope management and schedule management. As the project evolved, these control areas improved measurably. Our detailed observations and recommendations are listed below. 3 92 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review REVIEW OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The review of the EDEN implementation was structured to assess: • Potential risks associated with implementation of the Financial Management module of the new application. The Financial Management module included General Ledger (GL), Accounts Payable (AP), Purchasing, Contract Management, and Project Accounting functions. • Management's implementation plans and structure to successfully implement the system and mitigate risks. • Whether the control environment associated with implementing the system included adequate management controls and systems implementation processes that comply with leading practices from recognized sources (i.e. the Project Management Institute (PMI) or the Software Engineering Institute (SEI)). To achieve our objectives, we executed the following procedures for the Financial Management module. Protect Commencement Activities • Reviewed the current project documentation to identify potential areas of risk based upon standard practices in packaged application implementations. The areas reviewed included: The contract between RCTC and Tyler Technologies, the EDEN application owner and the systems integrator. - The statement of work (SOW) for the RCTC project support contract with Schafer Consulting. • Developed an initial risk assessment based upon the review of these documents and discussions with the RCTC project management leadership. • Assessed and provided initial observations and recommendations on the project management foundation documents to include the risk management plan and process, the change management plan and process, the scope management plan and process, the cost accounting process and the communications plan and process. • Participated in initial project meetings to assess the proposed processes against better practices in project management. • Reviewed the results of the fit gap analysis of the application requirements conducted by Schafer Consulting. Assessed where potential risks exist for RCTC in acceptance of the application by its end users and in the ability of the application to support the business needs of the Commission. 4 93 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review Proiect Execution Review Activities • Assessed, through the use of industry standards, the effectiveness of the project controls in the following areas, on a monthly basis: - Project management including identification and management of scope, risks and issues, assessment of project schedule variance and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. - Cost management, project cost reporting and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. - Staffing management. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reviewed the current project documentation to identify potential areas of risk based upon standard practices in packaged application implementations. The areas reviewed included: • The contract between RCTC and Tyler Technologies, the EDEN application owner and the systems integrator. • The statement of work (SOW) for the RCTC project support contract with Schafer Consulting. 1.1. The contract with the systems integrator, Tyler Technologies, did not contain a requirement to provide a comparison between the RCTC business processes/legacy system and the EDEN solution. This lack of a fit - gap comparison during the project implementation process contributed to a schedule delay. 1.2. The contract with Schafer Consulting for Project Management services did not reflect the actual needs of RCTC. As the project evolved, the Schafer Consulting contract required significant revision to reflect the services that RCTC actually required. 1.1. For future software purchases, RCTC should define the functional requirements for the application and require vendors to describe how their software will meet or partially meet the requirements. This will allow RCTC to select the product that has a better fit for the Commission. 1.2. Prior to issuing an RFP for Project Management services, confer with a resource that has systems implementation experience to assist in defining the requirements for the services. 2. Assisted in development of an initial risk assessment based upon the review of the project documentation and discussions with the RCTC project management leadership. 2.1 The Risk Management process was established early in the project and was reviewed at each status call. 2.1 None 5 94 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review 3. Assessed and provided initial observations and recommendations on the project management foundation documents including the risk management plan and process, the change management plan and process, the scope management plan and process, the cost accounting process and the communications plan and process. 3.1 The project management foundation documents were developed in accordance with the Project Management Institute Project Management Book of Knowledge. The foundation documents were developed within the time frame defined in the project plan. 3_1 These documents should be reviewed and updated for the subsequent phases of the EDEN implementation. 4. Participated in initial project meetings to assess the proposed processes against leading practices in project management. 4.1 Intemal Audit participated in the project kick off meetings, project plan development sessions and deliverable review sessions. The RCTC PM used the Internal Audit expertise effectively to have project processes refined to reflect industry standard processes. In addition, The Tyler Technologies implementation team had many pre -established processes which reduced the time required to develop new project management processes. 4.1 These processes should be retained for future projects. 5. Reviewed the results of the fit gap analysis of the application requirements conducted by Schafer Consulting. Assessed where potential risks exist for RCTC in acceptance of the application by its end users and in the ability of the application to support the business needs of the Commission. 5.1 The fit gap analysis indicated a close fit for most of the RCTC processes. However, it took a significant amount of time to complete the fit gap analysis during the project contributing to the delay in the implementation. 5.2 RCTC made a strategic decision to change its business processes to reflect the process flow of the EDEN application. The decision to adapt the work flow of the EDEN application including the development of alternatives to existing processes reduced the implementation risk to RCTC. 5.1 Conduct the fit gap analysis before selecting a software product to reduce the risk to the Commission. 6 95 RCTC Internal Audit EDEN Implementation Process Review 6. Assessed, through the use of industry standards, the design of the project controls in the following areas, on a monthly basis: • Project management including identification and management of scope, risks and issues, assessment of project schedule variance and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. • Cost management, project cost reporting and a review of the actions taken to move the project back into control. • Staffing management. 6.1 The scope and schedule management processes were not established at the beginning of the project. These processes came under control approximately six weeks into the life of the project and remained in control for the remainder of Phase 1. Once the processes were established, cost, schedule, risk and issue management processes were followed. At each status meeting, the risk management log, project schedule, budget and issues were reviewed. 6.1 These processes should be followed for the subsequent EDEN implementation phases. Management's Response: Management concurs with the observations and recommendations. While the replacement of the Commission's legacy system had been contemplated, an opportunity occurred to be involved in the evaluation of and piggyback from a similar transportation agency's procurement sooner than anticipated. As a result, certain planning processes were not performed prior to the implementation. As the remaining modules are implemented, these processes will be followed. Management will consider these lessons learned in any future software implementation projects. Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer 7 96 • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2006/07 and 2007/08 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2006/07; and 2) Receive and file the TDA and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2007/08. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:. In April 2003, Caporicci & Larson (C&L) was selected to perform the audits of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, except for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which elected to select its audit firm. Additionally, in October 2005, the city of Beaumont was notified by the Commission to engage an audit firm to perform the financial and compliance audits of its transit and transportation funds commencing with FY 2003/04. The FY 2006/07 audits represent the fifth and final year that C&L performed these audits for the Commission. In March 2008, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM) was selected to perform the audits of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, except for RTA and the city of Beaumont. The FY 2007/08 audits represent the first year that MHM performed these audits for the Commission. These firms have completed the audits of and issued the audit reports for the local governments, non-profit agencies, and transit agencies that received TDA and Measure A funds. Agenda Item 7E 97 Following are highlights of the results of these audits: FY 2006/07 • The city of Beaumont transit fund did not meet the fare ratio requirement; this was the second non-compliance year. • Certain matters regarding matching requirements and program goals for trips or people served were not met; these matters have been considered for the Measure A specialized transit program changes for the two-year funding cycle beginning July 1, 2009. FY 2007/08 • The city of Beaumont transit fund did not meet the fare ratio requirement; this was the third non-compliance year. • Certain matters regarding allowable costs, matching requirements, and program goals for trips or people served were not met; these matters have been considered for the Measure A specialized transit program changes for the two-year funding cycle beginning July 1, 2009. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3, 4, and 8) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the years ended June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2008, and other financial and compliance information. Attachments: 1) FY 2006/07 2) FY 2006/07 3) FY 2006/07 4) FY 2006/07 5) FY 2006/07 6) FY 2007/08 7) FY 2007/08 8) FY 2007/08 9) FY 2007/08 10) FY 2007/08 Agenda Item 7E Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule • • 98 ATTACHMENT 1 6002/9/0 L 4E266 uclpag $ 9ZL Lbt $ 689 St. I. S 046 69 $ - S - $ 906'ZZ $ • $ 40E $ 429'6£ S • $ - S - $ - $ • $ lea/ Lo pua le sanuanw pampa s • sluawaleig leloueuld 002 :awns $ - S SZ6 S - s - s ZSL'SLE $ - $ - $ 07E9'6C) $ • S $ (60L'22) $ - $ 2£e'E2L $ lea/ Lo pia le seaueieq pun j SZS'94 - 22L'9L2 - - (4C9'0CL) • (SLS'9) - LLE'S mart Lo Bupupaq Le saouepq punj (009'S4) - 000'OO1 000'L6 (4E9'92) • 494'1314 semppuadxe(lapun) leap sanuanal Lo (Apualo0ap) ssecxa COL9 000'002 2L9'99L 22S'94 £4£'SS O24'£E 660'SZ £6 L'S4 - 260'L L£Z'9Z 960'021 samppuadxa ploy £L9'L9 000'002 us'B!L S26 E4E'94 OWes4 660'S2 E6L'S4 000'L6 Z60'L (L62) 9S0'OSL 69b'8L4 senuanaJmei See - - - 9$9'ZL - 2£ • 260'1 - (L46) 022 °Lem!t®mpi 000'OO2 • S26 000'OO1. • - - - 0$1. 44L'813 senuanal laglO 1e111O $29'09$ - $ ZL9'9eL $ - $ - it £4E'SS $ 29L'OZ $ 660'92 $ L91;44 $ 00016 S - $ - $ - $ 990'0S1.$ - $ E110114 auopeaolle leluawwano0ealul :senuanaa elnoawel app.maly epl Pe0:1 slued sBupdg %awn LelleA IMMO el pipe) iawol{ sBuudg euao0 APO eglAlB Buluueg Lo ApineO Med oualon MH uasaa lelpeyle7 LOOZ'OC aunt pepua /eel. elnpsyog C ehNV;DV luawdoiaaeO uoileyodsueul • • ATTACHMENT 2 600Z/9/01 04Z66 uol(oag APIs wee Aq pally wollpne Ja410 Ae paleldwos sown wowneas pue V18 Jol eppne aql l aloN Nuawalels lepuets j LOOZ :awns 1eW levy Ie1s1 levy levy leew Kw PIG leW sntels esuepdwaJ onw we j %£L'e4 %4914 %94'0E jet)) I. yoirtl 954411 %09'04 %00'01. `11004 %00'0Z %09'9 %CA 11 opal alai tenpv %OM) L %00'01 one.) alai pwlnbaa L9C'4447 $ C11'811'9 $ L09744$ 146'04 L'46 016'L6Z $ E98'6LZ $ Z9998Z $ JIMA Jo pue re enuenw panalep pool Z96'607 LL9766'9 94C'69 SO£'904 L9L'98Z E98'6LZ 6Z8'E91. Ieudeo 9LC1. $ 980'4ZL $ Z64'61. S 9E9'404 S £9171 S • $ EMU!. $ 6upeJad0 ueaA yo pus le anuenw panata0 L>_ 9'Se S 999'GU) '4t$ ow. oLZ $ o14'e49 S C96'06Z'Z S 6.ZL 1.91.7) $ ZCVSLC $ 8L8'9S0'8f 889'l86"{L 9LL'9£C 489186L 9l4'954'1 (4LL'C00'1) 404'069 (ZO4'sZL'Z) 69Z'449Z (990'99) (9LZ'OBC) LCS'4C9 1096764'0 (ELI'S 1E) 91,0'4ZZ'ZS 9S918LZ'64 £BC L84 LZB'LPL' Z seteLe'Z 8C9'9L6 Ze9'9L6 (94) - 9C4 ZC9 C96 LC9'8Z (L49'C8L) - - 00L'St 698'99 JeeA to pus le Slam leN JeeA 10 Cusss0e0 le sleese leN (memo) esewsui IaN (esuedxa) anuenw BupeJadouou lelol 18410 elel1(0e 011110P Peep kenooaa Aueserd to ales uo (sso) ule0 Ono) ul weysuwl (6 MN) Memel 10 luau/Nun (MVO (SLL) - esuedxe lsalapp 46Z$6L L4C'OoZ 046'L COS' ll - 849'ZL etu03u11selelul Z64'004 86L'O4£ - - - !MOO 9Z9'OZ1 991'409'8 - • Osumi( pazllepeds V wnseow 869'60[7 C66'C9C1 - 466761 S49'99L - laepej 609'£107 1.08794 Z1676 £L6'01 OL6'644 CL9'L2 201.1elslssV Osuwl sum 9C93,09'04 9097'09'14 49Z19 IL SU'9E6'l 9Le 19E'4 4£4'LC6 spun] uoseuodsue4 wool :sweJO :(sesuedxe) selwanel 6unsmouoN (L44'94b'iS) (99£'SC9'e1) (84e'E9s) (4onas'Z) (99Z'44S'l) (oso'L411.) Om'C6t'0 ssol BwleAdO 906'6E219 044'IZZ'OZ MI/46 CZ 4'OC81 11Z9'CLL'4 SC9'61E'4 OSB'90C'I sesuedxe& made !owl 9E6'16631 LS4'BLS'BL LLL'l L8 ZSL'44YZ 11Z'Z la& 699'890'I. 9E0'040'1 sasuadxa BuOwatlo JNO0 OLS'8CZ'L 686'tOL'l 84e'COI 11C'Sef Ltf'L9L 9L0191. 91.9'9EZ uoyexluowe pue uopepwde0 :sesuedxe 6uswed0 694'£8L'L S 4L0'98S'E $ 9L9'09 $ ZZ6'10C $ OLZ'6ZZ S 98911 S O90'£tt $ senuenw 6upwado lets' VlU eununs VLMd eplwenw sumo wownees 6uluue9 LODZ'OC eunf pepu3 Am, elnPe4109 4 61011JV 10V wewdolene0 uollepodsueLy • • • Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 8 Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Source: 2007 Financial Statements County of Blythe Riverside $ 627,556 $ 269,339 245,296 30,909 872,852 300,248 461,198 222,552 411,654 77,696 (830,874) 410,957 $(419,220) $ 488,653 • Summary of Observations (Article 8 allocations for Western County and Coachella Valley ended in 1993 and 1987, respectively, as available LTF funds are now used to meet transit needs. Article 8 allocations for Palo Verde Valley are subject to an annual unmet needs hearing.) 1 Blythe has negative fund balance, although it has been decreasing with Article 8 allocations. £1N3WH3V11d Section 99400 (a) 10/8/2009 ATTACHMENT 4 600Z19l01 oat!. pezpioads y alnseaw lureus!nbal ynlew leaw!eu pip I00406 BnPV luowneea b 'uonelustunaop Buproddns pus uopeuLolul peuodeJ ueeeeeq sepuede]0s!p pee sepueee sums'pepel spode] a wenb puopes Jed 6 peNasipau!eq B!dged Jq SCIA ReM•Bpp JaBu6eaed 101 pea paw IOU plp sapuafie ma) y Z '11.06 yetaw pun-u!pue ore mem pepanxe lnq gVBWBJInbeJ ealew yseo pew IOU pp sepusee!MAIDS t sBulpuld pus omoZ 'OE aunp emus al0h9 lueow lsow saloho Leah-oMl ul pepinad we slueib llsuell pazlle!oads y amseaW) suonemesg0 to Aewwns swewelelS lepueuid LOOZ :aomos leo6 6606lleie60 IMMO le06 men° lea llelen0 papaeoxe papaaova pepaeoxe pepaaoxa law :law law 'lee] lou yolew lou uolew lou yoiew iou yolew 161^1 le 146e0 laW MIN NI 10N � laW gssa len laW mg yseo yseo weep eouepdwoo wawwinbai yomy • $ 4 6ZL 913t $ • $ 000Z6 $ - S - $ 991•Z$ $ - $ OSL ZIL $ L08'990 $ 9L4'S $ 9Z9'21.1. 4 pup!w-yolew lenloy 00S'L01 S 969'14Z $ - S $00'06 $ 991.'£9L $ 9L4'Et $ esb'4Z S 99L'bZ $ 9b9'Z6 $ LZ9'ZE $ 6Z9'9C $ 6L17'601 $ 96L'S£ 4 yseo-yolew lenloy - $ - 4 04d91.1. $ • $ 699'0$ $ - $ • $ - $ - $ OSL'Ztt $ ES9'no $ OZo'L $ 4l4'L9 $ pupi w-luaweJlnbet yomn 90£'9S1. $ $69'16Z S 9£6'L $ $00'0b S 9Z9'1.91. $ OL4'91 $ 954'n$ 000'04 S 9Z6'69 $ LZ9'ZE $ £ZZ'lE $ 499'9L $ 9f8'I4 $ yseo-lueweAnbal yoleW $ - $ 09Z'L $ 119'1. $ Z9Z't S $69'L $ VE6'fi $ • $ 9£1'9 $ - $ Z£9'E $ 0££'OZ $ - $ slsoo peaudan0 S00 LE $ Bf L'84 $ 1,081b $ (601.'ZZ) $ LOS'LLL $ I. $ 9BBL $ (sal 'OL)$ • S (9L0'bj $ (4ZL) s 445'BL s CLUE S Jeah}o pua le slasse leN - V1N - Z9S'E - 941.'9Z yeah to Buluw6aq le slasse laN ($00'1.E) 6$011, 406'0 (601.'ZZ) Vint I. I. 999'4 (9L0'O0 (SLo'4) ME'6) 445'6t (bLE'ZZ) slasse Lau ul Otago t ie'b6Z Lowest. 09'961 et. CZOl OL4'LBZ soon, 646'96 Ze9'OEL £L4'Z9t Lev= Z4S'Z99 ose'Lsz 96L'904 seinypuadxa le8deo/sasuadxe 6ugerddo ploy 9$L'EL - 1.90'Z4 £LL'Z9 - •- - - - LI.VSZ samppuadxsle6cleo $90'L9Z 960'lt es0'09 L69'Zfl 904'94 Le4'14 99b'9L £Lb'Z91. Lb9'L LZ 900'L6£ 906'49Z E90'49Z yseo-sesuedxe 6ugala60 - 1.908£4 6Z1'994 • 000'Z6 - 994'4Z 991'n OSL'ZLL LOS'SSb 9L4'9 9Z9'Ll4 pup! ul-sesuedxa 13u6e.ia00 909'f9Z 00L'994 6ZL'LOZ 01.0'09 LL6'66£ 604'94 9£8'LB 4S9'OZIL fLVZ91 ZZ£'9Z£ 90e949 1,36'09Z ZZb'49£ senuanei6upaledolelol 90$'991, $69'44Z - $00'06 99t'E91. 9L4'Et - 9es'£Z 948'Z6 awes - eos'L5 96L'££ enuanal l0410 - 6ZL'Se1 000'Z6 - esvez 99L'ZS 0$L'ZL1. L09'$$V 9L4'9 9Z9'Llt anuanal pupa-ul • - - - - Mel. - E9Z Ob6'L9 • swam! lsalalul 009'2.01 S s00'L4Z 4 000'9l $ 400'O4 $ s4L'4Zt $ ££6'ZE $ LL£'EL$ 009'£4 $ 6Z9'69 $ 906'094 S 91.4'Z6E S 000'S91. $ 0001£Z $ yadnseeW sanuanal 6uneJe00 loelad Jeweo ySV9 mum Llunoo loolloS voddns 6alleA omoN}o hllo ialua0 Bum snxxeuuoo ueA-y-aleo SOIV NOM Ie01peN1 aplsowm rawalnos 4npy sseupu119 oueloW iaewnloA wapuedepul also peuol6aa }o luowneaS }o spuepd Jq Aunoo gnlo sum dweleuyed eplsmouH g shoe LOOZ %le aunt' pepua iea/, alnpayaS3leueil pazllel0ad$ y alnseaW • • • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 I 1 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure $ 793,325 $ 621,891 $ 7,764 $ 5,359,619 $2,207,830 $ 1,229,953 $ 4,728,786 $2,520,817 Measure A/STIP Trade - - Reimbursements from regional arterial program/other _ Other revenues 510 76,258 468,604 Interest income 36,524 6,475 22,135 523,936 237,976 46,366 423,345 448,083 Other financing sources -transfers in - - 21,091 - - Other financing sources -Measure A loan proceeds Total revenues 829,849 628,366 29,899 5,905,156 2,445,806 1,276,319 5,228,389 3,437,504 Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance - 1,225,704 3,647 8,824,125 1,600,772 925,404 1,183,629 2,619,395 Capital outlay - - - - Regional arterial improvements - _ - Overhead allocations 13,000 71,845 Debt service: Principal 445,928 Interest - 72104 _ Transfers out 118,144 - - 1,038,489 145,000 100,000 Total expenditures and other financing uses 118,144 1,225,704 16,647 10,452,491 1,600,772 1,070,404 1,283,629 2,619,395 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and 711,705 (597,338) 13,252 (4,547,335) 845,034 205,915 3,944,760 818,109 Prior period adjustment/rounding 1 313,998 - (23,754) 104,227 (5,765) Fund balances at beginning of year 471,483 920,225 587,172 12,464,364 4,616,415 991,722 7,830,774 8,387,505 Fund balances at end of year $ 1,183,189 $ 322,887 $600,424 $ 8,231,027 $ 5461 449 $ 1 173 883 $11,879,761 $9,199,849 Western Count Banning Beaumont Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murrleta Measure A LSR 1 of 6 10/8/2009 51N TAI HOVI_L d Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30,2007 1 I Western Count rL Banning Beaumont Calimesa Corona Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley Murdeta Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $ 29,900 $ - $ - $ 2,080,973 $ 4,306,300 $ 601,866 $ 2,007,802 $ Reserved for debt service _ _ _ Reserved for continuing appropriations _ _ Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp - - - 6,150,054 351,207 - 9,871,959 - Unreserved, undesignated 1,153,289 322,887 600,424 - 803,942 572,017 - 9,199,849 Total fund balances by component $1,183,189 $ 322,887 $600,424 $ 8,231,027 $5,461,449 $ 1,173,883 $11,879,761 $9,199,849 Fund balance by year received: 2007 $ 829,849 $ 322,887 $ 29,899 $ 5,905,156 $ 2,445,806 $ 1,173,883 $ 5,228,389 $ 3,437,504 2006 353,340 - 221,311 2,325,871 2,217,483 - 5,391,619 2,832,243 2005 186,766 - 798,160 - 1,25.9,753 2,260,225 2004 162,448 _. ., 669,877 2003 j 1998 0 Total fund balances by year received $1,183,189 $ 322,887 $600,424 $ 8,231027 $5,461,449 $ 1,173,883 $11,879,761 $9,199,849 CO Cash and investments $ 1,037,965 $ 149,618 $584,442 $ 8,090,627 $ 6,121,271 $ 1,030,280 $11,350,632 $8,746,740 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2007 Financial Statements Notes: 1 2 The audit for Beaumont was completed by other auditors hired by the city. Calimesa, Murdeta, and Temecula were incorporated subsequent to the 1989 Measure A. Therefore, the maintenance of effort requirement is not applicable to these cities. Mee A LSR • $ $ $ $ 1,038,862 $ $ - $ - $ $ 2,896,301 $9,235,403 N/A $ 26,823,202 $ 3,089,654 $10,161,784 $22,456,935 N/A Met Met N/A Met Met through Met Met N/A carryover 2 9f 6 10119 • a Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A Measure A/STIP Trade Reimbursements from regional arterial program/other Other revenues Interest income Other financing sources -transfers in Other financing sources -Measure A loan proceeds Total revenues Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance Capital outlay Regional arterial improvements Overhead allocations Debt service: Principal Interest Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and Prior period adjustment/rounding Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Western County r I Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto C9tlferr5T Temecula City Coachella Valley MOM 14oT' Coachella Springs $ 972,248 $ 1,414,006 $ 10,969,258 $ 786,375 $ 3,764,474 $1,709,647 $ 564,649 $ 418,802 - - - - 204 38,442 (6,643) 192,990 139,844 1,442,684 86,299 179,092 126,618 - 13,436 - 46,525 - - 21,684 1,165,238 1,600,375 12,411,942 872,674 3,943,566 1,858,153 603,091 425,595 1,365,178 1,343,678 - - 14,749,575 17,207 210,758 187,867 26,586 26,996 402,918 20,000 2,005,440 1,595,748 (840,202) 4,627 12,533 1 3,867,384 2,383,543 $3,039,715 $ 2,388,171 14,749,575 (2,337,633) (108,331) 29,454,152 $ 27,008,188 32,604 128,500 18,486 97,699 277,269 595,405 1,270,340 $ 1,865,745 - 779,857 - 1,284,243 136,736 494,211 71,018 3,116,000 3,681,229 282,337 (220,116) 5,914,359 $ 5,956,580 163,797 2,364,633 (506,480) 2,705,810 $2,199, 330 531,107 • 1,588,434 1,588,434 531,107 (985,343) (105,512) (20,155) 1 1,798,632 367,647 $ 793,134 $ 262 136 Measure A LSR 3 of 6 10/8/2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for debt service Reserved for continuing appropriations Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 1998 Total fund balances by year received Cash and investments Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2007 Financial Statements Notes: 1 The audit for Beaumont was completed by other auditors hired by the city. 2 Calimesa, Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated subsequent to the 1989 Measure A. Therefore, the maintenance of effort requirement is not applicable to these cities. Measure A LSR • Western County 1 Norco Perris CM%M r Coachella Valley 13888R AoT' Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Springs $ - $ 389,215 3,404,524 2,650,500 2,388,171 18,019,214 $3,039,715 $ 2,388,171 $ 27,008,188 $ 5,584,450 $ 24,582 $ - $ - $ - $ 750,000 1,091,163 5,956,580 2,199,330 793,134 $ 1,865,745 $ 5,956,580 $2,199,330 $ 793,134 $ • 262,136 262,136 $1,165,238 $ 1,600,375 $ 12,411,942 $ 872,674 $3,943,566 $1,858,153 $ 603,091 $ 262,136 1,171,210 787,796 10,483,994 381,214 2,013,014 341,177 190,043 703,267 - 4,112,252 611,857 $3,039,715 $ 2,388,171 $27,008,188 $ 1,865,745 $5,956,580 $2,199,330 $ 793,134 $ 262,136 $2,997,824 $ 2,164,760 $ 24,467,537 $ 465,844 $ 5,358,321 $2,349,471 $ 237,853 $ 183,560 $ 389,215 $ 384,041 $ - $ 263,335 $ 1,012,780 $ - $ - $ $3,342,118 $ 13,654,188 $ 30,957,091 $12,347,834 N/A $4,135,431 $4515,827 $$ 322,776 Met Met Met Met N/A Met Met Met 4�f 6 10409 • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A Measure A/STIP Trade Reimbursements from regional arterial program/other Other revenues Interest. income Other financing sources -transfers in Other financing sources -Measure A loan proceeds Total revenues Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance Capital outlay Regional arterial improvements Overhead allocations Debt service: Principal Interest Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and Prior period adjustment/rounding Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Coachella Valley Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs 1 Palo-96� r 1 1 Valley I I ROTC% 1 County of Mirage Blythe I Riverside $ 258,807 $ 1,721,228 1,428,182 10,734 117,545 4,000,000 269,541 7,266,955 7,614,183 450,000 450,000 (180,459) 335,625 7,949,808 (682,853) 1 396,333 2,153,495 $ 215,874 $ 1,470,643 $ 2,726,096 $ 1,910,536 4,109,966 347,814 444,714 330,291 7,280,776 2,588,641 4,085,052 1,457,495 4,085,052 3,195,724 527,627 1,985,122 603,519 (1) 7,826,652 6,013,381 $ 11,022,375 $ 6,616,900 $ 999,632 262,573 136,315 $ 835,440 513,637,795 595,045 • 81,412 1,162,526 1,398,520 1,511,897 14, 800, 321 192,647 61,923 798,539 192,647 860,462 1,205,873 651,435 2,386,251 1,743,180 $ 3,592,124 $ 2,394,615 13,600,302 13,600,302 1,200,019 (2,808,071) 23,088,882 $ 21,480,830 Measure A LSR 5 of 6 10/8/2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2007 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for debt service Reserved for continuing appropriations Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 j 1998 Total fund balances by year received Cash and investments Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2007 Financial Statements Notes: 1 The audit for Beaumont was completed by other auditors hired by the city. 2 Calimesa, Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated subsequent to the 1989 Measure A. Therefore, the maintenance of effort requirement is not applicable to these cities. Measure A LSR • Coachella Valle Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs ') FdPd1747dr r c1 - 1 Valley 1 170 7 Mirage Blythe County of Riverside 1 I 1 1 $ $ 733,373 $ 10,466,996 $ 20,889 $ - $ 10,277,549 14,162,360 215,874 1,470,643 11,453 (18,012,456) $ 215,874 $ 1,470,643 $ 11,022,375 $ 6,616,900 $ 4,432,850 (861,615) 2,394,615 3,592,124 $ 2,394,615 21,480,830 $21,480,830 $ 215,874 $ 1,470,643 $ 7,280,776 $ 2,588,641 $ 1,398,520 $ 1,511,897 $14,800,321 - 3,237,893 2,318,096 2,193,804 882,718 6,680,509 503,706 1,710,163 $ 215,874 $ 1,470,643 $ 11,022,375 $ 6,616,900 $ 3,592,124 $ 2,394,615 $21,480,830 172,146 $ 1,823,914 $ 8,693,953 $ 6,643,697 $ 3,463,033 $ 1,646,205 $21,223,993 - $ - $ - $ - $ $19,122,669 $ 31,641,383 $ 94,533,856 $ 25,140,424 $ 28,586,544 $ 4,559,595 N/A Met Met Met Met Met Met lA 6 4i6 800Z/9/0 $ ATTACHMENT 6 b£Z66 uoaoa$ a1vaLue1e1$ lepueul j sow '.aano$ 9Z1'LV1S 000'$01 $ LLS'6 $ 010'SL $ - S • $ - $ • $ 6BS'SL1 $ - $ .1e9L to pua le se(1uanaU peue)e0 1.61.'B $ 196'£ $ - $ SZe $ $ £64'OS£ $ • $ $ (610'££2) $ (0>9'OZ) $ JeaA Jo pus le senueleq punj SZ6 - ZS l'SL£ - (4Ee'ee) (eOCZ£1 SEe'£ZL Jeoi to 6uluulOaq le eaoueleq paid a99 luaugsn(pe potted loud Pet e L96'E (60L'4Z1 b£9'6£ (PLL'LOZ) (SL91,61.) 9Sb'SSZ pepun) lens ul swJsue11 pue senuenel to (4oualoea0) sseox3 (1n0) ul velsuuJi eel'e 196'£ - (eOLbZ) V£9'6£ (4LL'LIZ) (L0L'OOb) saelepuedxe (Japun) lano senuanal to (Aouepgap) aseox3 eL 1Ysh 6$6'ZL1 000'011 1£9'1$ ESL' LW S90'SS1 999'60 610'ZOZ 010'OZL samllpuadxa lelOG ZL£'S90 196$ 696'ZL1 000'011 L£9'Ls oenaz S90'eSL mete 59Z eLB'eL£ sanuenel 111MI 4el'e 196'£ - LLe'LL - - SOL mewl lsaualul - Sin Sanuenal law) - wee - - /a410 91 VLSI'S - $ 6S6'ZL IS 000'011$ 0£6'Ze $ L em. $ 990'551$ oos'69 S - $ OL1'61£ $ £elo!W :SUOIM00116 1aluawlu enc6l91ui senuenea epla�enla oluloep ue$ amen% awed aBuudS 6epeq a eulsl3 1ewel1 AIO 6uluues Jo Alum° wled oueloW enei leipa41e0 son .0t aunt pepu3 AMA elnpayOS t ale1W 10•0 luowdclena0 uopapodsue4 • 6(mz/9roG ATTACHMENT 7 ague uopeg 'AtHue goes AEI pagy =suns Ando Aq pelaldwoo went tuownea8 pue y143 J W stlpne all r5r0r1 stuawatets poueuld 900Z :somas tall WIN last last test OA Apued is lest snlels acuepdwoc ope ated moil) last loN %0ESIZ„, %9L'OZ Mt' Ll %£0'£t 51,96.9; 4t0)39 %KZL use eel !espy %99YL %BULL %000t %00.01. %0012 %00'Ol %00.0L ()pet Biel probed L9L'L9C401.$ Men 8$ 10'1.41$ EOVISZL'Z$ 401't£4 $ £99'OE9 $ SLL'ZSZ $ Le£'982'8 814'S5L'9 6LL'S9 BZO'6S4't tte'£6Z £99'0£/ S/9'E6 491E0901 $ 9$0'£6l'1 $ ZEC9L $ SLe019 $ £BZ'L$L $ • $ OEC8S1 $ teaA to pua to anuanat pilule!) letol Isllde° (iugetadO :JeeA to pue 1e enuana pumps 9 tK6SS'SC $ ZLt ze9'£Z$ L90'9Ll $ 9£49E9 $ 6ZZ'440'Z $ (044'£Se) $ 98994Z $ teeA to pus le stesse teN LLS'££8'S£ $98'9Z0'41 60 L'OLZ 0weL4 E96'06Z'Z WV LS L'Z) ZEZ'SLE teeA to BusxzEteq to stesse leN (191'4LZ) LO£'959'8 (Z10'ZB) 9Z0'91.9 (421'942) 4BZ'9Bt I. (srovez0 (eseatoep) assents MN 49Z'89 VW 9t CS6Z'9Z 489'20$ 596'Ler$ 998'91-S't ££9'lL£Y L94'441.'t (esuadxa) anuanat 6usetadouou lel% 96Z'L9Z'1 - 000'0Z • - - 01.8'9Z ta410 09L'04 (OlS'ES) SZS'9 (S49' L) - Auedad p sties uo (ssos) ule0 • 6Ll't (mete) Ono) is stelslleil f499'69£) - - esuedze Isamu! Z L L'BLL'l 9$9'961 S$8'9 e64't5 8B0'LZ BBC's p9Z'A awoous lseatul 14,V9Z OZ9'ZSZ - - - - Ja410 _ 9l uosssoded t L9'091 Ooo'8£l£ - tlsuet penepeds y enseall 989'L40'Zt Se£'OL8'9 - L8Z'1.99 • - letapad LL6'8L9 Z91'Z96't 99e'L 009'8ZZ 949'L9 99L'$9 eouetslssy BsueJl stets ZOVI.S013E EES'LZE'Ll S69'S9L OeOeS£Y OZ£'4St'l LZ9'99E'Z L6 CM' I. spend uopeuodsueL pool :sluet0 :(cesuedxa) senuanat BuseadouoN (SB£'Z94'£S) (609'9E6'90 (9EL'969) (6$6'6L9'Z) (Z L9'E9L'Id (699'ELl'1.) (1.0l'Ca t) secs Busead0 C90'1.9L'l9 4L41,217 891'£98 99$'26t'£ £LL'92L'Z LZL'992'1 ESZ'8L£'l sesuedxs Buseado lelol LZO'S£C45 LS9'90o'OZ 609'OL8 LLS'448'Z iLS'8£8'L £LL'960'L 4ZL'99l'l sasuedza 6usetado Jays° 9£0'9L0'L LL9'69Z'Z 09S'Z6 1.50'89E =see 4S6'LSL 6ZS'80Z uoperspowe pue uorsoatde0 :sesuedxe & send° senuene Busetado setol 899'98Z'8 $ S99'9£9'£ $ £94'99 $ 60921.E $ LOC£9£ $ 9L9'91 $ ZSC'SOL $ y1S surging vim,' apsutazgj eucuo° tuowneas Bwuueg s son '0£ eunp pepu3 JOB), oppugn 4 elosPy toy luewdosena0 uogsyodsu eq. ATTACHMENT 8 600Z/8/04 (e) 00466 uopoes .yeaA Loud wa} pesewoul sey Low 'eoueleq pun} enge6eu sey eVis l (tuueay spaeu;awun lenuue ue o; pal -cps aae AelieA epian oled Jo} suogeoope g ap pv 'speau psuei;;sew o; pesn mou we spun} 10 algeHene se 'Rlanl;oadsw 'Lg64 pue £66l ul papua AageA epa1-10e30 pue Aunoo wa;sem Jo} suogeoope g aloluy) suoRwuesgO }o tuewwns s;uawa;e;s lepueuid 800Z :aanos 596`994 $ (98L'££9)$ JeaA }o pua;e saoueleq pund 899'884 (OZZ'644) JeaAJo 6upul6eq;e saoueleq pund 4ZL'6Z s;uew;snipe potted loud (Z6$'64£) (999'44Z) sampuadxa (Jepun) JOAO senue/kw }o (Aouepyap) sseox3 L89'OLE 999'664 sawn;lpuadxa le}ol 56Z`4Z 000'99Z senuanw le;ol 56Z` 4 Z awooul ;saia;ul 000'S8Z sanuenw Ja4110 $ - $ 8 elo!id :suopeooge le;uawwano6Ja;ul :sanuanaa eplsJanla }o Aluno0 egVie 800Z'OE aunp papua yea,, alnpayag g ala;}w;ay;uewdolenea uogepodsueal • • • ATTACHMENT 9 600Z/9/04 llsue�l p9z5epads y al seaw 13W (lends uo sena 1311 ;ou;m9law L 2 L s6wpuld pus Woos'OE eunf dulpue apao luaaaJ;sow 'sep6o lee6-am; w peplmd ale slue& &sued pe lie)oeds y amseaw) suopenlasgp to Mewwns 13W 191^4 131.41 131,4 13W 'uogquawnoop 6uryoddns pus Uogeuuqu! peLoda uaamlaq sapuadaalm PRY capuaBe cams'pa{Sal saada Alen P+ly{�oj paNaS 04004.10 sap Jol 1000100w pa pip sapue6e ma/ y 'auawambel pum•ulm ova paw Ku pp smaua6e mal y Puna! Waal! (Pawl al (Tape uW Itleaxe Ian lo; Idaaxa law enp)13n loN ua "5" 100Ian IoN 13141 S 919 Z4G $ - $ 004'6L9 $ • $ - S SLZ L $ 66Z 09Z $ 040 s $ 95Z'9L $ 9LE 9£ $ - $ • g 944'66 $ - $ 994'52Z S 904'al $ L94'4L $ LLS'SZG S £6C6£ $ 'tote S SLe'on $ 59E'49 s S66's6 $ Ob L'b2 s tL6'OZ $ S 5L9 Z4l $ - $ 964191, $ - $ - $ 000 L $ 099'9£Z $ OZO L $ 694'9e S 179Z'Lb $ - $ • $ 2e0$Z S $ 94£'L9Z $ Van $ 9L L'SL S 000'40L $ 000.6E $ Z4L'51, $ £ZZ'Ee s 4LL'E4 $ L9L'L9 $ L£0'SZ S LOV01. S $ Ze6'OZ S - $ 96G'9Z $ - $ 045'4 $ s;uawalels lepueuly 9002 ewnos sn;els aoue0dwoo wewannbaa gown pup ul-4o;ew lumpy yseo-4olew len;oy purl ul-Guewerbei yolen yseommweenbal yolen $ £Z9'EZ $ - $ - $ OL5't $ L69 $ s;soo peewenp $ 9E06 $ BZO'99 $ £BL' LZ $ $ (94b'4) $ 969'4 S 169'L9 $ $ 0S4'£ $ 6$9'6L $ ZL5'4 $ L $ leeL;o pue le s;esse leN - 6EG'64 - - 4064 LLL'£ LOWELL 999'L G IeaR W Buluupe q le slasse;aN Be0'6 629'9G see - (sb4'4) 569'4 £66'29 - (GZE) (Z179'Z£) 999'Z - slesse;au ul anyp LZS'LL 2 ri= bbZ'445 0E6'5£Z'1 EL9'Lbl ZZO'OEL 994'6e 6BS'06Z 949'9Z£ L96'L9E 606'6£Z 995'96 9ZL'Lb samllpuedxe lelldeo(sesuedxa Bugeiado lelol - 459 - - 90Z'9Z 009'91. - selnllpuedxe le;ldeo LZ5'GL L09'E9G 46Z'145 0E0'959 EL9'L41 991'6ZZ utze o6Z'0£ 909'as Eos'49Z ££0'L9G 995'96 9ZL'L4 yseo-sasuedxe 6u9eiad0 - 914Z41 004'6L9 SGZ'L 66Z09Z 040'5 95Z'9L 9GE'9£ - - pupal w-sesuadxa Bupaued0 LZS'LL £15V9£E SE G'099 2GZYSZ'l EL9'L4G LLS'SZZ 1.91'46 Z95'ELS 949'9ZE 949'L9£ L92'LOZ 4SZ66 9ZL'G4 sanuenal 6upeded0 lel01 946'64 - 994'59Z 904'LZG L95'4L LLS'SZL £6 G'6£ 'tote 909'941. 59£'49 S66'56 Obl'OZ ZL6'OZ enuenaw lag10 - 5G9'Z4G - 004'6L9 - - 9LZ'L 66Z'09Z 040'5 99Z'9L 9LE'96 - enuemu pupal -up - 06Z - 01.9'L - - - Z4Z'£ ewooul;maw! Z90'ZZ s ess'ZBG s 999'4LZ S 965'944 $ 9Lt'£L $ 000'00G $ ELL'L6 $ 000.0E S 000'521. S SZO'94Z $ 969'4L $ 611'5L S 41.9'0Z $ y emsean roue s Jewsp Aewep BUM 1 onioN loefad LelleA V'SY0 snaxau :sanuane� Bulieledp uop ueA-y-a�ep punop >roddng pooyos 99939114M GeewnloA Isom uepuedspup Jo Amo say puepup oualo ! aep 1saM41nos sseupull9 ;Inpy leuolBea 101 to spueuj solo o luowneag 9n10 J Munop dlysJeuPed apiweni>d g sAog BOOZ'0£ eunr pepu3 JeaA efnpeyos llsuell pezuspeds y emseew • • • 600Z/9/01 ATTACHMENT 10 910 t 169'469'91$ 19L'6L9' l l 0£ 1'91L'£ 6Z6'999'Z 1Z1'Z 499'89L'L $ £88`£L 1' L (1Zl'60 Z68'£L9 £96'LLL 000'0Z 1 99£'LZO'4 $ 644'194'9 L (960'044' L) L L 4'Z£9`£ 8081799'Z £94'L99 L14'Z£9'£ 690'Z9Z'9 9L£'16£'1 ZZ£'Z6l'Z 911'999 £86'49 Z90'981 84L'L9£' L L40'6 E61'6E£'4 $ 94£'LL£'1 $ 09Z'L00'Z $ 16Z'990'6 $ E99'L9£$ SO9'99L$ $ L94'8£L $ LZO'L£Z'9 000'091 4Z4'009 L8s= 66L'serl (1) 49Z'LZ8 019'909'4 £L 1'6 £LZ'84 09L'694 £L9'Z4 l£8'9£6'£ 4L8'Z££'9 918'Z94 16E'9 £99'LOZ 9L9'99 Z£9 440'99 lBl'884 (L88'ZZ£) (LZL1444) 96£'lLZ Z94'LLO'l 4Z9'16£'4 994'99Z o0Z'S 961'90Z Z94'LLO'l 89£'9£1'1 6£1'SLZ LL9'66£ 969'49L £01'L46 604'Z 994'6Z 169'49 ZZ9'9£ - 000'LOZ 999'91. 899'4L9'4 $ 0£L'OLZ$ 9Z4'£9£$ 400'069 $ 194'40L $ ham ouaiolq aiouls13 enia l lawaH NM euomo alle l esawlle0 luownees 6uluues Aluno0 werlsem I USl y amseaW read to pue le seaueleq pund mai }o 6uluwfiaq le saoueleq pund 6ulpunoupuawlsnfpe polled Loud pue samllpuedxe Oapun)19n0 sanuenai to (A0ual0yap) sseox3 sasn 13w0ueuy Ja1.110 pue samllpuadxa lelol lno sia;sued lse.1a;ul 1000Upd :a0uues ;qa0 suone0olle pea pan0 sluawanadwl 10110pe leuol6aa Benno lewle0 peayuano annensiwwpy Je410 aoueualulew pue uonon.lsuo0 :sasn 6upueuu iaylo pue samlipuedx3 senuenal le;ol ul sialsuen-satunos 6upueugl9410 aw00y lsa.1alul sanuanalJaw° JayloAuei6ad leueue leuol6ai Luau. sluawasmgwla l 1a410-y amseaW y amsealy suone0ope leluawwano6Jalul :sanuanaa 800Z 'OE aunt pepua JeaA alnpay0s speoa pue %Dams pool y amseayy • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2008 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for prepaid items Reserved for debt service Reserved for continuing appropriations Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total fund balances by year received Cash and investments Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2000 Financial Statements I I Banning Beaumont Calimesa Lake $ - $ 738,467 $ 738,467 $ $ 738,467 $ 'C rrgn - $ • $ Western Count Corona 00 Hemet Lake Elsinore Moreno Valley - $ 1,069,947 $ 1,359,815 $ 686,366 $ 3,567,414 2,330,274 - 788,605 367,563 7,988,344 331,266 - $ 788,605 $ 367,563 ,$ 9 058,291 $ 4,021 355 $399,577 $273,139 29,899 94,424 221,311 137,818 - 14,092,060 1,082,288 (2,064,583) $ 1,768,654 $15,594891 $ 5,332,874 $ 2,192,322 $ 1,391,375 $ 6,292,059 3,725,417 1,829,033 377,279 5,228,389 . - - - 4,084,443 $ 738,467 $ - $788,605 $387,563 $ 9,058,291 $4,021,355 $ 1,768,654 $15,594,891 $ 806,792 $ - $ 792,990 $ 327,447 $ 8442 438 $ 4.361,905 $ 1,568,313 $14 773 179 $ - $ $ - $ - $ 569102 $ _ $ - $ • $ 2,860,305 $11,053,465 Met w/use of Met excess N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 30,787,958 $ 1,938,024 $11,015,721 $26,066,015 Met Met w/use of Met Met excess Notes! 1 The audit for Beaumont was completed by other auditors hired by the city. 2 Calimesa Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated subsequent to the 1989 Measure A. Therefore, the maintenance of effort requirement Is not applicable to these citis Measure A LSR • 2of6 • 600Z/9/01. ;peep sl0£ ZZ4'm $ L99'L59'4$ 4£4'£61. 049'90L'Z (L4Z'9) (9Z0'99) (99L'Z£Z) (946'466) 004'594 449'999'Z 004'991 6Ze'4£Z 9L6'661'9 $ 099'996'9 (4) L6£'E4Z'Z 499'944'4 000'9L9 L04'e4 L44'G 4S Z4e'£££'Z - 9£9'Z95 £ZL'9L5'1. 909'0L 616'44 040'96 £Z4'Z 641'Z • £99'6L9 94L'999' L l $ 949'4E4'94 $ 690'949'Z $ 40Z'069'Z$ 644'L90'01.$ 994'900'LZ LLL'99£'Z 5LL'6£0'£ 649'664'6 (4) (4£4'L£Z) (£99'996) (OL£'9LZ'9) £OZ'L£9'4 444'69£'4Z 6£Z'699 909'Z 4 Z49'4£ 4' L 1 46'0£ 444'69E'trZ 496'999'£ 04£'LS9 4L0'£LL'94 Z£L'seZ 9£4'69 94£'960'4 OLL'LL9'L E6Z'9E9 $ 990'99449 64Z'404'£S 40Z'Z9L $ 696'9£E'L 999'49Z (£L9'6174) 490'9Z4'4 ££9'S94'4 lGt'SZl'L 61.9'££4'Z 000'SZ L9Z'94 994'94 00L'964 4£0'64Z 96E'4 949'9176 649'2.e9 £Z4'Z£4'Z 40L'044'4 999'946 ES9'999'E 449'4Z4 seen 4 46Z'4£5 (4Z 4'9) $ La's Le' $ £66'01 $ 69S'4Z0'£ 2!S 1 d aJnsealnJ Jea/;o pua le saoueleq punA Jean p0 6uluul6aq le saoueleq pund 6uipunaquaLupsnlpe pound loud pue saffe puedxa (Japun) Jana senuaneu }o (douaioyap) ssaox3 sasn 6upueuy eagle pue sarlipuedxa epol ;no sJelsuali lsaJapu� iedipuud :aopuas lga0 sumaope peayJano swawanadwi leualJe leug6apj AeOnoieWeo peayJanO 0n10115!wwpy 19140 aoueualwew pue uopnJlsuo9 :sasn 6uipueu0 Jaw pue saJnepuedx3 sanuanaJ�elol ui sJausuee-saanos 6upueuu Jaym awopul psaJapu sa0u0n01191.1}0 Jaylo/weJ6oJd leuape leuoi6aJ Luau sluawasJngwlaa Jay;O-y aJnseayq $ y aJnseaW :su01pe0011e 1e41.19wwan0610puI :sanuanaa e119413e09 An elnaawal °pipe£ ues apl m/um .1141M1.0 1;uno0 uualsaM spied 0010N elayinlry 900Z'0£ aun£ papua JeaA auwayos speou pue spans leoo-1 y funseaw Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2008 r - Western Count 1 Coacht Catfi'Mr—_.""--- Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula City Coachella Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $ - $ - $ - $ 14,173,326 $ - $ - $ - $ Reserved for prepaid items - - 176,348 Reserved for debt service - 170,180 - Reserved for continuing appropriations - - - Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp - - - 20,356,847 - - - Unreserved, undesignated 10,087,449 2,720,021 2,643,039 (15,974,703) 879,883 8,199,976 1,657,867 554,122 Total fund balances by component $10,087,449 $2,890,201 $ 2,643,039 $ 18,731,818 $ 879,883 $ 8,199,976 $1,657,867 $ 554 122 Fund balance by year received: 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total fund balances by year received $ 3,558,853 $ 975,658 $ 1,440,701 $ 16,113,074 $ 851,340 $3,686,951 $1,576,723 $ 552,635 3,437,504 1,165,238 1,202,338 2,618,744 28,543 3,943,566 81,144 1,487 2,832,243 749,305 - - 569,459 - 258,849 , - - - $10,087,449 $2,890,201 $ 2,643,039 $ 18,731,818 $ 879,883 $ 8,199,976 $1,657,867 $ 554,122 Cash and investments $ 9,472,094 $2,682,837 $ 2,463,148 $ 16,668,428 $ 85,175 $ 7,594,717 $1,795,209 $ 475,415 Notes payable to RCTC at end of year $ 170,180 $ 187,341 $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2008 Financial Statements Notes: 1 The audit for Beaumant was completed by other auditors hired f 2 Calimesa, Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated es. Measure A LSR • - $ 128,793 $ 495 333 $ NIA $ 3 642 210 $ 14,236,036 $ 37,917,844 $14,325,282 N/A $6,369 210 $7 489 140 N/A Met Met et et A Met 49f6 et • • • Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2008 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A Measure A -Other Reimbursements from regional arterial program/other Other revenues Interest income Other financing sources -transfers in Total revenues Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance Other Administrative overhead Capital outlay Regional arterial improvements Overhead allocations Debt service: Principal Interest Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and Prior period adjustment/rounding Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Ala Valley -ITnuniat Coachella Valle rL Springs Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs T Fa18 VercIr r I I Valley I I 1i886 I County of Mirage Blythe I Riverside $ 386,177 $ 232,772 $ 1,570,912 $ 2,451,091 $ 1,737,420 $ 13,395 720,059 3,280 60,962 256,781 40,215 652,234 5,171,929 48,689 250,442 904,483 13,025 229,972 $ 789,817 $12,605,116 569,117 80,771 1,160,102 399,572 236,052 2,351,933 3,400,321 7,208,480 1,147,480 850,588 14,334,335 91,859 1,490,549 438,455 631,554 420,000 91,859 420,000 307,713 (183,948) 227,250 1,717,799 438,455 634,134 2,961,866 1 262,136 215,874 1,470,643 11,022,375 $ 569,849 $ 31,926 $ 2,104,777 $ 13,984,242 4,796,734 721,021 63,323 14,554,010 1,130,958 5,428,288 721,021 1,194,281 14,554,010 1,780,192 426,459 (343,693) (219,675) 1 6,616,900 3,592,124 $ 8,397,093 $ 4,018,583 (1) 2,394,615 21,480,830 $ 2,050,922 $21,261,154 Measure A LSR 5 of 6 10/8/2009 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2008 Components of fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances Reserved for prepaid items Reserved for debt service Reserved for continuing appropriations Designated for specific/future projects or cont approp Unreserved, undesignated Total fund balances by component Fund balance by year received: 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total fund balances by year received Cash and investments Notes payable to RCTC at end of year Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2008 Financial Statements ilia Valley —178$€fr1-I5t Coachella Valle . Springs Indian Wells Indio Palm Desert Palm Springs Ra trib Mirage TPaTi5WRIT r I I Valley I I County of Blythe I Riverside - $ 592,774 $ 1,606,099 $ 689,936 $ - $ 10,741,686 8,503,171 - - - - - - 4,144,460 - - 569,849 31,926 2,104,777 2,649,782 (1,712,177) (815,813) 2,050,922 21,261,154 $ 569,849 $ 31,926 $ 2,104,777 $ 13,984,242 $ 8,397,093 $ 4,018,583 $ 2,050,922 $21,261,154 $ 399,572 $ 170,277 31,926 $ 2,104,777 $ 3,400,321 $ 7,208,480 $ 1,147,480 $ 850,588 S14,334,335 - 7,280,776 1,188,613 1,398,520 1,200,334 6,926,819 - _3,234,893 - 1,472,583 68.252 Notes: 1 The audit for Beaumont was completed try other auditors hired t 2 Calimesa, Murrieta, and Temecula were incorporated Measure A LSR • $ 569,849 $ 31,926 $ 2,104,777 $ 13,984,242 $ 514,869 $ 6 $ 1,917,549 $ 13,516,535 $ $ $ - $ $ 494,818 $20,754,778 $ 40,391,316 $112,150,179 Met Met Met Met $ 8,397,093 $ 4,018,583 $ 2,050,922 $21,261,154 $ 4,760,959 $ 3,801,496 $ 1,914,620 $19,857,642 $ - $ - $ $ $ 28,148,003 $ 29,479,671 $ 4,705,286 WA Met et Met f - • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended June 30, 2009. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the past fiscal year, staff has closely monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures incurred during the fiscal year. Accrual adjustments for revenue and expenditures have been made for June 30, 2009, and are reflected in these financial statements. The Commission will continue to make year end accrual adjustments depending upon materiality through October 31, 2009. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the third quarter at 94% of the budget. Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 16.0% and 15.2% lower, respectively, than the same period last fiscal year due to the economic downturn regionally and nationally. Staff continues to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and will report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2009/10 budget for sales tax revenue. Federal, state, and local government reimbursements are on a reimbursement basis, and the Commission will receive these revenues as the projects are completed and invoiced to the respective agencies. Approximately 92% of the reimbursements were related to Measure A Western County highway and rail capital projects. Actual amounts exceeded the budget primarily as a result of federal reimbursements for highway projects. During the FY 2008/09 budget planning process, the Commission took a very conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) receipts as a result of the housing crisis and the significant impact this has had on the Inland Empire's local economy. The operating statement shows TUMF revenues, including project reimbursements, at 142% of the budget. Actual TUMF Agenda Item 7F 127 revenues of approximately $9.9 million received from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) were 97.8% higher than the budgeted amount. Other revenues include State Transit Assistance (STA) revenues remitted to the Commission. In March 2009, the Commission received a revised STA estimate from the state, reducing the FY 2008/09 STA revenues to approximately $4.9 million or 47.7% below the revised October 2008 estimate included in the budget. Interest income is higher at 167% than budgeted as a result of the Commission taking a conservative approach in estimating interest income; however, interest yields on invested balances have been declining. The administrative and program/project categories are within budget with the following exception: • The Coachella Valley regional arterial program is administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and requests reimbursement from the Commission based on available funds. Intergovernmental distributions are one-time LTF payments made based on claims submitted by CVAG and WRCOG. Any unused funds in this category are related to the planning and programming departmental expenditures. Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements and station improvements. Staff expects these improvements to take place in the first quarter of FY 2009/10. Debt service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while principal payments are made in June. Listed below are the significant capital projects and their status. Capital project expenditures are often affected by issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Highway Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land State Route 74/G Street to Interstate 215 - The final environmental document was approved in December 2008, which resulted in delays in the commencement of right of way acquisition activities. The Commission has proceeded with final design and right of way acquisition aspects of the work and expects the completion of these activities on schedule.. The Commission has approved Agenda Item 7F • 128 • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding for construction. SR-91 /La Sierra Interchange - The city of Riverside is the lead agency and elected to perform non -Measure A work before proceeding with the Measure A funded portion of the work in the second half of FY 2008/09. The construction costs are expected to be lower than estimated, which may result in savings that could be transferred to another city interchange project, subject to Commission approval. SR-91 /Van Buren Interchange - The city of Riverside is the lead agency, and state funding was approved in October 2009, allowing the city of Riverside to advertise for construction. SR-91 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes from Adams Street to 7'h Street - Caltrans is the lead agency for the final design phase of this project. Right of way acquisition settlements have progressed slower than anticipated; however, overall the project is still on schedule. SR-91 Corridor Improvements - The environmental phase of work has been ongoing but may be affected by project phasing strategies. SR-91 /SR-71 Connectors - The Commission is seeking to federalize the project to take advantage of federal funding opportunities. This may extend the environmental phase by several months. 1-15 Corridor Improvements - The environmental phase of work has been ongoing. 1-215 Bi-County Project - San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) is the lead agency and determined, with input from the Commission and Ca[trans, that an interim HOV project would be constructed. Commission approval for its share of funding was approved in February, and engineering started shortly thereafter. 1-215 Corridor Improvements - This project consists of three segments from 1-15 to Box Springs Road. Environmental work has been ongoing for the southern and central segments and has not commenced for the northern segment. Mid County Parkway and SR-79 Realignment - Advance right of way acquisitions have slowed. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land North Main Corona Station Parking Structure - The parking structure was substantially completed as of June 30, 2009 and opened in July 2009. Agenda Item 7F 129 Perris Multimodal Transportation Facility - Funding appropriation by the CTC was approved in July 2008. A construction contract was awarded in December 2008, and construction started in January 2009. Completion of the first phase of the facility is expected by the end of the calendar year. Perris Valley Line - The environmental documents are being refreshed at the request of the Federal Transit Administration resulting in delays for right of way acquisition and final design. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - June 2009 Agenda Item 7F • 130 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DESCRIPTION Revenues Sales tax Federal, state and local government reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Administration Salaries and benefits General legal services Professional services Office lease and utilities General administrative expenditures Total administration Programs/projects Salaries and benefits General legal services Professional services General projects . Engineering Construction Right of way/Land Local streets and roads Regional arterial Commuter assistance LTF and STA distributions Motorist assistance Planning and programming services Right of way management Rail operations and maintenance Specialized transit Total programs/projects Intergovernmental distribution Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest Tolal debt service Tolal expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/uses Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Bond proceeds Total financing sources/uses Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2008 Fund balance June 30, 2009 QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 4TH QUARTER FOR YEAR ENDED 06/30/2009 $ FY 2008109 BUDGET 204,668,275 78,367,686 7,730,000 11,227,200 7,980,000 309,973,161 1,664,800 151,000 1,886,300 415,000 1,365,900 5,483,000 5,253,200 1,847,500 4,515,113 9,270,600 72,553,973 104,103,600 200,238,400 46,562,300 10,086,300 3,474,500 98,054,562 3,100,800 11,056,626 335,000 8,488,700 7,539,400 586,480,574 1,050,000 1,807,852 33,630,000 16,496,400 50,126,400 644,947,826 (334,974,665) 69,233,400 69,233,400 130,000,000 130,000, 000 (204,974,665) 475,188,900 4TH QUARTER ACTUAL $ 192,747,990 107,190,030 10,957,420 6,737,133 13,567,941 REMAINING BALANCE $ (11,920,285) 28,822,344 3,227,420 (4,490,067) 5,587,941 331,200,514 21,227,353 1,500,459 151,609 1,691,086 357,357 895,564 4,596,075 3,937,181 1,568,152 2,155,615 5,597,480 50,287,612 79,794,410 105,901,620 45,655,501 10,640,313 2,907,714 78,047,8136 2,477,987 5,736,886 304,876 8,003,913 4,515,313 164,341 (609) 195,214 57,643 470,336 886,925 1,316,019 279,348 2,359,498 3,673,120 22,266,361 24,309,190 94,336,780 906,799 (554,013) 566,786 20,006,676 622,813 5,319,740 30,124 484,787 3,024,087 407,532,459 178,948,115 975,833 74,167 938,871 868,981 33,646,476 (16,476) 12,026,942 4,469,458 45,673,418 4,452,982 459,716,656 185,231,170 PERCENT UTILIZATION 94% 137% 142% 60% 170% 107% 90% 100% 90% 86% 66% 84% 75% 85% 48% 60% 69% 77% 53% 98% 105% 84% 80% 80% 52% 91% 94% 60% 69% 9314 52% 100% 73% 91% 71% (128,516,142) 46,541,153 46,541,153 110,000,000 110,000,000 (18,516,142) 531,044,094 206,458,523 (22,692,247) 22,692,247 (20,000,000) (20,000,000) 186,458,523 55,855,194 38% 67% 67% 85% 85% 9% 112% 270,214,235 $ 512,527,952 $ 242,313,717 190% 131 Z£l Z96 LZS 21S S C9L'92£'20 f £29'90Z'9Z $ 6ZE'5E1 $ 996'496'C6 Y Z99'590'99 $ 900'209'09 s 92Z'19C5 $ LPV99 $ 221'49L'CEZ$ 90519CE'9$ 906'90L'OLS 600Z- OC aunt aoueleq pund 660'900'[CS 991'B£B 09 9S£Y2£'9 Z68'f£L 0L0'1 B0'EZl ZOE'E94't£ 594 ZZ6'92 906'LZO'Ll IL2'99 SZE L29'V LZ 091.199 LCZ'991'OL e002'L Linf aoueleq pund (L9C9t9.130 1190'999'M 99Z'L1.126L LC9'1 (621.'9l CM/ (094'LB£'S) (e99'S19'9) (LB9'999'll) 9ESZ C99'91C'ZZ 959.9Z2 (10E6U saaueleq punt Le afioege laN 000'000'0LI Z91'99L'L£ 999'10L'L01 99 L'962'Z (Lent.z'L) - (see 'LZ6'EZ) sesn/saomos 6uloueull lelol 000000 OLD - 000'000'OLL - - speeowd puns ES1'199119 60(961. 902116Z'Z LCO'S0121l LeZ'06Z'L - 9L2'290'52 lnola/NSll 6uue+000 £9l'l99'94 190'COC'Le • E84'CO96L 606bC VI - wia/sued 6upmad0 sate/sax/nos Neueu0 +a1110 (Z0L'9L5'821) lee t'4E9'6£) (ee5'9etLe) LC0'1. (5LZVL VIC) (091eL6C'S) (699'919'9) (06f'9290) 9E5'Z e0009Z'94 959'9Z2 (LE£'81.) samlpuadxa (Japun)10n0 sanuanm ssaox3 249'9 LL'099 9L t'SZE'10 EtZ'ESE '20 awe 1l'96 9EZ 940'11 999'100'49 EOLT9P9E 229'288 911 V90'L9L 9029999 9L9'944'ZZ samlpuadxe mot. 919'929'2P 9L VSZC'l0 SLE'lent Z98TIECItt 9L0'909'£C 9L t'C69'L 000'0E9'EE • C2V 1C9'9 91.6 9L0'9L et L£CT L6L 629'9L egnlee lose lelol ltaletul ledlouud aowas lga0 LL9'466 L2C'069 C0E1,1. LOV9E£ keno lmlde0 C£9'926 CEB'9L8 uoimgplslp leluawwano6Jatul 696'ZC5'204 LOE'4Z9'£9 LC9'LL1'49 94Z'990'1.1 Z99'L00'29 EOLT£24E LZ9Z96 565968'99L 58L'CZ9'9 SZS'£L9.2L sLoafad/swei6md leLoy C LC 91.99 - 092'1392'Z - C89'92L'L 9sue0 pew/mods C1.1$600'6 - - CLB'£001 eaueuteuvw pue suollel ado Bey 929'402 • 929'90E luewe6euewAm ID 1460:1 999'9C2'9 - - - 999'9CL'9 minas 6uiwwm6a0 pue fiuryueld 196'224'Z LB6'aa 2 - aouelsrsse ISpalaLe 622'900'22 6CV990'll Z9VL00'L9 - - - sucpngptslp 919 pue dll 614'906T -• OL CL09Z - aoued!sse Jelnwwo0 C19'009'01 - - £1£'099'01 - - melee leteutey 109'999'59 - 615'592'e 295T99 5/9'2L09C spew pue dames legal OZVLO6'90L 109'26C'99 - 91.C'968'0£ - 990'0ZC'Zl 91.0'9CC puel/Rem to ILANV 019'9621e2 909'2061 as' 8ai 999'69VOL 846'9 L9'C9 uopowlsuo0 Z19'29Z'OS 920.909'0Z s66'e06'e - 999'Z99 2261OC2'LZ - - 6upeawfiu3 089'2641 9C4 669'4% 249TE4'S - spolmd lmaue0 919'99V2 909'ZL9 959 9CL'89S £00'92 919'980'1 saawas leuolssapad 291'999'1 9139'091 264'691. 92B'01 - 999.5Z6 OOL'9 LL5V6Z saoinles!Om !men le t'LEB'C 9Z l'9ZZ 8£2'4 09 61L'L96't 989'011 Z90.099'1 %HUN pue saueleS • 5loalaad/sw G6old 920'969'9 - 669'209 £O2'99L EBL'0094£ uoledslulwpe lelol 99996— 0 Sal 921J'C9 919'099 sanllpuadxa anpmispetupe leJeuav L9E'L99 - - 09211. 1.60'09C 11101111111 pue steel sow° 920'169'1 91C'949 - C99'04 09l'660'I sappuee leuolssalad 609491 942'09 - L9C'9 01. 0'L9 saawas le6elpmaue0 659009'1. LLIQL E96'LZ1iL altauaq pue sauele9 uapmlfiulwpV smntlpuedx3 919.00Z'tfC LZ1$999'1 OZ9'929 2C9'1. 299'899'Z1 992'899'S EOZ'99£'09 60£'LO9'6Z C91.998 112V6Z2•C61. 000'699'C E82'LZS'Z2 senuenm lelal 14s'L95'CL LZ6'899'L 629'8L4 Lt9t 89CS99'Z 000'8BL LL6'909'l £9LV0Z 969'Z [99'ZC9'S 9E5'SSL 9C£'C9Z lsaiawl C£CLC!'9 98L'09fi'9 - 91Z'Ot9'L O£Z'£l (129'91) 9Z9'999 sanuanm LeglO OL6'290'01 • Blt'899'B • - - 901190'l - (dWf1D gad uope6llW wtollufl uo0euodsuell Of0'OBL'LOL • - S69'£9L • 168'£B2'B6 690'609'C 949'eee'9 sluawesmgwlat wawwano6 meet pue alels lmapad Des' 191'28L f - Y • Y - $ • $ $ set ate es $ o(s'ZLB'LZ $ L99'Z9B $ 95Z'LCLVEL $ - $ 696'199'916 zel sale9 sanuanay 11/101 301A1139 WVtlOOUd Nouom18N00 (Alm, 30011f1SISSV ONnd 2.311VA A3T1VA A1N1100 3$V5 ONNd 034/I91$00 1990 V3dVd A1Nnoo 33d NOLLVOIIIW 115NtlM1 NOILVIMOdSNV191 V113143V00 301i3A Ntl3193M Id9d l0113N30 1V01M3WW00 12M3193M WalodlNn 31V19 1V001 OlVd NOILV1140d9NVVI V 9191514341 6009/0C/90 030N311V3A VOA tl31NV0O N10 Olen A9 Sltlam A-palm/no NOISSIWW00 NOLLV1tl OdSNVtl1 A1N110o 301SN3AILI • • NOI1dINOS30 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Matt Wallace, Procurement and Assets Administrator Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2009. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all professional services and administrative contracts that have been executed for the first quarter ended September 30, 2009, under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The unused capacity at September 30, 2009 is $471,088. Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2009. Agenda Item 7G 133 V£ I. OD'880'1498 Rq pamaoaL owau psalayl Rq paledald '.. aoelleM maylleW 600Z'OC Jagwa;dog 40nmy; ONINItlW3L 1NOOWtl4. 0011.6'0Z aasn 1Nnomor 00'Z46'BZ 00'0 00'0001 00'00S'2 00749'92 00'0 00140'92 00.000'0099 1Nnowv IOVIAINOO iNnowv ONINItlW3L 1Nnowtl wow lOVlL.NOO ItlNIOILO wweoid 1616nul 841.1.13 pueWl 44S eluomeo to a;qS suapeol;laads paad 4a1.'e4 apooO la uopueda,d aasn 1NOOWtl, son Rlap 3iovvvAtl lNnowtl S301AL3S d0 NOWAILOS3o 1Ntl1lnSN00 600Z `0£ lagwa;daS d0 SV A1I1:I0H1OV 321111VNOIS MONIS • • • • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Transportation Improvement Program Reprogramming for State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve reprogramming $2 million of State Transportation Improvement (STIP) Program Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds from the 71/91 interchange project to the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP); and 2) Approve programming of $4 million federal earmark funds to the 71/91 interchange project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commission staff is preparing the design -build application for the SR-91 CIP. One of the eligibility criteria is a commitment of state funds. The 71/91 interchange project was originally included in the project limits of the SR-91 CIP, however, the project limits are currently under review and it is unknown at this time if the 71/91 interchange will ultimately be included in the SR-91 CIP. Therefore, in order to meet the eligibility criteria established by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for design -build project applications, staff proposes to reprogram $2 million of the $6.6 million in STIP-RIP funds from the 71/91 interchange design phase to the SR-91 CIP, so that STIP funding is programmed for both projects. Caltrans recently notified staff that there is approximately $4 million of federal funds that remain unobligated from previous projects along SR-71. The $4 million is the balance of a prior earmark and appropriation (pre-SAFETEA-LU), which Caltrans recommends for programming on the 71/91 interchange since these federal funds were specifically earmarked for improvements along the SR-71 corridor. Staff recommends reprogramming $2 million of STIP-RIP funds to the 71/91 interchange at the December CTC meeting so that the STIP commitment can be Agenda Item 7H 135 met prior to submittal of the SR-91 CIP design -build application in January 2010. The $4 million federal earmark will be programmed on the 71 /91 interchange in FY 2010/11 to replace the $2 million of STIP-RIP funding. Financial Information N/A FY 2010/11 + $2,000,000 In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2010/11 + Amount: $4,000,000 Source of Funds: STIP/RIP, Federal Earmark Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting 003021 415 41502 4152 262 31 41502 $ <2,000,000> No.: 003028 415 41502 4152 262 31 41502 $2,000,000 003021 414 41410 0000 262 31 41410 $4,000,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \alueae.er,-ituuno� Date: 10/26/2009 Agenda Item 7H • 136 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2009/10 Allocation Plan and 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the FY 2009/10 Allocation Plan and 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) fund estimate report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Fiscal Year 2009/10 STIP Allocation Plan The FY 2009/10 state budget identified a shortfall in allocation capacity for the current fiscal year. Statewide the amount currently programmed in the 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for project allocations in FY 2009/10 is $722 million. However, the allocation capacity is $652 million. Given the current bid climate, there is a possibility that award savings can be used to cover the $71 million shortfall. To address FY 2009/10 allocation needs, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved an allocation plan at the October 14, 2009 CTC meeting. The allocation plan is based on a first-come/first served component primarily for construction. The allocation plan includes all Riverside County projects programmed for a construction allocation this year, with the exception of the 1-215, Scott Road to Nuevo Road, widening project as these funds were programmed in FY 2009/10 for the design phase. Riverside County projects programmed for construction in FY 2009/10: Agenda Item 71 137 Project Amount tin millions) CTC Allocation Date Estimated CTC Allocation Date SR 91 Van Buren IC $16.1 10/14/09 N/A 1-10 Indian IC $13.656 12/09/09 1-15 Cal "Oaks/Kalmia IC g21 990 04/14/10 *SR 60/1-215 E Jct $8.117 05/12/10 1-10 Date Palm IC $14.4 05/12/10 *An additional $20.7 million of Ca!trans' STIP Interregional share is also programmed. Staff will continue to work with the lead agencies and C_ a!trans to ensure the timely delivery of the above FY 2009/10 STIP projects, and where possible, deliver the projects sooner than the estimated dates shown above. 2010 STIP Fund Estimate The 2010 STIP Fund Estimate identified a shortfall of regional and interregional funding. Instead of adding two years of additional capacity, the 2010 STIP FE requires shifting about 30% of the projects programmed in FY 2009/10-2012/13 to the last two years of the 2010 STIP period (FYs 2013/14 and 2014/15). 2010 STIP submittals are due from the regions to the CTC in February 2010. Staff will present 2010 STIP programming recommendations for FY 2010/11 through 2014/15 at the December 2009 or January 2010 Commission meeting. Agenda Item 71 • 138 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California High Speed Rail Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Formally accept the California High -Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA) invitation to join as a participating agency as part of the environmental impact report/statement (EIR/EIS) process for the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire high-speed train (HST) project; 2) Direct staff to work closely with the CHSRA and affected local jurisdictions in Riverside County to ensure a thorough and comprehensive analysis of high-speed rail service for Riverside County to include the study of potential alignments along with lnterstates 15 and 215; and 3) Convene and conduct meetings of the Commission's High -Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee to consider and provide input on the environmental process for the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire project with periodic updates to the entire Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2008, California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond measure for the development of a statewide high-speed rail system that is envisioned to whisk passengers from San Diego to San Francisco and points in between at speeds of up to 200 miles per hour. Although voter action took place only fast year, the effort to build a statewide system dates back before the turn of the century. The CHSRA first released a business plan in 2000 and was funded at minimal levels by the Legislature to continue its task throughout the decade. Legislation to place a bond act on the ballot was actually approved in 2002, but subsequent legislative actions postponed an actual election until the decisive vote of the electorate actually took place last November. Throughout the entire time program development continued. In 2001, the CHRSA and the Federal Railroad Administration started a tiered environmental review process for the HST system and in 2005 completed a first tier statewide program EIR/EIS and approved a conceptual statewide, 800-mile system between the San Francisco Bay Area, through the Central Valley, and then on to Los Angeles Agenda Item 7J 139 and San Diego. At that time, the CHRSA identified proposed corridors and general alignments along with possible station locations, however this was done only at a preliminary, program level. For Riverside County, the program level document identified locating the system along or adjacent to the 1-215 freeway corridor, which is also home to the Commission -owned San Jacinto Branch Line and the proposed Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink. Station locations that were identified by the CHRSA at that time included a stop in the city of Riverside near the University of California and in the city of Murrieta. The work was completed for the 2005 effort and there was little outreach with local governments and agencies until the culmination of the 2008 election. The Current Situation The successful approval of the bond measure along with support from the Obama Administration for high-speed rail development has led to a newfound momentum for the project. In October, the CHRSA submitted an application for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or stimulus funds for $4.7 million that would be used for engineering, design, and construction of various components of the proposed statewide system. Although the state's application is competitive and compelling, it is unlikely that the state will receive the entire amount that is being requested since the federal government is only making $8 billion available. The first segments identified for construction are Anaheim to Los Angeles, San Francisco to San Jose, Merced to Fresno, and Fresno to Bakersfield. The federal application also includes a request for environmental analyses of the remaining components in the system, which includes the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire HST section, which impacts Riverside County, Los Angeles to Palmdale and Bakersfield, Sacramento to Merced, San Jose to Merced, and the Altamont Rail Corridor. Currently, the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire HST is commencing work on a project level EIR/EIS. This work will involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the assessment of potential environmental effects associated with the project. The project level analysis will involve much greater detail than the work that was completed for the program level EIR/EIS in 2005. This is especially true in terms of considering a potential alignment and station locations. Earlier this year, a number of Commissioners expressed an interest in studying an alignment along the 1-15, which could include a station stop possibly in the city of Corona or at another locale along the corridor. Agenda Item 7J • • 140 • The CHRSA has responded to that concern by adding the 1-15 alignment as an alternative for study. Additionally, the CHRSA has responded to requests from the city of Riverside on the location of the line and facilities that would take place if an 1-215 corridor was pursued. This kind of adaptability by the CHRSA is especially important during this phase of the project. A number of changes have taken place in land use and development since the original 1-215 alignment was identified in 2005. More importantly, a significantly higher level of study is necessary to identify potential pitfalls and challenges the project might encounter on either an 1-15 or 1-215 alignment and at specific station locations. A comprehensive and thorough study of a number of viable options should be welcomed at this time since the CHRSA will be working on this effort until 2011. Having more than one potential alignment" for study is not unique to Riverside County for this segment. As many as five potential alignments are in play in Los Angeles County east of Union Station and reaching a single alignment in that area is likely to be challenging. There are also a number of station access issues that need to be addressed in San Diego County and yet a new adjustment has been added recently at the request of the city of San Bernardino, which has expressed its interest in a station. Staff believes that it is far too early for the Commission to take a position on a single alignment or on specific station locations. Developing factual data and information to make that decision is a key objective of the environmental analyses and it is unlikely that the CHRSA will narrow down to a single alignment until late next year or even 2011. What the Commission can do, and has already been doing, is to play an active role in the process. The Commission has hosted three stakeholder meetings that have provided the CHRSA the opportunity to obtain feedback and input from local jurisdictions and the local Caltrans District. The Commission has also been invited to join as a participating agency for the environmental effort and is a member of the Southern California High -Speed Rail Inland Corridor Group. The Commission voted to approve a memorandum of understanding to be part of this effort in February of this year. This organization includes representatives from the Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority. This group provides input to the CHRSA and is an excellent venue for working cooperatively with other transportation agencies in the region. Agenda Item 7J 141 Next Steps Staff recommends that the Commission formally join as a participating agency as part of the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire EIR/EIS. A copy of the CHRSA's letter of invitation is included as Attachment 1 and a draft letter of acceptance is included as Attachment 2. It is also recommended that the Commission take an active role as part of the CHRSA environmental effort and to work closely with the cities to ensure effective communication regarding the project, without taking a position on, or advocating for or against a particular alignment or station location. An appropriate way to oversee this would be to hold meetings of the Commission's High -Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee for the limited time that the environmental effort is being conducted. Periodic updates would be made to the Commission, which could then consider a recommendation for an alignment in late 2010 or early 2011 when a significant level of environmental analysis has been completed. Attachments: 1) California High -Speed Rail Authority Participation Agency Invitation Letter 2) Commission's Draft Letter of Acceptance Agenda Item 7J • 142 • Cart Peng% Chairman Item LImberg, Vice -Chair Russell Bona David Oran Rod Okiden, Sr_• Fran Rorer" Richard Kate Judge Guertin L. Kopp' Lynn Schenk 'past chair ATTACHMENT 1 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 September 30, 2009 Participating Agency invitation Letter Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 qECEEIME .11\ our 0 5 2009 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Re: Invitation to Serve as Participating Agency on the Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire High Speed Train Project EIR/EIS Dear Anne Mayer: The Califomia High -Speed Rail Authority (Authority), in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has initiated preparation of a project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Los Angeles to San Diego (LA -SD) Section of the California High Speed Train (HST) System with faalities in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. We are inviting your agency to serve as a partidpating agency because we believe that your agency will have an interest in this transportation project, and may have concerns or have areas of responsibility or jurisdiction that apply to the project. The Authority proposes to construct, operate and maintain an electric -powered steel -wheel -on -steel -rail HST system, about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on mostly dedicated, fully grade -separated, access -controlled tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication and automated train control systems. The Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire HST section is approximately 160 miles and is divided into three subsections: 1) Los Angeles to March Air Reserve Base (ARB); 2) March ARB to Mira Mesa; and 3) Mira Mesa to San Diego. Between LA Union Station and March ARB, the selected alignment generally follows the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Riverside/Colton corridor. From March ARB to Mira Mesa the selected Interstate (I-) 215/I-15 alignment generally follows the I-215 and then the I-15 corridor to Mira Mesa. There are two alignment options along Carroll Canyon and Miramar Road that would directly serve downtown San Diego. Both the Carroll Canyon and Miramar Road alignment options between Mira Mesa and San Diego are preferred for further investigation. Since 2008, the Authority has collaborated with the Southern Califomia High -Speed Rail Inland Corridor Group (50CAL ICG), which was formed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Authority and Southern California Assoriation of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, San Bemardino Associated Governments, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. One of the purposes of the SOCAL ICG is to demonstrate partnership with regional entities and to assist the Authority with the review of the Program EIR/EIS altemative alignments and station locations and in Identifying additional alternative project alignments 88147 AM, JSt ARNOLD SCHWARZENEOGER GOVERNOR 925 L Street, State 1425 • Sacremerrto, CA 95814 • 916.324.1541 • fax 918.322.0827 wer.v.cattigipalt@edraiLca.gov SS.46.05 Page 2 and optional station locations to be studied in the LA -SD Project ER/EIS. The Authority has consulted with the SOCAL ICG on a monthly basis since the summer of 2008. The Authority requests that the involvement of the Riverside County Transportation Commission focus on those areas within the agency's jurisdiction, expertise and responsibilities. The Authority will coordinate with participating agencies as follows: 1. Invite and designate participating agencies; 2. Invite participating agencies to coordination meetings; 3. Develop a coordination plan, which may include a schedule; 4. Provide participating agencies with an opportunity to comment on purpose and need and range of alternatives as early as practicable; and 5. Make available to participating agencies, as early as practicable, information about environmental and socioeconomic resources located within the project area and general location of altematives. As a participating agency, Riverside County Transportation Commission would be requested to identify as early as practicable any issues regarding the project's environmental and socioeconomic impacts of interest to or within the jurisdiction of your agency, as well as information needed for the issuance of any permits or approvals that may be needed for this project. Please inform us if your agency declines to be a participating agency, by sending us a letter or an e-mail message and indicating, if applicable: 1. Your agency has no jurisdiction or authority; 2. Your agency has no expertise or information relevant to the project; and 3. Your agency does not intend to comment on the project. We look forward to your response to this invitation and to working with you on this transportation project. The favor of a reply is requested by Friday, November 20, 2009. ScoPing Meetings We have scheduled two scoping meetings, targeted for regulatory agencies, to discuss and receive comments about the scope of the LA -SD HST Project EIR/EIS. The two meetings will be held on the following dates at the following locations: • Thursday, October 15, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. U.S. Fsh and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road (Room 1), Carlsbad, CA 92011 • Thursday, October 22, 2009 from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 (Highgrove Room), Riverside, CA 92501-3348 144 Page 3 For your information, twelve additional public sopping meetings will be held from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm in the counties of Rhrerside, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Andes, on the following dates at the following locations: San Diego County • October 13, 2009 92037 • October 14, 2009 • October 15, 2009 - — Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center, 4126 Executive Drive, La Jolla, CA — Ramada Limited San Diego Airport, 1403 Rosec ans Street, San Diego, CA 92106 Escondido Center for the Aria, 340 N. Escondido Blvd, Escondido CA 92025 Riverside County • October 19, 2009 - Murrieta Public Library, Eight Town Square, 24700 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562 • October 20, 2009 - Corona Public Library, West Room, 650 S. Main Street, Corona, CA 92882 • October 22, 2009 - Cesar Chavez Community Center, Bobby Bonds Park, 2060 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507 Los Angeles County • October 21, 2009 - Shepherd of the Hills United Methodist Church, Wesley Fellowship Hall, 333 South Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754 • October 26, 2009 - City of West Covina City Hall, Community Room, First Floor, 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790 • October 28, 2009 - El Monte Community Center Grace T. Black Auditorium, 3130 Tyler Avenue, El Monte, Califomia 91731 • October 29, 2009 - Pomona First Baptist Church, Room E-202, 586 N. Main Street, Pomona, California 91768 San Bernardino County • November 2, 2009 - Ontario Airport Administrative Conference Rooms, 1923 E. Avion Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • November 3, 2009 - Norman Feklheym Central Library, Kellogg Room, 555 West 6th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410 If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies' respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of this EIR/EIS, please contact Jose Martinez, Regional Manager for the Los Angeles to San Diego vla the Inland Empire HST Project, vla phone at (714) 558-6124 or email at jmartinez@cordobacorp.com. Sincerely, Dan Leavitt Deputy Director Endosure: NOI/NOP 145 ATTACHMENT 2 November 12, 2009 Dan Leavitt Deputy Director California High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Acceptance of invitation to serve as Participating Agency on the Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire High Speed Train Project EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Leavitt: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is pleased to accept your invitation to become a Participating Agency in the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS for the Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire High Speed Train Project. RCTC is an active member of the Southern California High - Speed Rail Inland Corridor Group and as part of that group's Memorandum of Understanding, we have demonstrated our desire to cooperate in the planning and environmental effort. In accepting your invitation, RCTC will continue to assist in developing a regional vision for high speed rail along the corridor and work with our participating cities and members. In return, RCTC requests to continue the open dialogue and sharing of information with the California High Speed Rail Authority. In addition, RCTC would like to be consulted prior to any decision to narrow alignment alternatives for study or review that would impact our region. RCTC is engaged in several major highway and transportation projects in this region that will need to coexist and support a future high speed train system and the coordination of these projects is essential. RCTC looks forward to working with you as a Participating Agency on this significant project for our region. Sincerely, Bob Magee Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission 146 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act — Riverside Avenue Grade Separation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to allocate $570,000 to the city of Riverside (Riverside) in support of the Riverside Avenue grade separation project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was signed by the President in early March, identified $570,000 as an earmark for grade separation projects on the Alameda Corridor East for projects located in Riverside County. At its June 10 meeting, the Commission approved allocating the earmark on a first -come, first -served basis. The Commission directed that the available funding be allocated to support one of the 20 priority grade separation projects identified in the 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects. Appendix B (attached) from the funding strategy provides a summary of the 20 priority projects including an overview of the funding and project status. City and county staff was subsequently notified of the availability of the funding. Riverside recently requested that the $570,000 earmark be allocated to partially support the right-of-way phase of the Riverside Avenue grade separation project, which is estimated to cost $6.6 million. The project is on schedule to begin the right-of-way phase in January 2010 with construction projected to be completed by December 2013. The overall project is estimated to cost $30.3 million and, based on the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation projections, it will generate approximately 310 jobs paying an estimated combined wage of $13 million. Once built, the project will grade separate the existing Riverside/Union Pacific Railroad at -grade crossing by constructing an underpass along Riverside Avenue. When completed, it will improve traffic flow on Riverside Avenue, increase safety, and reduce air pollution by eliminating vehicle delays at the crossing. Agenda Item 7K 147 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $570,000 Source of Funds: FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: N/A (funds do not flow through RCTC) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \Yft,daalti Date: 10/19/2009 Attachment: Appendix B — RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy - Summary Agenda Item 7K 148 Appendix B RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy - Summary i i RCTC Total CPUC Voluntary Total Priority Project Railroad Section Container Avail. Balance Tier Crossing Cost Federal State Local Contribution 190 Premiums Funds* Needed Project Status Funding Strategy Priority A 2 Auto Center Drive/ BNSF $32.0 $8.30 $16.00 $2.70 $5.0 - $32.0 FD 3 Avenue 52/UP $17.3 $10.20 - $2.10 $5.0 $17.3 - CE PSR 4 Avenue 56/ Airport BlvdJUP $60.0 $10.00 $50.00 - - $60.0 CE PSR lank) 3 Avenue 66/UP $33.5 - $10.00 $23.50 - - $33.5 CE PSR (am) 1 Columbia Avenue/ BNSF & UP $34.1 $6.00 $20.45 $2.60 $5.0 $34.1 C 1 Iowa Avenue/ BNSF & UP $32.0 $10.30 $13.00 $2.40 $1.30 $5.0 $32.0 PS&E 1 Magnolia Avenue/UP $51.2 $20.00 $26.20 - $5.0 $51.2 ROW&D 1 Sunset Avenue/UP $36.5 $10.60 $10.00 $12.90 $3.00 - - $36.5 PE Funding Strategy Priority B 1 3rd Street/ BNSF & UP $40.2 $7.66 $17.50 $0.50 $2.00 $5.0 $7.5 . $40.2 - PE 2 Clay Street/UP $37.4 $10.00 $12.50 $1.18 $1.87 $5.0 $6.9 $37.4 - CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Magnolia Avenue/ BNSF $81.8 $15.00 $13.70 $15.10 $4.09 $5.0 $28.9 $81.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) 1 Riverside Avenue/UP $30.3 $5.00 $8.50 $2.50 $1.30 $5.0 $8.0 $30.3 E 2 Streeter Avenue/UP $36.8 $7.80 $15.50 $2.20 $1.30 $5.0 $5.0 $36.8 E Funding Strategy Priority C 3 Bel!grave Avenue/ UP $105.5 $1.00 - $- $1.0 $104.5 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Center Street/ BNSF & UP $36.3 $0.50 - $- $0.5 $35.8 CPU 1 Jurupa Road/UP $108.4 - - $12.00 $10.34 $5.0 $81.1 $108.4 - CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 MaryStreet/BNSF $38.0 $2.25 - $5.0 $30.8 $38.0 PE a 1 McKinley Street/ BNSF $109.2 $0.40 $1.50 $- $1.9 $107.3 CE PSR (Eqv.) 3 Railroad Street/ BNSF $30.0 $0.25 - $- $0.3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) 2 Smith Avenue/ BNSF $30.0 - - $0.25 - - $- $0.3 $29.8 CE PSR (Eqv.) TOTALS: $980.6 $85.3 S152.7 $179.5 S27.8 $60.0 $168.1 $673.3 $307.1 " Total available funds include unsecured funding including railroad contributions, CPUC Section 190 and voluntary container fees. (All dollars in millions. Slight discrepancies may occur due to rounding.) LEGEND CPU Conceptual Planning Underway CE PSR Conceptual Engineering PSR CE PSR law.) Conceptual Engineering PSR (or Equivalent) PE Preliminary Engineering E Environmental ROW&D Right of Way and Design C Construction PS&E Plans, Specifications and Estimate FD Final Design RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy 2008 149 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Project — Right of Way and Design Funding Increase and Utility Agreements STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the following options for right of way and design costs related to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes project: Option 1: $5.4 million of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds; or Option 2: $3,983,850 of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program and/or Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds and $1,416,150 of Measure A funds as local match; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with Caltrans to reflect funding changes and to execute utility agreements related to the SR-91 HOV lanes project on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Approve a budget transfer of $1,416,150 from the SR-91 HOV lanes project right of way acquisition expenditures to the final design expenditure in the amount of $516,150 and the right of way support services expenditure in the amount of $900,000 in the FY 2009/10 budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 HOV lanes project, from Adams Street to the 60/215 interchange, constitutes the last segment of SR-91 to be improved through the 1989 Measure A. It is also one of the projects included in the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) portion of the Proposition 1 B bond measure passed in 2006. The environmental document for the SR-91 HOV project was approved on August 31, 2007, and Caltrans District 8 is approximately 65% complete with the design phase. Caltrans and the Commission are jointly completing right of way activities. The project is scheduled to go to construction in June 2011. 150 Design Funding Status The original design cost estimates for this project were developed in 2005. The original estimates did not include projections for future increases to Caltrans overhead or salary rates. Budget modifications and implementation of revised labor contracts have increased the cost of design work for this project. These costs were not included in the original estimate that was developed in 2005. To complete the design phase, an additional $4.5 million is needed. Caltrans right of way support services have also increased by an additional $900,000 to accommodate recent updates to the design plans. Staff has worked with Caltrans over the past several months to review the funding changes and recommends that the Commission approve $5.4 million to cover these increases. Staff is proposing to fund the cost increases by one of the following options: Option 1: Staff's preferred option is to fund the cost increases by reprogramming $5.4 million of STIP RIP funds that were programmed for construction support for the Interstate 10/Bob Hope interchange project, which will be funded with American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds, to the SR-91 HOV project (design at $4.5 million and right of way support at $900,000). Option 2: Fund the increases with federal fund sources including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and/or Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds. Since federal funds require a local match, the federal funds would equal $3,983,850 and the local match of $1,416,150 is recommended to be funded with Measure A funds carried over from the 1989 Measure A program. Design would be funded with $3,983,850 of federal funds and $516,150 of 1989 Measure A funds. Right of way support is not eligible for federal reimbursement and would be funded at $900,000 using 1989 Measure A funds. Staff will continue to work with Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to determine if Option 1 is feasible. If not, then staff recommends funding the increases as described in Option 2. Utility Relocation Agreements In May 2008, the Commission approved $30 million of CMAQ funds along with a $3.8 million Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) loan repayment for the local match to pay for utility relocations. Utility relocations are currently estimated at $25 million. Design and construction management activities for the utility relocations will be performed by the utility owners and reimbursed by the Commission. It is anticipated that the number of utility relocation agreements will 151 • • not exceed 20 agreements. Staff is recommending the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute each utility agreement on behalf of the Commission, as required. Financial Impact Utility relocation costs of $6,477,000 have been included in the FY 2009/10 budget; however, a budget transfer from the SR-91 HOV project right of way acquisition expenditures to the final design and right of way support services expenditures of $1,416,150 is required. This results in a net $0 impact to the FY 2009/10 budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: S7,096,380 N/A FY 2010/1 1 + $27,323,000 CMAQ, TCRP Loan Repayment, and Source of Funds: Measure A (STIP and RSTP funds, if approved, would not flow through Budget Adjustment: Yes* ROTC accounting) 003005 81102 222 31 81101 $516,150* 003005 81403 222 31 81401 $900,000* GL/Project Accounting No.: 003005 81401 222 31 81401 ($1,416,150) * 003005 81401 222 31 81401 $6,477,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,4,411,4 Date: 10/29/2009 152 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Reprogramming Options STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to approve the reprogramming of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) highway funds resulting from project savings to regional, high priority projects that meet the eligibility and timeline requirements of ARRA. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March and August 2009, the Commission approved American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) highway funds for five interchange projects. Of these five interchanges, four have advertised for construction and have received bids that are 30 — 50 percent below estimate. These projects are: • Interstate 10 @ Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road • Interstate 10 @ Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive • Interstate 215 @ Clinton Keith Road • State Route 60 @ Valley Way For projects that received substantial funding from ARRA, such as the interchanges at Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road and Valley Way, ARRA funds will have to be removed from the project. The exact amount of ARRA funds that will become available through these project savings will not be known until the construction contracts are awarded, however, it is estimated to be from $5 - $10 million. To avoid redistribution of these excess ARRA funds from Riverside County to other regions in the state, the Commission must reprogram the funds to projects that are federalized and that can obligate the ARRA funds by March 2, 2010. Caltrans has established a deadline of December 1, 2009, for these projects to be submitted to the District offices for obligation. After maximizing ARRA funds on the interchanges listed above, staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to approve the reprogramming of any excess ARRA funds to other regional, high priority projects as necessary to ensure that all ARRA funds designated for Riverside County are obligated by the deadline. Agenda Item 7M 153 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lisa DaSilva, Capital Projects Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Robert Wunderlich, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group for Construction Management Services and Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans for Construction of the State Route 74/Interstate 215 Interchange Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 09-31-080-00 to Jacobs Engineering Group (Jacobs) to provide construction management, materials testing, and surveying services for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project, in the city of Perris, based on the scope and cost included in Attachment 1, for the base amount of $3,786,428, plus a contingency amount of $513,572, for a total not to exceed amount of $4.3 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; 4) Approve Cooperative Agreement No. 10-31-025-00 with Caltrans for construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange project; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the cooperative agreement and future non -funding related amendments to this agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 2009 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) and conduct a selection process for construction management and related services for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project in the city of Perris. Agenda Item 8 154 Selection Process A RFQ for construction management services, material testing, and construction surveying for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project was issued on June 12, 2009, with consultant statements of qualifications (SOO) due July 14, 2009. The Commission received 14 SOQs. An evaluation committee consisting of members from the Commission staff, city of Perris, and Caltrans District 8 reviewed the SOQs and shortlisted four firms to be interviewed. The short listed firms included: • Caltrop • Jacobs Engineering Group • South Star Engineering • TCM Group The evaluation committee then conducted interviews consisting of a 10-minute presentation on each firm's construction management approach and 30-40 minutes of questions and answers with the evaluation committee. At the completion of the interviews, the evaluation committee unanimously selected Jacobs as the most qualified consultant for this project. Staff has reviewed the scope, cost, and schedule proposal submitted by Jacobs and established a fair and reasonable price after thoroughgoing negotiations. In addition, staff has been working with Caltrans to develop a cooperative agreement between the Commission and Caltrans that defines the respective roles and responsibilities for the construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange project. The draft cooperative agreement is included as Attachment 2. Recommendation Staff recommends Agreement No. 09-31-080-00 be awarded to Jacobs to perform construction management, materials testing, and surveying services for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project, in the city of Perris, based on the final project scope and cost included with Attachment 1, for the base amount of $3,786,428, plus a contingency amount of $513,572 for unanticipated changes, for a total not to exceed amount of $4.3 million. Staff further recommends that the Commission approve Cooperative Agreement No. 10-31-025-00 with Caltrans for construction of the SR-74/I-215 interchange project and authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the cooperative agreement and future non -funding related amendments to this agreement. Agenda Item 8 155 • In early October 2009, the Commission's consultant for final design, David Evans & Associates, submitted the 100% plan set for the SR-74/I-215 interchange project to Caltrans for final review and approval. Staff has received approval from Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to continue as the lead agency for the construction phase expecting to advertise for construction bids in early 2010. Upon completion of a competitive procurement process, staff will bring a recommendation for award of a low bid construction contract to the Commission. The construction phase for this project is funded by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, (ARRA), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and 1989 Measure A funds. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: FY 2009/10 1,000,000 FY 2010/11 + 3,300,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Budget Ad ustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003015 81301 000 222 31 81302 15 0000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: d„,,j,,, Date: 10/19/2009 Attachments: 1) Agreement No. 09-31-080-00 with Jacobs 2) Cooperative Agreement 10-31-025-00 with Caltrans (District Agreement 8-1457) Agenda Item 8 156 ATTACHMENT 1 Agreement No. 09-31-080-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, MATERIALS TESTING AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE 74 AND INTERSTATE 215 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2009, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 On November 8, 1988 the Voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the 'Plan"). 2.2 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. 2.4 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing construction management, engineering surveying and testing services to public clients, is licensed in the State of Califomia (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 2.5 The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services for the State Route 74 — Interstate 215 Interchange project (the "Project'), as set forth in this Agreement. 157 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional construction management, engineering surveying and testing services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Commencement of Services. The Consultant shall commence work upon receipt of a written "Notice to Proceed" or "Limited Notice to Proceed" from Commission. 3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of execution of this Agreement or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the Commission, whichever occurs first, to the issuance by the Commission to Consultant of a Notice of Final Acceptance, as defined in paragraph 3.12 below, or June 30, 2012, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. All applicable indemnification provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect following the termination of this Agreement. 3.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the Commission's Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.5 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Joseph E. Jenkins to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his professional skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Representative. 2 • • 158 • 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.14. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are: Joseph E. Jenkins and Gary Tomasetti. 3.7 Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form, and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project, final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance as may be required in connection with the Project. In the event that Commission's Representative, in his sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this contract, Commission's Representative may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 3.8 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission, Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 3.9 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, of its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub -consultants who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform 3 159 the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 3.10 Opportunity to Cure. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. 3.11 Inspection of Work. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Representative to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 3.12 Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and within the term set forth in Section 3.3, the Commission shall give Consultant a written Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty -free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. 3.13 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 4 • • 160 • 3.14 Termination. 3.14.1 Notice; Reason. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof ("Notice of Termination"). Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of Consultant to timely perform Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3.15 of this Agreement. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.14.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein, and deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 3.14.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is to be for the convenience of the Commission, the Commission shall compensate Consultant for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of termination. Such payment shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Representative to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. 3.14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for cause, Consultant shall be compensated for those Services which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted by the Commission as of the date the Commission provides the Notice of Termination. In such case, the Commission may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. Further, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established in Section 3.9. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 3.14.5 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.14.6 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, the Commission may procure, 5 161 upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.14.7 Waivers. Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 3.15 Schedule and Progress of Services. 3.15.1 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shalt respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services. 3.15.2 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Representative. 3.15.3 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission's Representative and other interested parties, as requested by the Commission, on a bi-weekly basis or as may be mutually scheduled by the Parties at a standard day and time. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. 3.15.4 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the Schedule of Services. Submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 6 • • 162 • 3.16 Delay in Performance. 3.16.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. 3.16.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.16.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 3.16.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 3.17 Status of Consultant/Subconsultants. 3.17.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.17.2 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such 7 163 Prevailing Wage Laws. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at the Commission's offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.17.3Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.17.4 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. if Consultant wishes to use a firm as a subcontractor which is not specified in the proposal upon which this Agreement was awarded, prior written approval must be obtained from the Commission. The Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Consultant has, as part of its proposal, identified seven (7) companies/firms that will be subconsultants utilized by Consultant ("Subconsultants") for Project delivery. A list of said Subconsultants is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" Part 2 and made a part hereof. The Commission hereby approves the use by Consultant of the Subconsultants identified in Exhibit "C" Part 2. In the event and prior to the replacement of any Subconsultant approved herein, the Consultant shall seek and obtain the Commission's written approval. Exhibit "C" Part 2 also sets forth the rates at which each Subconsultant shall bill the Consultant for. Services subject to reimbursement by the Commission to Consultant. Consultant acknowledges that approval of Consultant's utilization of the identified Subconsultants together with the incorporation of Subconsultants' rate schedules and cost proposals into this Agreement shall in no way be construed to create any contractual relationship between any Subconsultant and the Commission. The Subconsultant rate schedules and cost proposals contained herein are for accounting purposes only. In the event that any Subconsultant shall bring any action, claim or proceeding purporting to enforce any right purportedly arising under this Agreement, the Consultant shall be responsible for the Commission's reasonable legal fees without regard to the merits of any such claim. 8 • 164 • 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any::and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. 9 165 • All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attomey's fees, incurred by each of them in connection 10 166 • • therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, its directors, officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. 3.20 Insurance. 3.20.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.20.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same types of insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Consultant's insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) if Consultant has employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers' Compensation insurance as required and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal and advertising injury and property damage. If General Liability Insurance or includes a general aggregate limit, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Statutory Workers' Compensation limits as required by the applicable Labor Code and Employer's Liability limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 3.20.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub -consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to 11 167 their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per claim. 3.20.4Aircraft Liability Insurance. Consultant, prior to the direct or indirect use of any civil aircraft to provide Service under this Agreement, shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained, aircraft liability insurance or equivalent form, with a single limit of not less than $5,000,000 per each occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired and non -owned aircraft and passengers, and shall name, or be endorsed to name, the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. 3.20.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or 12 • • • 168 • canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.20.6 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.20.7Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.20.8 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.20.9 Other Insurance. At its option Commission shall require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or deductibles/retentions it considers reasonable for Consultant's operations, and are consistent with similar operations. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 3.21 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of its employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. As 13 169 between Consultant and the construction contractors only, the construction contractors shall remain solely responsible for construction safety notwithstanding any safety obligations of Consultant at the jobsite. The foregoing sentence shall not impact nor in any way modify or alter Consultant's indemnity and defense obligations to the Commission, as set forth in Section 3.19 of this Agreement, nor any of Consultant's duties or obligations set forth under this Agreement, including the attached exhibits. 3.22 Fees and Payment. 3.22.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall be on the basis of direct costs plus a fixed fee as further set forth in Exhibit "C" and shall not exceed the maximum amount of Three Million, Seven Hundred Eighty Six Thousand, Four Hundred Twenty Eight Dollars and Eight Cents ($3,786,428.08) ("Total Compensation'), without written approval of Commission's Executive Director. 3.22.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the Statement. Charges specific to each Milestone listed in the Schedule of Services shall be listed separately on an attachment to each statement. Each statement shall be accompanied by a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing hours expended for each task for each month and the total Project to date. Each statement shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the Consultant's Project Manager or other authorized officer. 3.22.3 Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission's Executive Director may make a change to the Agreement as permitted by law or authorized by the Commission. (a) In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission's Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement ("Bilateral Contract Modification"). (b) Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission's Executive Director as set 14 • 170 • • forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 3.22.4 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.23 Prohibited Interests. 3.23.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.23.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability pursuant to Section 3.14, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 3.23.5 Covenant Against Expenditure of Local Agency, State or Federal Funds for Lobbying. Intentionally Omitted. 15 171 3.24 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. The Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31 shall be the governing factors regarding allowable elements of cost. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and any other records or documents created pursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be retained by Consultant for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement 3.25 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.26 Right to Employ Other Consultants. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 3.27 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.28 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attomeys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 3.29 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.30 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.31 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: Jacobs Riverside County 3850 Vine Street, Suite 120 Transportation Commission Riverside, CA 92507 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Joseph E. Jenkins Attn: Executive Director 16 • • 172 • Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.32 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.33 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.34 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. 3.35 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.36 Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of Transportation Funds Are Involved. Intentionally Omitted. 3.37 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. [Signatures on following page] 17 173 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO.09-31-080-00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Robert E. Magee, Chair Approved as to Form: Attest: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 18 JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. Signature Name Name Its: Secretary 174 • • • EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES Performance Requirements Construction Management: CONSULTANT shall furnish a Project Manager to coordinate CONSULTANT operations with COMMISSION. The Project Manager shall be responsible for all matters related to CONSULTANT personnel and operations. It is recommended that a single point of contact or "Resident Engineer" be assigned to direct and coordinate construction activities under this contract. Other Assistant Resident Engineers may be assigned to each specific project responsibilities as needed. Resident Engineer shall be a Civil Engineer, registered in the State of California. The Resident Engineer shall be in responsible charge of construction activity within the Project. If the Resident Engineer is not also a registered Landscape Architect, a Landscape Architect shall be assigned as an Assistant Resident Engineer responsible for daily on -site inspections and decisions regarding highway planting and the irrigation systems that comprise a portion of the Project. The number of CONSULTANT personnel assigned to the project will vary throughout the duration of the contract. CONSULTANT personnel will be assigned, in varying levels of responsibility, as needed by the CONSULTANT to meet the project schedule, project requirements, and construction activities. Resumes of personnel must be submitted to COMMISSION for review and approval prior to assignment to the Project. COMMISSION and CONSULTANT will jointly determine the quality and quantity of services that are required by CONSULTANT personnel. Personnel selected for assignment by CONSULTANT shall be made available for personal interviews prior to acceptance by COMMISSION. If, in the opinion of COMMISSION, an individual lacks adequate experience, the individual may be rejected or may be accepted on a trial basis until such time the individual's ability to perform the required services has been demonstrated. If, at any time, the performance of CONSULTANT personnel is unsatisfactory to COMMISSION, COMMISSION may release him/her by written notice and may request another qualified person be assigned. If CONSULTANT personnel are on leave of absence, the Project Manager shall provide approved, equally qualified replacement personnel until the assigned personnel returns to the Project. The typical workday includes all hours worked by the construction Contractor. If necessary, overtime for CONSULTANT personnel may be required. The construction Contractor's operations may be restricted to specific hours during the week, which shall become the normal workday for CONSULTANT personnel. The Project Manager, with concurrence from COMMISSION, shall have the authority to increase, decrease, or eliminate CONSULTANT personnel work hours dependent on the schedule and requirements of the construction Contractor. All overtime required by CONSULTANT personnel shall be Exhibit A 175 approved and authorized by COMMISSION prior to each occurrence. CONSULTANT personnel shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. CONSULTANT personnel shall cooperate and consult with COMMISSION, State, and City officials during the course of the Project. CONSULTANT personnel shall perform duties as may be required to assure that construction is being performed in accordance with the Project plans and specifications. CONSULTANT personnel shall keep accurate and timely records and document all work performed by the Contractor and CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall monitor for Contractor's compliance with the labor standards provisions of the projects and the related wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor. CONSULTANT personnel shall assist COMMISSION and local agencies in obtaining compliance with the safety and accident prevention provisions of the projects. Local agencies will retain jurisdictional control for traffic control. All services required hereunder shall be performed in accordance with California Department of Transportation guidelines, regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards, except as noted in the special provisions. Materials Testing: The number of field testing personnel assigned to the project will vary throughout the duration of the construction contract. CONSULTANT personnel will be assigned as needed by the Resident Engineer to meet the schedule of the construction contractor. It is anticipated that at least one field technician will be required throughout the construction contract period. At times, additional technicians may be required to provide support for on- going construction activities. The duration of assignments could vary from a minimum of a few days to the full term of the project. CONSULTANT personnel will be available within two (2) days of written notification by COMMISSION. It is the intent of COMMISSION to maintain a consistency of material testing quality throughout each phase of each project. CONSULTANT is therefore encouraged to provide, where ever and whenever possible, the same field personnel for the duration of construction of each project. On days when work is not performed by the construction contractor, such as rainy or unsuitable weather days, CONSULTANT will not provide services unless authorized by the COMMISSION Construction Manager. Resumes of materials testing personnel must be submitted to COMMISSION for review and approval prior to assignment to the Project. If, at any time, the level of performance of any testing personnel is below expectations, COMMISSION may release that field person and request that another be assigned as needed. Exhibit A • 176 If a member of CONSULTANT's personnel is on a leave of absence, CONSULTANTS project manager will provide an equally qualified replacement employee until the original member returns to work. The replacement employee will meet all the requirements of a permanently assigned employee. All personnel will be knowledgeable of, and comply with, all applicable local, Ca!trans, and federal regulations; cooperate and consult with COMMISSION and local agency officials during the course of the contract; and perform other duties as may be required to assure that the construction is being performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. CONSULTANTs personnel will keep records and document the work as directed by the Resident Engineer. CONSULTANT personnel shall assist COMMISSION and local agencies in obtaining compliance with the safety and accident prevention provisions of the projects. Local agencies will retain jurisdictional control for traffic control. All services required hereunder will be performed in accordance with Ca!trans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards. Construction Surveying: CONSULTANT will furnish surveying crew(s) to perform construction surveys for the project. The number of survey crew(s) assigned to the project will vary throughout the duration of the construction contract. CONSULTANT personnel will be assigned as needed by the Resident Engineer to meet the schedule of the construction contractor. It is the intent of COMMISSION to maintain a consistency of construction survey quality throughout each phase of each project. Therefore, CONSULTANT is encouraged to provide the same field personnel for the duration of construction. It is important that the Field Party Chief(s) assigned to a project be completely familiar with the survey requirements and the assignments for the project. Construction surveying will not be performed when conditions such as weather, traffic, and other factors prevent safe and efficient operation. Resumes of CONSULTANT personnel and certification must be submitted to COMMISSION for review. CONSULTANT personnel must be approved by COMMISSION prior to assignment to a project. COMMISSION and CONSULTANT will have the responsibility of determining the quality and quantity of work performed by CONSULTANT personnel. If, at any time, the level of performance by CONSULTANT personnel is below expectations, COMMISSION may release the survey crew member and request that another be assigned. If CONSULTANT's surrey crew personnel assigned to the project is on a leave of absence, the Project Manager will provide an equally qualified replacement(s) until the original employee(s) returns to work. The replacement will be required to meet all the requirements of the permanently assigned employee. Exhibit A 177 CONSULTANT personnel will: • Be knowledgeable of, and comply with all, applicable local, Caltrans, state, and federal regulations. • Cooperate and consult with COMMISSION officials during the course of the contract. • Perform duties as may be required to assure construction is performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. • Keep records and document work as directed by the Resident Engineer. All services required hereunder will be performed in accordance with Caltrans regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and standards. Duties and Responsibilities It is noted and acknowledged that the Project will be executed under separate construction contracts, one for the Interchange Reconstruction and one for the Landscape Construction as described in the Project Description. Where the terms "Project" and "Contractor" are used herein, they shall apply to both contracts and contractors. 1. Pre -construction Services a. Plan Review CONSULTANT shall review construction contract documents prior to construction. Tasks include review of plans, specifications, technical reports, resident engineer's pending files, and associated items in order to verify completeness and consistency throughout the Project. At minimum, CONSULTANT shall check for quantity discrepancies, potential conflicts, constructability, and consistency between plans, specifications and pay items. b. Schedule CONSULTANT shall review the proposed Project schedule, compare it to the Project plans and specifications, and provide recommendations to COMMISSION, as appropriate, to ensure efficiency of Contractor and CONSULTANT operations and safe and expeditious completion of the Project. c. Budget CONSULTANT shall review the Project estimate and provide recommendations to COMMISSION, as appropriate, to ensure efficient utilization of funds and control of project costs. Exhibit A 178 • • 2. Bid Process a. Bid Documents CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION, as requested, with the following tasks: 1. Review of bid documents 2. Preparation of bid tabulations b. Pre -construction Meetings CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION in conducting one or more, pre -construction meetings with all involved parties on the Project. Parties may include, but are not limited to, the Contractor, the design engineer, County, cities, utility companies, and developers. c. Contract Award CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION, as requested, with the following tasks: 1. Review of bid for completeness and responsiveness 2. Perform bid analysis 3. Development of contractor payment schedules, and other procedural items. 4. Checking Contractor references, licenses, insurance, and sureties. 5. Coordination with prospective Contractor for award of construction contract(s). All processes will be consistent with procedures outlined by the California Department of Transportation for Special Funded Programs. 3. Project Administration a. CONSULTANT shall administer project construction contract using Ca!trans Construction Manual as a guideline. b. CONSULTANT shall conduct regular project coordination meetings with Contractor, COMMISSION, local agencies, and design engineer, as appropriate. c. CONSULTANT shall prepare Contractor progress payments and maintain payment records and supporting documentation. All progress payments shall be reviewed by COMMISSION for approval. d. CONSULTANT shall establish and maintain Project records. Project record keeping shall include, but are not limited to, correspondence, memoranda, contract documents, change orders, claims, COMMISSION and engineer directives, meeting minutes, shop drawings, supplementary drawings, and requests for payment. CONSULTANT shall maintain a record of the names, addresses, and telephone and fax Exhibit A 179 numbers of the Contractors, subcontractors, and principal material suppliers. e. CONSULTANT shall establish and maintain a filing system for each Project using the Caltrans Construction Manual as a guideline. f. CONSULTANT shall monitor Contractors' construction schedules on an ongoing basis and alert COMMISSION to conditions that may lead to delays in completion of the Project. g. CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a monthly Activity Summary Report for each project. The activity report shall include construction activity, accomplishments, and status of project budget and schedule. h. CONSULTANT shall review and ensure compliance with environmental requirements. i. CONSULTANT shall participate in partnering sessions with the Contractor, COMMISSION, and Local Agencies, as required. j. CONSULTANT shall ensure that the Project meets all provisions of the Caltrans Quality Assurance Program Manual. k. CONSULTANT shall review Contractors' certified payroll records and assist COMMISSION with labor compliance. 1. CONSULTANT shall ensure that the Project meets all provisions of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). m. CONSULTANT shall assure that the Project meets all applicable regulations of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). 4. Construction Coordination a. CONSULTANT shall provide a minimum of one qualified Senior Resident Engineer and other qualified Resident Engineers, as needed to effectively manage the Project. b. CONSULTANT Resident Engineer shall act as a prime point of contact between Contractor, COMMISSION, CONSULTANT'S construction surveyor, CONSULTANT's materials inspector, and utility companies. CONSULTANT may, when requested by COMMISSION, act as point of contact between design engineers, cities, and the public. c. CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with COMMISSION's Construction Manager. Exhibit A 180 • d. CONSULTANT shall coordinate utility relocations with utility companies and their designees, as well as the utility inspector. e. CONSULTANT shall review Project plans and special provisions for possible errors and deficiencies prior to construction of any specific element and report such findings to COMMISSION. Should COMMISSION determine that changes are necessary, CONSULTANT shall assist in implementation and processing of change orders in accordance with contract documents. f. CONSULTANT shall provide all required monitoring, coordination, and tracking of construction progress to ensure the Project proceeds on schedule and according to the order of work in the plans and special provisions. CONSULTANT shall expedite work, as required, to maintain schedule in conjunction with the overall construction staging program. g. CONSULTANT shall coordinate review of shop drawings and Requests for Information (RFI) with the Construction Manager. CONSULTANT shall log and track all submittals and requests. h. CONSULTANT shall provide a qualified SWPPP coordinator who shall review contractor prepared Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and coordinate approval with COMMISSION. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with monitoring agency inspections and field reviews. i. CONSULTANT shall coordinate the implementation of any changes with the Construction Manager and the design engineer. j. CONSULTANT shall review and approve falsework and shoring plans. k. CONSULTANT shall review and approve Traffic Control Plans and forward to COMMISSION to get City approval as necessary. I. CONSULTANT shall coordinate all Project construction activities with other on -going projects within and adjacent to the Project limits. 5. Construction Inspection a. CONSULTANT shall coordinate all required inspections necessary for the Project. CONSULTANT shall ensure that appropriate City, and local agency are notified and present as required throughout the Project. CONSULTANT shall notify COMMISSION immediately regarding any directives, recommendations, notices, etc. received from agencies other than COMMISSION. b. CONSULTANT shall perform daily on -site observations of the progress and quality of construction to determine if the work being performed is in general conformance Exhibit A 181 with the contract documents, all applicable laws, codes, and ordinances. c. CONSULTANT shall exercise reasonable care and diligence to discover and promptly report to COMMISSION any and all defects or deficiencies in the materials or workmanship used in the Project. d. CONSULTANT personnel assigned to the Project shall be thoroughly familiar with Caltrans Standard Specifications, Caltrans Standard Plans, and Caltrans Erosion Control and Highway Planting requirements.. CONSULTANT personnel shall have the ability to read and interpret construction plans and specifications. CONSULTANT personnel shall also have knowledge of State of California Construction Safety Orders (CaIOSHA) and traffic control practices as specified in the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH). In addition, CONSULTANT personnel shall be familiar with the construction requirements of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. e. Assignments to be performed by CONSULTANT personnel shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Paving and subgrade inspection, structures and foundation inspection, signing and striping inspection, quantity calculations, checking grade and alignment, construction traffic control, and duties that may be required to determine that construction of the Project is being performed in accordance with the contract documents. 2. Identifying actual and potential problems associated with the Project and recommending sound engineering solutions. 3. Subgrade inspection, hardscape inspection, trenching & irrigation inspection, quantity calculations, checking grade and alignment, sub -surface & finish surface drainage inspection, soil amendments and plant material identification & quality control, along with other duties that may be required to determine that construction of the Project is being performed in accordance with the contract documents. 4. procedures. Arrange testing in accordance with Caltrans highway planting 5. Maintaining awareness of safety and health requirements. Monitoring Contractors' compliance with applicable regulations and construction contract provisions for the protection of the public and Project personnel. 6. Preparing complete and accurate daily reports, calculations; project records, payment quantity documents, reports, and correspondence related to Project activities. Documents shall be sufficient to provide actual cost of force account work. 7. necessary. Preparing construction sketches, drawings, and cross -sections, as Exhibit A • 182 • 8. Keep records of all deviations from the approved plans to assist the Design Engineer in the preparation of as -built plans. 9. Providing inspections for environmental compliance. 10. Maintaining awareness of water discharge requirements. Monitoring Contractors' compliance with applicable regulations and construction contract provisions. 11. Monitoring Contractors' compliance with applicable regulations required by AQMD. 12. Other duties as may be required or reasonably requested. 6. Project Support a. Construction Surveys CONSULTANT shall perform construction surveying services, field calculations, and home office calculations to support construction of the projects. CONSULTANT may be requested to review available survey data, construction plans, and right-of-way plans to confirm compatibility and to identify discrepancies prior to and during construction of proposed projects. The Resident Engineer will assign survey work to the CONSUTLTANT by issuing a "Request for Survey Services". Requests may include, but not be limited to, the following types of surveys and related services: 1. Construction Surveys CONSULTANT shall assist the Resident Engineer in all phases of construction staking and calculations as needed. Survey calculations and adjustments shall be performed with established and computed coordinates based on the California Coordinate System. Cross-section data collection shall be performed by conventional and terrain line interpolation survey methods. Survey data will include topography, cross-section, and other survey data in computer formats compatible with the Caltrans computer survey and design systems. Prepare and maintain survey documents. Survey documents include survey field notes, maps, drawings, and other survey documents. Perform construction staking, including but not limited to: • Utility relocations • Clearing limits • Slope staking Exhibit A 183 • Storm drain, sanitary sewer, and irrigation systems • Drainage structures • Curbs, gutters, and sidewalk • Horizontal and vertical control for structures and portions of structures (bents, abutments, wingwalls, etc.) • Rough grade • Finish grade Monitor for settlement if required Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment shall be made available if required by COMMISSION 2. Right of Way Lines Existing right of way and easements will be established from Local Agency's record information and existing monumentation. • Right of way monumentation shall be renewed and restored in accordance with Section 10.4 of the Caltrans "Survey Manual° and the State of California Land Surveyor's Act. • Corner records and records of surveys shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the applicable standards and the State of California Land Surveyor's Act. • Perpetuate existing monumentation. Includes restoring, renewing, referencing, and resetting existing boundary related monumentation. In addition, stake areas where. construction disturbs the existing right of way, preparing and filing required maps and records. New right of way and easements will be established from plans, right of way maps, utility drawings, and Local Agency record information, and existing monumentation. • Right of Way Surveys. Includes research and preparation filing of required maps and records. In addition, locate and set monuments for right or way and easement lines, staking for right of way and easement fences. • Final monumentation. Includes setting of centerline points of control upon completion of construction. 3. Special Design — Data Surveys Includes drainage, utility, and surveys required for special field studies. b. Materials Testing and Geotechnical Services Exhibit A 184 CONSULTANT will provide experienced personnel, equipment, and facilities to perform various construction materials sampling and testing. Laboratory and field materials testing will be used to ensure that structure and roadway construction work conforms to California State Department of Transportation (Caftans) standards, specifications, and special provisions for material quality and workmanship. All field and laboratory testing is to be performed in accordance with California Test Methods. CONSULTANT will be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all test data compilation and results. c. Public Relations CONSULTANT shall retain a public relations firm to implement a public outreach program for the project. CONSULTANT shall coordinate public awareness for the project with COMMISSION in conjunction with the local agencies. The CONSULTANT will manage all public awareness activities for this project. CONSULTANT's public relations firm will be responsible for but not limited to the following outreach activities: • Attend construction meetings • Dissemination of traffic advisories • Respond to public inquiries/calls • Organize ground breaking and ribbon cutting ceremonies d. Permits CONSULTANT shall review the project for permit compliance and coordinate with COMMISSION and the design engineer to ensure that necessary permits are obtained. CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION in the coordination, timely processing and verification of approval for all permits. CONSULTANT shall maintain permits and permit documentation on site. 7. Cost and Schedule a. CONSULTANT shall monitor and track the following: 1. Contract pay item quantities and payments 2. Contract change orders 3. Supplemental work items 4. Agency furnished materials 5. Anticipated extra work balance 6. Contingency balance 7. Project budget Exhibit A 185 • b. CONSULTANT shall review and monitor Contractor's schedule and inform COMMISSION of any significant changes or deviations in the schedule. c. CONSULTANT shall provide and maintain a Project staffing plan of field office personnel. In cooperation with COMMISSION, the staffing plan shall be periodically updated to reflect Project progress and needs. 8. Contract Chanute Orders and Claims a. CONSULTANT shall receive and evaluate requests for changes and/or substitutions by the Contractor. Contract Change Orders submitted to COMMISSION shall be accompanied by CONSULTANT recommendations. Where applicable, CONSULTANT shall convey proposed changes to design engineer, or other project Consultants. If the requested changes are accepted, CONSULTANT shall negotiate and prepare appropriate Contract Change Orders. b. CONSULTANT shall attempt to avoid all unnecessary Contract Change Orders. When a Contract Change Order is necessary, CONSULTANT shall consult with COMMISSION prior to its preparation. Unless directed otherwise by COMMISSION, the preferred method of payment for Contract Change Orders should be as follows 1. Agreed Price 2. Adjustment in compensation to a bid item 3. Time and materials or Force Account c. CONSULTANT shall attempt to identify all potential claims, track and monitor unresolved claims, and implement claims avoidance processes. d. CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION, as requested, in the identification, resolution, and final disposition of claims filed by the Contractor or third parties against COMMISSION or the Project. 9. Safety In addition to the requirements specified elsewhere in this contract, the following shall also apply: a. CONSULTANT shall implement and conduct a comprehensive safety program including regular tail -gate safety meetings for CONSULTANT personnel. CONSULTANT shall provide monthly CONSULTANT status of safety reports. b. CONSULTANT shall comply with State of California Construction Safety Orders and provisions of the Ca[trans Construction Manual. Exhibit A 186 • c. CONSULTANT shall provide appropriate safety training for all CONSULTANT field personnel. d. CONSULTANT shall provide all necessary safety equipment as required for CONSULTANT personnel. 10. Project Close Out a. CONSULTANT shall prepare a list of items to be completed and/or corrected by the Contractor for final completion of the Project. b CONSULTANT shall collect and furnish as -built information to the design engineer for preparation of as -built drawings including pre -stress drawings and pile logs, as applicable. c. CONSULTANT shall review and verify completeness of as -built drawings. d. CONSULTANT shall conduct a final walk-through with COMMISSION, Local Agencies, Contractors, and design engineers. e. CONSULTANT shall prepare final construction reports including the Project Completion Report. f. CONSULTANT shall prepare and deliver to COMMISSION all project files. g. CONSULTANT shall assist COMMISSION and Contractor in obtaining final release of all project permits. Deliverables 1. Inspector daily reports, extra work diaries, Landscape Architect, and Resident Engineers' daily diaries. 2. Monthly Project Activity Summary Reports. 3. Monthly Contractor progress payments, back-up documentation, and Contractor payment records. 4. Contractor final payment documents, delivered to COMMISSION no later than ten (10) working days after acceptance by COMMISSION of the completed construction projects. 5. Project Completion Report. Exhibit A 187 6. All project files, project reports, correspondence, memoranda, shop drawings, project logs, change order data, claims and claim reports, and Contractor payment records. 7. Certified payrolls and fringe benefit statements for all employees, CONSULTANT and Contractor, who are subject to the State and/or Federal prevailing wage rates. 8. All material test results will be provided in accordance with the applicable Standard Specifications and Special Provisions, and test methods. Failing tests will be immediately reported to the Resident Engineer or Structures Representative. All test results will be recorded on the appropriate forms. The test documents will be legible and show the identity of the tester where appropriate. A notebook containing all results will be kept. 9. Unless otherwise specified in the survey request, the deliverables shall conform to the following: a. Survey points, lines, and monuments shall be established, marked, identified, and referenced as required by survey request and requirements herein. b. Survey notes, drawings, calculations, and other survey documents and information shall be completed as required by the survey request and the requirements herein. c. All original survey documents resulting from this contract, including original field notes, adjustment calculations, final results, and appropriate intermediate documents, shall be delivered to the Resident Engineer and shall become the property of COMMISSION. A copy of all survey documents furnished by COMMISSION shall be retained by CONSULTANT for future reference. When the surrey is performed with a total station survey system, the original field notes shall be a hard copy in a readable format of the data (observations) as originally collected and submitted by the survey party. The hard copy shall be signed by the Party Chief. If the Party Chief is not licensed, the person in "responsible charge" will be required to sign. d. Deliverables to the Resident Engineer shall follow the format specified below: • Horizontal Control • Alpha numeric hard copy point listing with adjusted California Coordinate System northing and eastings and the appropriate descriptions. • Vertical Control • Alpha numeric hard copy benchmark listing with adjusted elevations compatible with the design datum. • Topography • Alpha numeric hard copy listing, hard copy drawing, and computer aided drawing and design (CADD) digital drawing. The CADD drawing shall be compatible with the systems utilized by Caltrans. Exhibit A • • 188 • • Data collection method used to collect cross-section data and the coding (feature description) of terrain data for cross -sections shall conform to the surrey request requirements. Deliverables shall depend on the data collection method as follows: • Conventional Cross — Sections (each cross — section): For each cross - section and alpha numeric listing, a hard copy drawing, and a computer formatted file compatible with the systems utilized by Caltrans. • Terrain Line Interpolation Cross — Section Data (each terrain line interpolation survey): Terrain line interpolation cross —sections shall include an alpha numeric listing, a hard copy plan view drawing of the terrain lines, and a computer input file. The computer input file shall be provided in a format compatible with the systems utilized by Caltrans. e. Data Collector Data If specified in the survey request, the raw data from the data collector shall be provided in a format conforming to the survey request requirements f. Other As specified in the survey request. Equipment and Materials to be provided by Offerror 1. CONSULTANT will provide office space, telephones, desks, chairs, computers, and appropriate office equipment. One (1) office with a desk, chair, telephone, and computer will be reserved for the COMMISSION. 2. CONSULTANT shall provide all necessary equipment including software, materials, supplies, miscellaneous tools, and safety equipment required for its personnel to perform the services accurately, efficiently, and safely. Only those items listed in Attachment B, CONSULTANT Cost Proposal, shall be reimbursed by COMMISSION. 2. CONSULTANT personnel shall be provided with vehicles suitable for the location and nature of the work involved. Vehicles shall be equipped with flashing yellow lights, either permanently or temporarily affixed. 3. CONSULTANT personnel shall be provided with a mobile radio, cellular phone, or other means to assure full-time communication. If a radio system is to be used, CONSULTANT shall provide a base station at the field office. 4. CONSULTANT personnel shall be provided with all applicable standard plans, specifications, and other standards as appropriate (see item G below). Exhibit A 189 5. For Materials Testing, CONSULTANT and its staff will be fully equipped at all times to perform the services required, including but not limited to the following: a. An on -site mobile laboratory or laboratory in close proximity to the project will be required. The type and location of the lab should be such that it can meet the needs of the project in an efficient, time effective manner. The laboratory is to be fully staffed, equipped, and supplied to conduct all required soils, materials, and concrete breaking tests in a timely manner. b. CONSULTANT's personnel will be provided with radios, mobile phones, or other means to assure full-time communication. CONSULTANT vehicles will have flashing lights, visible from the rear, with a driver control switch. Vans without side windows will not be used. COMMISSION furnished magnetic logos will be affixed to each side of the vehicle at all times the vehicle is being used for the work under this contract. Each vehicle is to be fully contained with all necessary equipment and supplies necessary to perform the field sampling and tests required. c. Field personnel will be provided with all necessary safety equipment to permit work to be performed safely and efficiently within operating highway and construction zone environments. d. All equipment to be calibrated as per Section 3-10 and 3-11 of Cattrans' Quality Assurance Program Manual. 6. For construction surveying, CONSULTANT and staff shall have adequate equipment and supplies to complete the required survey work. Equipment and supplies shall, include, but not be limited to: a. Survey vehicles: Survey vehicles will be suitable to perform the required work in varying terrain and conditions encountered on the project. Vehicles shall be fully equipped with all necessary tools, instruments, supplies, and safety equipment required to perform the work accurately, efficiently, and safely. Vehicles shall be equipped with a flashing yellow beacon light. b. Data Processing Systems: Data processing systems shall include hardware and software to: • Perform surrey and staking calculations from the design plans and specifications; • Reduce survey data collected with conventional and total station survey systems; • Perform network adjustments for horizontal and vertical control surveys; Exhibit A • 190 • • Format survey data to be compatible with the Caltrans computer survey and data system. c. Drafting equipment and supplies. d. Digital calculators. e. Hand tools as appropriate for the requested survey work. f. Traffic cones (minimum 25). Traffic cones shall be 28 inches in height (minimum). g. Traffic control devices as required to perform the requested survey work. Traffic control devices include signs, sign bases, flags, and hand held signs. h. Leveling instruments and equipment: • Self -leveling level. Precision: standard deviation in one mile of double run leveling 0.005 feet or less. • Suitable level rods for the work to be performed. i. Distance measuring instruments and equipment: • Electronic distance measurer (EDM). Precision: standard deviation 3 mm plus 3 PPM, or less; Range: Minimum one mile under average atmospheric conditions. • Prisms, sufficient to perform the required work. • Tapes; steel, cloth. j. Angle measuring instruments and equipment: • Theodolite for non -control surveys; Precision: direct circle reading to three seconds, or equivalent, horizontal and vertical. • Targets as required to perform the work. k. When required for efficient survey operations, total station survey systems consisting of an electronic angle measuring instrument, EDM, and electronic data collector shall be provided. The angle measuring instruments and EDM shall conform to the requirements for the equipment previously listed. I. Radio or cellular communications equipment for communication between field office and field crews. m. Caltrans manuals, standards, forms, and other policies and procedures to be followed to perform the required work. Materials to be Furnished by Commission 1. COMMISSION will provide copies of all Project construction documents including plans, special provisions, reports, designer prepared resident engineer files, and contracts. Exhibit A 191 2. COMMISSION will provide copies of all previously secured permits and Project authorizations. 3. Appropriate forms for recording test data in accordance with Caltrans practices and procedures outlined in the "Manual of Test". 4. Magnetic COMMISSION logos to be affixed to CONSULTANT vehicles. Standards All construction inspection, surveys, materials sampling and testing, and contract administration shall be in accordance with the Project bid documents, special provisions, plans, and current Caltrans Manuals including: 1. Construction Manual and its revisions 2. Bridge Construction Records and Procedures Manual 3. Quality Assurance Program Manual 4. Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones 5. Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans 6. Caltrans Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual 7. Manual of Test (3 volumes) 8. Survey Manual 9. District 8 Standard Staking Procedures Manual Work not covered by the manuals shall be performed in accordance with accepted professional standards. Surveys performed by CONSULTANT shall conform to the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. In accordance with the Land Surveyor's Act, "responsible charge" for the work shall reside with the Licensed Land Surveyor or a pre -January 1, 1982, Registered Professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. Unless otherwise specified in the survey request, control surveys shall conform to second order (modified) accuracy standards as specified in the Caltrans "Survey Manual". Exhibit A 192 • • Additional standards for specific survey work may be included in the applicable request for survey. Such standards supplement the standards specified herein. If additional standards conflict with the standards specified herein, the "Survey Request's" standard shall govem. The Resident Engineer and COMMISSION will decide all questions which may arise as to the quality or acceptability of deliverables fumished and work performed for this contract. Any CONSULTANT employee who does not perform adequately will be replaced if directed by the COMMISSION Construction Manager. Availability and Work Hours The typical workday includes all hours worked by COMMISSION's construction Contractor. The construction Contractor's operations may be restricted to specific hours during the week, which will become the normal workday for CONSULTANT's personnel. On days when work is not performed by the construction contractor, such as rainy or unsuitable weather days, CONSULTANT services will not be provided unless authorized by the COMMISSION Construction Manager. Unless otherwise directed by COMMISSION, the normal work week will consist of 40 hours. From time to time, overtime may be required. However, overtime will be worked only when approved in writing by COMMISSION. Limitations to Authority CONSULTANT does not have the authority to: 1. Authorize deviations from the contract documents. 2. Approve substitute materials or equipment; except as authorized in writing by COMMISSION. 3. Conduct or participate in tests or third party inspections; except as authorized in writing by COMMISSION. 4. Assume any of the responsibilities of the Contractors, Contractors' Superintendent, or subcontractors. 5. Exercise control over or be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures, or safety precautions. 6. Communicate directly with subcontractors or material suppliers without the prior consent of the Contractor. 7_ Verbally authorize or approve change orders or extra work for the Project. Exhibit A 193 $. Offer or receive incentives, inducements, or other forms of enumeration to or from the Contractor to perform services or work outside the terms of any executed contracts for this Project. Third Party Relationships This Contract is intended to provide unique services for a specific project. In the development of the Project, COMMISSION has worked closely with various professional Consultants, agencies, and others in the preparation of the construction documents and other Project related materials. COMMISSION, however, is solely responsible for and will be the sole point of contact for all contractual matters related to the Project. CONSULTANT shall take direction only from COMMISSION and shall regularly inform only COMMISSION of Project progress, outstanding issues, and all Project related matters. During the course of the Project, CONSULTANT may find occasion to meet with City or County representatives, the design engineer, Project Consultants, or other third parties who have assisted with the Project. These entities may, from time to time, offer suggestions and/or recommendations regarding the Project or elements of the Project. While COMMISSION enjoys a close relationship with and has considerable confidence in the capabilities of these other parties, CONSULTANT shall not act on any suggestions, solicited or unsolicited, without obtaining specific direction from COMMISSION. All oral and written communication with outside agencies or Consultants related to the project shall be directed only to COMMISSION. Distribution of Project related communication and information shall be at the sole discretion of COMMISSION representatives. Construction Site Safety In addition to the requirements specified elsewhere in this contract, the following also will apply. 1. CONSULTANT will conform to the safety provisions of the Caltrans Construction Manual 2. CONSULTANT's field personnel will wear white hard hats with proper suspension, orange vests with reflective tape, sleeved shirt, long pants, and leather boots with ankle support and rubber soled shoes at all times while working in the field. 3. CONSULTANT will provide appropriate safety training for all CONSULTANT's personnel. 4. All safety equipment will be provided by CONSULTANT. Basis for Survey and Monument Staking COMMISSION will designate the existing horizontal and vertical control monuments that are the basis of CONSULTANT performed surveys. COMMISSION will provide the California Exhibit A • 194 • Coordinate System values and/or elevation values for these monuments. CONSULTANT shall adjust CONSULTANT performed surveys to be the designated control monuments and the values. Monuments established by CONSULTANT shall be marked by CONSULTANT with furnished disks, plugs, tags. In addition, CONSULTANT shall identify CONSULTANT established monuments by tagging or stamping the monuments with the license or registration number of CONSULTANT'S surveyor who is in "responsible charge" of the work. Personnel Qualifications and Responsibilities The quantity and qualifications of field personnel to be assigned will be determined by the scope of the Project and the degree of difficulty of required tasks to be performed. All personnel and personnel assignments shall be subject to approval by COMMISSION. Exhibit A 195 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF SERVICES [attached behind this page] Exhibit B 196 RCTC-Construction Management Services for SR-74A-215 interchange Improvement Program LabOr Leading Chart 0440 Nevd9 0e4L9 Jm40 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-16 My-10 Jun.10 Jul-10 Au0419 Sep-10 0ab10 Noy-10 Oe>10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mw-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Mq-11 Sep41 Project Schetlule Pmsonsbuctlon Services 816 Process CM Services during Construction Project Pone out FY2010 FY2011 1 2 0 4 5 6 P 8 9 10 11 12 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 Om-09 Nov-09 Dee 09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-IO fie --(Advertisement Date: 11/12M91 O O♦ 14-I6118: 03115n01 (Side Due: 01 12116) (Anticipated Commission Award:0L10n0) Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oe1-10 Nov-I0 Doe-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun 11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 FY21110 FY2011 Po01Nan Name Company 1 2 J 4 B 6 l 8 9 10 11 12 10 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 00149 Nov419 Dec-09 Jan40 Feb-16 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 J1140 Aug-10 6e640 0d40 Nov-111 Den-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May41 Jun-11 Ju411 Au941 Se941 Project Principal/CIA Manager Jenkins, Joseph E. Jacobs -Feld BO B 8 5 8 8 8 B 8 8 0 6 8 B B 8 8 B 8 8 Resident Engeeer TomaceM, Gary Jacobs -Feld 80 40 80 BB 88 175 176 lib 176 176 176 IN 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 Safely Manager Carnmela, Dawn Jacobs. Field 8 8 B 8 0 8 8 8 6 B 8 8 0 B 8 6 8 8 8 Inspector (Roadway) Russell, Roger Jacobs -Field 06 176 176 176 fib 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 lib 176 176 Project Controls/Scheduling BchuOa,Joanne Jacobs -Field 16 40 0 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 B 8 Office Engineer Yu, Clementine Jacobs. Field 40 88 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 till 176 176 in 176 176 176 Landscape Architect Flores, f311 Coyote Mains, Inc. 16 Materiels Testing' T8D MTGL 120 120 120 160 160 120 120. 120 120 120 120 160 160 120 120 120 120 120 Inspector (Bridge) Mark Tang Fakan Engheedig 88 IN 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 Ile 176 in lib 176 176 Inspector (Electrical) DeMalo. Ronald Vali Cooper 16 88 80 88 SWPPP Coordinalor Bmadwater, Mike Vali Cooper 40 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ConWuslbn Surveying' &mental8, Hall Psomas 40 160 160 160 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 140 40 40 Public Relations' Donahue 8, Has Arelano Assouales 108 82 32 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 113 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Labor Compliance Meadows, Karen Meadows Consulting 8 6 8 e 8 6 a e 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 6 6 Total Nouns: Labor Loading Chad 976 9 A18 tAl 76 1,064 1,004 1A04 page 1 of 2 Ver. D-1012/09 RCTC-Construction Management Services for SR-74A-215 Interchange Improvement Program Labor Loading Chart Oc411 Mavrii Dem Jan-12 f-j Feb-1 MW2 Ayr-12 May-12 Ln-13 Jul-12 Au9A2 6q-12 Project Schedule FY2012 25 ON-11 PreconstructIon SnNde 1316 Proms 28 Nov-11 22 Bec-11 28 Jan-12 29 Feb-12 Mahl2 31 Apo.12 CM Borden during Construction Project Close Out 32 Meson 33 Jun-12 34 Jul-12 35 Aug-12 36 Sep-12 Q� (Anillcpett6 Completion Doh: 04/30/121 PosKlon Name COMpanY IS 26 27 28 29 30 • 31 32 33 36 36 36 Total 0c1-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Frojecl Prkdpal/OA Manager Jenkins, Joseph Jacobs - Field 6 a a 8 8 e 8 8 0 304 Resident Engineer TOmeseN. Gary Jacobs - Feld 116 176 176 176 1M 176 176 176 In 88 5,409 Safety Manager CskgelM, Devitt Jacobs - Feld 8 a 8 8 8 a 8 ZO6 inspector(Roadvray) Russell. Roger Jacobs-FlelO in 1M 176 176 176 176 176 176 4,664 Project COMrolst5che0uing Schur, Joanne Jacobs -Flea B a e 8 0 8 8 256 once Engineer Yu, Clementine Jacobs-FIe1d 176 iM 176 178 176 176 176 176 176 85 5044 landscape Archilesl Flores, Gil Coyote MigMs, Inc. 88 88 88 BB 366 Maiaieb Tesnne TBO MTGL 120 120 12D 120 120 120 98 3,135 Insp./10r(Bridge) Maisc Tana Fakon.Englneering 176 176 176 3,764 Inspecor(Electrical) OeM01o, Ronald Vali Cooper 88 a8 ea BB as ea a3 B96 SMPPP Cohtlimlur Eroadwohr. Mike Vali Cooper 4 4 4 0 4 4 0 140 Construction Surveying' Sknental & Slag Psomas 40 40 90 46 40 40 16 2,836 Public RabdonC ri n sue a Marl Arellaro Associates 18 18 1st 16 16 16 80 604 Labor Completive seesaws. Karen Meadows consWlkg B e e 8 8 a 8 200 TOhl lour:: 1,004 1004 1,064 916 Labor LOeding Chart 6 934 536 350 176 - - 27,142 page 2612 Vet. Cl -10r1N9 • • EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein. 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is 1.95, and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs 1.00 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives 0.26 The decimal ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. Exhibit C-1 199 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs 0.69 The decimal ratio of allowable Overhead Costs to the Consuftant firm's total direct salary costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. 1.1.2.4 Profit 10% Total Multiplier 2.145 (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3 multiplied by the percentage of profit) 1.2 FIXED FEE. 1.2.1 The Fixed Fee is the Profit as determined in Section 1.1.2.4. The Maximum Fixed Fee under this Agreement is One Million Sixty Five Thousand, Five Hundred Fifty Six Dollars and Forty Five Cents ($165,556.45) and shall not exceed this amount without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE Vehicle Lease & Fuel Cell Phones Office Lease Office Utilities Office Phone Equipment (9 phones) Phone Service Copier Lease Coffee / Water Service Office Supplies $1,200.00 / month $75.00 / month $4,837.50 / month $500.00 / month $300.00 $50.00 / month $300.00 / month $100.00 / month $200.00 / month Exhibit C-2 • • • 200 • • Office Furniture (10 working spaces) Conference Room Furniture & File Cabinets Computers (5 desktop) Network Printer (1) Alarm System Janitorial Service T1 Line Set Up T1 Line Service Digital Camera (1) Travel Car mileage Reprographic Services Postage/Shipping Courier Service Other Rentals, Supplies & Purchases $500.00 $4500.00 $4,500.00 $500.00 $150.00 / month $250.00 / month $12,500.00 $100.00 / month $150.00 Actual Cost $0.59 / mi. or current IRS rate Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Consultant's adjustments to individual compensation. The Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. Exhibit C-3 201 POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Principal Construction Project Manager Health, Safety & Environment Quality Control (Field) Inspector Project Controls Office Engineer RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $55.75 TO $92.92/hour $43.27 to $72.12/hour $29.61 to $55.36/hour $47.85 to $61.00/hour $43.27 to $81.51/hour $22.21 to $37.43/hour 2.3 The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants to the Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost proposal. 3. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.3 Base Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for eachtask and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: Exhibit C-4 202 • • I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed Title Date Invoice No. 4. PAYMENT 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment Exhibit C-5 203 EXHIBIT "C" Part 2 LIST OF APPROVED SUBCONSULTANTS AND RATES APPROVED SUB Company Direct Salary Cost Salary Additives Overhead Feel Profit Rate Total Multiplier Arellano Associates 1.0 0.0 0.6 .10 1.76 Coyote Nights, Inc. 1.0 0.23 0.1336 .10 1.50 Falcon Engineering Services 1.0 0.76 0.57 .10 2.563 Meadows Consulting 1.0 0.0 .45 .10 1.595 MTGL, Inc. 1.0 0.69 0.21 .10 2.09 Psomas 1.0 0.523 1.214 .10 3.107 Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. 1.0 0.23 1.2318 .10 2.708 Subconsultant Additional Direct Costs Rates for identified Subconsultant Additional Direct Costs are as follows: REIN Vehicle Lease & Fuel Cell Phones Travel Car mileage Reprographic Services Postage/Shipping Courier Service Other Rentals, Supplies, Purchases REIMBURSEMENT RATE $1,200.00 / month $75.00 / month Actual Cost $0.59 / mi. or current IRS rate Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Other Direct Costs permitted under the FAR and not listed above are reimbursed at cost. Subconsultant Direct Salary Rates Arellano Associates POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Public Outreach Project Manager Public Outreach Specialist Project Support Coyote Nights, Inc. RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $80.00 to $120.00 $55.00 to $85.00 $10.00 to $25.00 POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES Landscape Architect Exhibit C-6 $100.00 to $125.00 204 • • • Falcon Engineering Services POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Bridge Inspector Meadows Consulting POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Sr. Labor Compliance Specialist MTGL, Inc. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Engineering Technician (Lab & Field) Principal Engineer/Geologist Registered Civil Engineer/Geologist Staff Engineer/Geologist Inspection/Laboratory Supervisor Project Manager Draftsperson Word Processing Psomas POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Project Manager Office Surveyor Field Surveyor Survey CAD Project Admin 2-Person Survey Crew Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION Electrical Inspector SWPPP Coordinator Exhibit C-7 RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $48.00 to $70.00 RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $45.00 - $65.00 RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $30.00 to $45.00 $70.00 to $100.00 $50.00 to $75.00 $35.00 to $60.00 $35.00 to $60.00 $35.00 to $75.00 $25.00 to $45.00 $15.00 to $30.00 RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $70.00 - $90.00 $40.00 - $55.00 $40.00 - $55.00 $28.00 - $48.00 $15.00 - $30.00 $75.00 - $95.00 RANGE OF HOURLY RATES $45.00 - $70.00 $45.00 - $70.00 205 EXHIBIT "C" Part 3 COST SUMMARY Company Position Name Hours Cost Jacobs Project Principal/OA Manager Jenkins, Joseph E. 304 $ 56,352A8 Jacobs Resident Engineer Tomasetti, Gary 5,400 $ 788,346.00 Jacobs Safety Manager Caringella, Devin 208 $ 23,597.60 Jacobs Inspector (Roadway) RusseN, Roger 4,664 $ 578,429.28 Jacobs Project Controls/Scheduling Schultz, Joanne 256 $ 40,168.96 Jacobs Office Engineer Yu, Clementine 5,144 $ 334,205.68 Coyote Nights, Inc. Landscape Architect Flores, Gil 368 $ 55,200.00 MTGL Materials Testing TBD 3,138 $ 292,865.00 Falcon Engineering Inspector (Bridge) Malik, Tariq 3,784 $ 581,827.84 Vali Cooper Inspector (Electrical) DeMaio, Ronald 896 $ 133,450.24 Vali Cooper SVVPPP Coordinator Broadwater, Mike 140 $ 20,048.00 Psomas Construction Surveying Simental & Staff 2,036 $ 448,494.00 Arellano Associates Public Relations Donahue & Staff 604 $ 87,507.00 Meadows Consulting Labor Compliance Meadows, Karen 200 $ 17,000.00 O D C s $ 328,936.00 Total 27,142 $ 3,786,428.08 Exhibit C-8 206 • RCTC-Construction Management Services for SR-74R-215 Interchange Improvement Program Billing Rate Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Position Name Company Project Principal/CA Manager Jenkins, Joseph E. Jacobs -Field Resident Engineer Tomasete Gary Jacobs -Field Safety Manager Caringella, Davin Jacobs -Field Inspector (Roadway) Russell, Roger Jacobs -Field Project Controls/Scheduling Schultz, Joanne Jacobs • Home Office Office Engineer Yu, Clementine Jacobs -Field Landscape Architecl Flores, Gil Coyote Nights, Inc. Materials Testing' TBD MTGL Inspector (Bridge) Malik, Tariq Falcon Engineering Inspector (Electrical) DeMaio, Ronald Vali Cooper SWPPP Coordinator Broadwater, Mike Vali Cooper Construction Surveying' Simemal8 Staff Psomas Public Relations' Donahue 8 Staff Arellano Associates Labor Compliance Meadows, Karen Meadows Consulting -See Attached Speciatty Subconsuttant quotations Overhead Rate - Field: Overhead Rate -Office: Profit: Field Multiplier Office Multiplier Annual Escalation %(October 1 -September 30): • Billing Rate Table A B Cm x B) D•A x1+ESC E•0 F•(D'E) G•(D'1+ESC H•B I•(G'H) FY10 Bare Rate Multiplier ar FY1Bill Rate S 86.42 2.145 $ 185.37 S 68.06 2.145 $ 145.99 $ 52.89 2.145 $ 113.45 $ 57.82 2.145 $ 124.02 $ 73.15 2.145 $ 156.91 $ 30.29 2.145 $ 64.97 5 100.00 1.500 $ 150.00 1.000 8 - $ 60.00 2563 $ 153.76 $ 55.00 2.708 $ 148.94 $ 52.88 2708 $ 14220 1.000 $ - 1.000 $ S 53.29 1.595 $ 65.00 Jacobs 95.00% 120.30% I 10A0%' 2.145 2.423 0.00%1 FY11 Bare Rale Multiplier FY11 Bill Rote $ 86.42 2.145 S 185.37 5 68.08 2.145 S 145.99 $ 52.89 2.145 S 113.45 $ 57.82 2145 5 124.02 $ 73.15 2145 5 156.91 $ 30.29 2145 $ 64.97 $ 100.00 1.500 5 150.00 $ - 1.000 $ - $ 60.00 2.563 S 153.76 $ 55A0 2.708 $ 148.94 3 52.88 2.708 $ 143.20 $ - 1.000 $ - $ - 1.000 $ - $ 53.29 1.595 $ 85.00 FY12 Ban Multiplier Rate FY12 Bill Rats S 88A2 2.145 $ 155,37 5 68.06 2.146 $ 145.99 $ 52.69 2.145 8 113.45 5 57.82 2145 5 124.02 S 73.15 2.145 5 155.91 $ 30.29 2.145 $ 64.97 $ 100.00 1.500 $ 150.00 $ - 1.000 $ - $ 60.00 2.563 S 153.76 $ 55.00 2.708 S 148.94 S 52.88 2.708 $ 143.20 $ - 1.000 $ - $ - 1.000 $ - $ 53.29 1.595 $ 85.00 +ESC Km • L•IJ'N FY13 Bare FY13 Bill Rate Multiplier Rata $ $6.42 2.145 $ 185.37 $ 88.06 2.145 $ 145.99 $ 52.89 2145 3 113.45 5 57.82 2.145 $ 124.02 $ 73,16 2.145 $ 156.91 $ 30.29 2.145 3 64.97 $ 100.00 1.500 $ 150.00 $ - 1.000 $ - $ 50.00 2.663 $ 163.76 5 55.00 2.708 $ 148.94 $ 52.68 2.708 $ 143.20 $ - 1.000 $ - $ - 1.000 $ S 53.29 1.595 $ 65.00 This document contains confidential end proprietary nlotmetion, which has commercial and/or Handal value. Such Information has not been publicly disclosed and la exempt loom enclosure under the Freedom otlntotmelon Act uN ar other lealslacon. Jambs reWeab mitten notice before any public disclosure Is made. Billing Rate Table Page l of 1 Ver 0-10/2/09 RCTC-Construction Management Services for SR-74/1-215 Interchange Improvement Program Other Direct Costs & Specialty Subconsultants Other Direct Costs MY Joits/monthl Unit Cost Extended Cost Remarks 1 Vehicles -lease & fuel - Jacobs 2 26 $ 1,200.00 $ 62,400 2 Cell Phones - Jacobs 3 26 $ 75.00 $ 5,850 3 Office -lease 1 26 $ 4,837.50 $ 125,775 Square Footage 2,250 x 32.15/SF 4 Utilities 1 26 $ 500.00 $ 13,000 5 Office Phones - 9 Phones 1 1 $ 300.00 $ 300 6Office Phones -Monthly 1 26 $ 50.00 $ 1,300 7 Copier -lease 1 26 $ 300.00 $ 7,800 8 Coffee/Water 1 26 $ 100.00 $ 2,600 9 Office Supplies 1 26 $ 200.00 $ 5,200 10 Office Furniture-10 Working Spaces 1 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 12 person oonf table, 2 - 4 private 11 Office Furniture -Conference Area 1 1 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500 offices, 8 workstations, File cabinets. 12 Computers/Laptops 5 1 $ 1,501100 $ 7,500 5 desktops. 13 Remote Printers 1 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 14 Alarm System 1 26 $ 150.00 $ 3,900 15 Janitorial Services 1 26 $ 250.00 $ 6,500 16 T1 Line -Set-up 1 1 $12,500.00 $ 12,500 17 T1 Line -Monthly 1 26 $ 100.00 $ 2,600 18 Digital Cameras 1 1 $ 150.00 $ 150 19Travel -As Approved 1 1 $10,000.00 $ 10,000 20 Misc Monthly ODCs- 1 31 $ 500.00 $ 15,500 21 Misc. Mileage (@ $.59 mile) 400 26 $ 0.59 $ 6,136 22 Vehicles - lease & fuel - Vali Cooper 0.5 10 $ 1,200.00 $ 6,000 23 Vehicle - lease & fuel - Falcon Eng. 1 22 $ 1,200.00 $ 26,400 24 Cell Phones - Vali Cooper 0.5 10 $ 75.00 $ 375 25 Cell Phone - Falcon Engineering 1 22 $ 75.00 $ 1,650 Other Direct Cost Sub -Total: $ 328,936 Specialty Subconsultants* 1 Materials Testing - QA (MTGL) 2 Community Relations (Arellano Associates) 3 Survey (Psomas) • See attached Subconsultanl quotations $ 292,865 $ 87,507 $ 448,494 Subconsultants Sub -Total: $ 828,866 Total ODCs & Specialty Subconsultants: $ 1,157,802 ODCs & Subs Page 1 of 1 Ver. D - 10/2/09 208 Central Dispatch 000) J91-29ih! °Mee Locations 13144rith :tdtlress 1-6-10 Meridian 1'arl.wap, Bldg. 2-A elserside, CA 92518 Tel: (951)653-1999 Fax: (951)653-4666 Branch Offices Indio Orange County 1..ns Angeles! Ventura Counts Sun [Begin Imperial C.iiineties •tit2n ikd 1 aspire San Bernardino! Riverside Cer£i(?ing Agencies .State or C:atirarnla SD.S..: 13Si1Prf Anterititn Amen. ut State Highways Cat Trans C:C itl. Cement K (:mterele Releresrc: Laboratory 18B Angeles LA Count) L_A City . tir.ingr E-o LK A Change County Environmental Munagcrnent Agency :�i.ist iiit'nu :Sao Di£ p City San Diego Conrrty SD {,tVX:v. ttlxtru} Encl.: Prevailing Wage Schedule of Fees 2008, Estimated Breakdown MBEIWBE, AASHTO, CALTRANS, CITY OFSD/LA, DSA SD/LA CERTIFIED Geotechnical Eagineering Ceastruction Inspection Apr to rials Testing {iJ uviron raeri al Jacobs Civil, Inc. 5757 Plaza Drive, Suite 100 Cypress, CA 90603 Attention: Mr. Joe Jenkins Re: Revised Cost Estimate To Provide (QA) Testing Services SR 74 I 1-215 Interchange Improvement Project - Perris, CA Dear Mr. Jenkins: September 28, 2009 P-09-578.R1 Enclosed please find our Estimated Cost Breakdown and our Prevailing Wage Fee Schedule dated July 1, 2008. The rates set forth in the attached schedule & our detailed cost breakdown are the basis for our proposal. Our overall estimate will serve as a 'Not to Exceed Amount Without Prior Written Authorization" from Jacobs Civil, Inc. We have reviewed the plans and specifications and it is understood that our roll will consists of Quality Assurance Material Testing necessary for the SR 74 / 1-215 Interchange Improvement Project Our estimates reflect the use of 1 full time technician for the duration of the project and the use of 1 supplemental technician for backup per the RCTC RFQ recommendation. Our estimated fees of $292,865.00 have been based on the estimated technician time as noted in RFQ, project plans, project specifications, and our experience with projects of a similar size and scope. Estimates shown are based on work performed eight hours per day, Monday through Friday. All Invoicing would be in accordance with the Basis of Charges in our Schedule of Fees. These prices will remain in effect threw the duration of the project The opportunity of submitting this estimate is sincerely appreciated. If our estimate meets with your approval, please indicate your acceptance by signing and returning the enclosed copy. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, CLIENT: MTGL, Inc. Gail Stewart Business Development/Project Manager BY: TITLE: DATE: Cus; ;it :(isersid: • Josh Atadero Operations Manager 209 MTGL, Inc. ESTIMATED COST BREAKDOWN Project: SR 74 / 1-215 Interchange Improvement Project Proposal No. 09-578.R1 Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount TESTING AND INSPECTION Engineering Technician - (1 tech full time) per RCTC RFQ (as needed) Engineering Technician - (1 supplemental) per RCM RFQ (as needed) Maximum Density Tests of Soils (CTM 216) Maximum Density Tests for Aggregates (CTM 216) Sieve Analysis (CTM 202) Plasticity Index (CIM 204) Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Corrosion Suite (C I'M 422, t: TM 417, and CTM 532) Asphalt Content Test (CTM 382) R-Value 3-Point (CTM 301) Aggregate Gradation Test (CTM 202) Theoretical Max Density (CTM 309) Sand Equivalent (CTM 217) BMA Moisture Content (CTM 370) Stabilometer Value (CTM 366) Air Void Content (ASTM D3203) Percent of Crushed Particles (CTM 205) Los Angeles Rattler (CTM 211) Fine Aggregate Angularity (AASHTO T 304, Method A) Flat & Elongated Particles (ASTM D 4791) Nuclear Density Gauge Miscellaneous Testing " As Needed -Directed by Engineer" ADMINISTRATION Project Set Up Project Management, Administration, Report Review & Distribution SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL • 2,838.0 Hourly 80.00 227,040.00 300.0 Hourly 80.00 24,000.00 8.0 Each 175.00 1,400.00 8.0 Each 175.00 1,400.00 8.0 Each 90.00 720.00 8.0 Each 90.00 720.00 12.0 Each 90.00 1,080.00 8.0 Each 250.00 2,000.00. 13.0 Each 150.00 1,950.00 4.0 Each 225.00 900.00 13.0 Each 95.00 1,235.00 8.0 Each 175.00 1,400.00 20.0 Each 80.00 1,600.00 13.0 Each 95.00 1,235.00 6.0 Each 150.00 900.00 6.0 Farh 125.00 750.00 8.0 Each 150.00 1,200.00 4.0 Each 175.00 700.00 6.0 Each 125.00 750.00 5.0 Each 125.00 625.00 344.0 Each 40.00 13,760.00 1.0 Estimate 3,500.00 3,500. S 288,865 1.0 Each 500.00 500.00 1.0 Each 3,500.00 3,500.00 S 4,000.00 GRAND TOTAL S 292,865.00 210 • PSOMAS. • LAND SURVEYING AND M..APPING SERVICES PROJECT: ROTC SR-74/1-215 Interchange • CONSTRUCTION �. _ St 1tV EN li t; PROJECT MANAGER >. PROF FS, OFFICE SURVEYOR 7PclV[tlL (Lts4 [P1C#1tON5 PROJECT ADMIN 2-PERSON SURVEY V1 CRES77 TOTAL N 11N I10U12S , TOTALS TolAt. QOL1..1RS FIELD SURVEYOR SURVEY CAD 00 S45:00 S44:30' . , ;. , $35.00 $23.00 _ . $8$.53.. ' ` I Pre -Construction Calculations 16 80 120 4 220 $10,251 2 Construction Control 10 40 8 1 80 139 $9,631 3 Flag R/W 5 8 1 40 54 $4,104 4 Cadastral Survey/Comer Records 24 40 40 2 40 146 $8,435 5 Grading 6 8 3 80 97 $7,599 6 Drainage 6 8 2 80 96 $7,576 7 Utilities 1 2 1 16 20 $1,529 8 Stage IA 8 10 3 100 121 $9,482 9 Stage 1B 8 10 2 100 120 $9,459 10 Stage 1C 8 10 2 100 120 $9,459 11 Stage 2 8 10 2 100 120 $9,459 12 Stage 3 8 10 1 100 119 $9,436 13 Retaining Walls 6 8 1 80 95 $7,553 14 Soundwalls 6 8 1 80 95 $7,553 15 irrigation Layout 16 Bridge Layout 6 8 2 80 96 $7,576 17 Monument Right of Way 6 40 2 80 128 $8,997 18 Record of Survey 40 120 80 8 248 $11,464 19 Design Surveys (Budget) 8 10 80 $7,742 Total Hours 183 280 268 120 38 1236 2036 Direct Cost S147,306 Overhead at (73.7% S255,871 Sub Total S403,177 Profit at 10% $40,318 Total Labor S443,494 3% Escalation Riverside County Checking Fees $5,000 Total 5448,494 Construction Management Support, interstate 215/State Route 74 Interchange Public Outreach Services Arellano Associates Riverside County Transportation Commission, Jacobs Submitted: 8/19/09 LABOR COSTS Cheryl Donahue Elsa Argomaniz Raul Velazquez TOTAL Project Manager Outreach Specialist Outreach Specialist Project Support Rate: $ 94.50 $64.05 $62.05 $10.00 Hours i Cost Hours i Coat Hours i Cost Hours i Cost Hours : Cost Task , 1 Stakeholder Database 4: $ 378 12: $ 769 - : $ - - i $ - 16 : $ 1,147 2 Collateral Material - Project Fact Sheet and Website 16 i $ 1,512 - i $ - - i $ - - I $ - 16 i $ 1,512 3 Pre -Construction Public Meeting 8 i $ 756 16 i $ 1,025 $ i $ 496 4 i $ 40 36 i $ 2,317 4 Project Helpline - Script, Translation, Responses, Documentation 4 i $ 378 - i $ - 30 ; $ 1,862 - : $ - 34 i $ 2,240 5 Team Coordination - Kickoff Meeting and Weekly Construction Mtgs. 125 : $ 11,813 125 ; $ 8,006 - : $ - - ; $ - 250 ; $ 19,819 6 Preparation and Issuance of Traffic Advisories 16 i $ 1,512 60 i $ 3,843 - i $ - - i $ - 76 i $ 5,355 7 Construction Inquiries and Documentation 16 i $ 1,512 40 i $ 2,562 - i $ - - t $ - 56 i $ 4,074 8 Ground -Breaking and Ribbon -Cutting Ceremonies 36 : $ 3,402 48 i $ 3,074 - : $ - 36 i $ 360 120 : $ 6,836 SUB -TOTAL 225 i $ 21,263 301 i $ 19,279 38 i $ 2,358 40 : $ 400 604 ; $ 43,299 OVERHEAD AND FRINGE BENEFITS (60% OF AA DIRECT LABOR) $ 151.20 $102.60 $99.10 $16.00 $ 69,279 PROFIT (10% OF LABOR) $ 6,928 ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS* Photocopying/Printing $ 2,000 Postage $ 1,500 Facility Rental Fee, Public Meeting $ 200 Public Meeting Supplies and Refreshments - $ 200 Helpline Establishment and Monthly Fee $ 1 000 Ceremony Rental Fees (Canopies, Chairs, Tables, etc.) $ 4,000 Ceremony Supplies, Events, Refreshments, Mementos $ 800 Mileage ($.55 per mile) $ 1,600 SUB -TOTAL $ 11,300 TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET $ 87,507 • To be billed at actual cost. Budget does not include escalation factor. likio Associates ATTACHMENT 2 08-RIV-215-25.5/27.0 E4: 46420 Federal Funds District Agreement 08-1457 10-31-25-00 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This agreement, effective on , is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CAL TRANS, and: Riverside County Transportation Commission, a political subdivision of the State of California, referred to as COMMISSION. RECITALS 1. CAL TRANS and COMMISSION, collectively referred to as PARTNERS, are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements within the SHS right of way per Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and/or 130. 2. WORK completed under this agreement contributes toward the widening and bridge replacement of the State Route 74/Interstate 215 interchange from the intersection of Fourth Street with G Street to I-215 and Redlands Avenue; and from the I-215 interchange to San Jacinto Avenue, in the city of Perris, referred to as PROJECT. 3. PARTNERS will cooperate to complete the construction phase of PROJECT. 4. This agreement is separate from and does not modify or supersede prior Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1273. 5. Prior to this agreement, COMMISSION developed the Project Report; COMMISSION developed the Plans; Specifications and Estimate (PS&E); and COMMISSION developed the Right of Way Certification. 6. COMMISSION prepared the environmental documentation for PROJECT. 7. The estimated date for COMPLETION OF WORK is June 30, 2013. 8. PARTNERS now define in this agreement the terms and conditions under which they will accomplish WORK. PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 Attachment 2 DEFINITIONS 213 1 of 19 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvabie. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. CALTRANS STANDARDS — CALTRANS policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Standards (previously known as WBS Guide) available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm. CEQA — The California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et seq.) that requires State and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts, if feasible. COMPLETION OF WORK — All PARTNERS have met all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this agreement and have signed a COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSURE STATEMENT. CONSTRUCTION — The project component that includes the activities involved in the administration, acceptance, and final documentation of a construction contract for PROJECT. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CLOSURE STATEMENT — A document signed by PARTNERS that verifies the completion of all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this agreement. FHWA — Federal Highway Administration. FHWA STANDARDS — FHWA regulations, policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, the guidance provided at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programs.html. FUNDING PARTNER — A partner who commits a defined dollar amount to WORK. FUNDING SUMMARY - The table in which PARTNERS designate funding sources, types of funds, and the project components in which the funds are to be spent. Funds listed on the FUNDING SUMMARY are "not -to -exceed" amounts for each FUNDING PARTNER. HM-1 — Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. HM-2 — Hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by PROJECT. HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES — Management activities related to either HM-1 or HM-2 including, without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY — The partner responsible for managing the scope, cost, and schedule of a project component to ensure the completion of that component. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 2 of 19 214 • • District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not unprovable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. IQA — Independent Quality Assurance — Ensuring that IMPLEMENTING AGENCY'S quality assurance activities result in WORK being developed in accordance with the applicable standards and within an established Quality Management Plan. IQA does not include any work necessary to actually develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking work performed by another partner. NEPA — The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that establishes a national policy for the environment and a process to disclose the adverse impacts of projects with a federal nexus. PARTNERS — The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this agreement. This term only describes the relationship between these agencies to work together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal. It is not used in the traditional legal sense in which one partner's individual actions legally bind the other partners. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN — A group of documents used to guide a project's execution and control throughout the project's lifecycle. RESIDENT ENGINEER SAFETEA-LU — The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, signed into federal law on August 10, 2005. SCOPE SUMMARY — The table in which PARTNERS designate their commitment to specific scope activities within each project component as outlined by the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Standards (previously known as WBS Guide) available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/guidance.htm. SHS — State Highway System. SPONSOR(S) — The partner that accepts the obligation to secure financial resources to fully fund WORK. This includes any additional funds beyond those committed in this agreement necessary to complete the full scope of WORK defined in this agreement or settle claims. SFM (State -Furnished Material) — Any materials or equipment supplied by CALTRANS. WORK — All scope and cost commitments included in this agreement. ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) — A federal act designed to promote economic recovery. RESPONSIBILITIES PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 3 of 19 215 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 9. COMMISSION is SPONSOR for all WORK. 10. COMMISSION is the only x '� for this agreement. COMMISSION'S funding commitment is defined in the FUNDING SUMMARY. I am not sure if CALTRANS is not funding partner..: .please provide the full name for the SLPP-1B funds.] 11. CALTRANS is the CEQA lead agency for PROJECT. 12. CALTRANS is the NEPA lead agency for PROJECT. 13. COMMISSION is IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for CONSTRUCTION. SCOPE Scope: General 14. All WORK will be performed in accordance with applicable federal and California laws, regulations, and standards. [Legal has concerns to add this word (applicable). If it is really necessary, we might to check with Legal on this minor change.] All WORK will be performed in accordance with applicable FHWA STANDARDS and CALTRANS STANDARDS. [Same comment as above regarding the added word (applicable)] 15. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a project component will provide a Quality Management Plan for that component as part of the PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN. 16. CALTRANS will provide IQA for the portions of WORK within existing and proposed SHS right of way. CALTRANS retains the right to reject noncompliant WORK, protect public safety, preserve property rights, and ensure that all WORK is in the best interest of the SHS. 17. COMMISSION may provide IQA for the portions of WORK outside existing and proposed SHS right of way. 18. PARTNERS may, at their own expense, have a representative observe any scope, cost, or schedule commitments performed by another partner. Observation does not constitute authority over those commitments. 19. Each partner will ensure that all of their personnel participating in WORK are appropriately qualified to perform the tasks assigned to them. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 4 of 19 216 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HO Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 20. PARTNERS will invite each other to participate in the selection and retention of any consultants who participate in WORK. 21. PARTNERS will conform to all applicable provisions contained in sections 1720 —1815 of the California Labor Code and all applicable regulations and coverage determinations issued by the Director of Industrial Relations if PROJECT work is done under contract (not completed by a partner's own employees) and is governed by the Labor Code's definition of a "public work" (section 1720(a)(1)). [Same comment as article #14.1 PARTNERS will include wage requirements in all contracts for "public work" and will require their contractors and consultants to include prevailing wage requirements in all agreement -funded subcontracts for "public work". 22. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each project component included in this agreement will be available to help resolve WORK -related problems generated by that component for the entire duration of PROJECT. 23. CALTRANS will issue, u n proper a..lication, at no cost, the encroachment permits required for WORK Contractors and/or agents, and utility owners will not perform WORK within SHS right of way without an encroachment ermit issued in their name. [It was indicated in the previous paragraph that WORK ; J3 please see yellow area. Also, this statement has been clarified in the Recitals, Article # 1.] 24. If unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources are discovered during WORK, all work in that area will stop until a qualified professional can evaluate the nature and significance of the discovery and a plan is approved for its removal or protection. 25. All administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for PROJECT will be held in confidence, and where applicable, Government Code section 6254.5(e) shall protect the confidentiality of such documents in the event said documents are shared between PARTNERS. PARTNERS will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete WORK without the written consent of the partner authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law. 26. If any partner receives a public records request, pertaining to WORK under this agreement, that partner will notify PARTNERS within five (5) working days of receipt and make PARTNERS aware of any transferred public documents. Partners will consult PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 5of19 217 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. with each other prior to the release of any public documents related to the PROJECT and provided by the other partner. 27. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found during WORK, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for the project component during which it is found will immediately notify PARTNERS. 28. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing SHS right of way. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. 29. COMMISSION, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the PROJECT limits outside existing SHS right of way. COMMISSION will undertake or cause to be undertaken ° MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES for such HM-1 with minimum impacts to PROJECT schedule. [Do we need to repeat HM-1, please see yellow area? I believe this minor change will be acceptable, but District needs to obtain approval from HQ Environmental.(Kim Christmann)] 30. If HM-2 is found within PROJECT limits, the public agency responsible for the advertisement, award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM-2 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. 31. CALTRANS' acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS' policy on such acquisition. 32. PARTNERS will comply with all of the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each partner's responsibilities in this agreement. 33. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each project component will furnish PARTNERS with written monthly progress reports during the implementation of WORK in that component. 34. Upon COMPLETION OF WORK, ownership and title to all materials and equipment constructed or installed as part of WORK within SHS right of way become the property of CALTRANS. 35. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a project component will accept, reject, compromise, settle, or litigate claims of any non -agreement parties hired to do WORK in that component. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 6of19 • • 218 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 36. PARTNERS will confer on any claim that may affect WORK or PARTNERS' liability or responsibility under this agreement in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential future claims. No partner shall prejudice the rights of another partner until after PARTNERS confer on claim. 37. PARTNERS will maintain and make available to each other all WORK -related documents, including financial data, during the term of this agreement and retain those records for four (4) years from the date of termination or COMPLETION OF WORK, or three (3) years after the final federal voucher, whichever is later. 38. PARTNERS have the right to audit each other in accordance with generally accepted governmental audit standards. CALTRANS, the State auditor, FHWA, and COMMISSION will have access to all WORK -related records of each partner for audit, examination, excerpt, or transaction. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. The audited partner will review the preliminary audit, findings, and recommendations, and provide written comments within 60 calendar days of receipt. Any audit dispute not resolved by PARTNERS is subject to dispute resolution. Any costs arising out of the dispute resolution process will be paid within 30 calendar days of the final audit or dispute resolution findings. 39. PARTNERS consent to service of process by mailing copies by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid. Such service becomes effective 30 calendar days after mailing. However, nothing in this agreement affects PARTNERS' rights to serve process in any other matter permitted by law. 40. PARTNERS will not incur costs beyond the funding commitments in this agreement. If IMPLEMENTING AGENCY anticipates that funding for WORK will be insufficient to complete WORK, SPONSOR(S) will seek out additional funds and PARTNERS will amend this agreement. 41. If WORK stops for any reason, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY will place all facilities impacted by WORK in a safe and operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS. 42. If WORK stops for any reason, PARTNERS are still obligated to implement all applicable commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, as they apply to each partner's responsibilities in this agreement, in order to keep PROJECT in environmental compliance until WORK resumes. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 7of19 219 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 43. Each partner accepts responsibility to complete the activities that they selected on the SCOPE SUMMARY. Activities marked with "N/A" on the SCOPE SUMMARY are not included in the scope of this agreement. Scope: CONSTRUCTION 44. COMMISSION will advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract in accordance with the Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code. COMMISSION will not advertise the construction contract until CALTRANS completes or accepts the final plans, specifications, and estimate package; CALTRANS approves the Right of Way Certification; and FUNDING PARTNERS fully fund WORK. By accepting responsibility to advertise and award the construction contract, COMMISSION also accepts responsibility to administer the construction contract. 45. COMMISSION will provide a RESIDENT ENGINEER and construction support staff who are independent of the design engineering company and construction contractor. 46. COMMISSION will provide a landscape architect licensed in the State of California. 'ARTNERS will implement changes to the construction contract through contract change orders (CCOs). PARTNERS will review and concur on all CCOs over $100,000. All CCOs affecting public safety or the preservation of property, all design and specification changes, and all major changes as defined in the CALTRANS Construction Manual will be approved by CALTRANS in advance of the CCO work to be performed. Add RCTC comment [What is the comment? .............. 48. contract claims process, and will administer all claims through said process. CALTRANS will be available to provide advice and technical input in any claims process. Add RCTC comment. [What is the comment?] 49. If the lowest responsible construction contract bid (plus estimated contingencies, supplemental costs and State Furnished Material costs) is equal to or less than the amount shown on the FUNDING SUMMARY for CONSTRUCTION Capital, the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY may award the contract. if the lowest responsible construction contract bid is greater than the amount shown on the FUNDING SUMMARY for CONSTRUCTION Capital, all PARTNERS must be involved in PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 8of19 220 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. determining how to proceed. If PARTNERS do not agree in writing on a course of action within 15 working days, this agreement will terminate. 50. COMMISSION will require the construction contractor to furnish payment and performance bonds naming COMMISSION as obligee and to carry liability insurance in accordance with CAL TRANS and COMMISSION'S specifications. 51. COMMISSION will submit a written request to CALTRANS for any SFM identified in the PROJECT plans, specifications, and estimates a minimum of 45 calendar days in advance of the need for such materials. 52. Upon receipt of payment, CAL TRANS will make SFM available at a CALTRANS- designated location. 53. CALTRANS will provide source inspection on reimimbursed basis. 54. COMMISION will renew, extend, and/or amend all resource agency permits as necessary. 55. COMMISSION will provide maintenance for those portions of the SHS within WORK limits until PARTNERS execute a` separate maintenance agreement. PARTNERS will execute a separate maintenance agreement prior to COMPLETION OF WORK COST Cost: General 56. SPONSOR(S) will secure funds for all WORK including any additional funds beyond the FUNDING PARTNERS' existing commitments in this agreement. Any change to the funding commitments outlined in this agreement requires an amendment. Why this change [Updating to current PACT language.] 57. The cost of any awards, judgments, or settlements generated by WORK is a WORK cost. 58. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, will pay all costs for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 found within existing SHS right of way. 59. COMMISSION, independent of PROJECT, will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits and outside of existing SHS right of way. PACT Version 9A 5-28-09 9of19 221 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 60. HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES costs related to HM-2 are a WORK cost. [I believe this minor change migth not be acceptable, but District needs to obtain approval from HQ Environmental.(Kim Christmann)]] 61. The cost of coordinating, obtaining, complying with, implementing, and if necessary renewing and amending resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is a WORK cost. 62. The cost to comply with and implement the commitments set forth in the environmental documentation is WORK cost. 63. The cost to ensure that PROJECT remains in environmental compliance is a WORK cost. The cost of any legal challenges to the CEQA or NEPA environmental process or documentation is a WORK cost. Add RCTC comment, [What is the comment? 65. 66. Independent of WORK costs, CALTRANS will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done within existing or proposed future SHS right of way. 67. Independent of WORK costs, COMMISSION will fund the cost of its own IQA for WORK done outside existing or proposed future SHS right of way. 68. Fines, interest, or penalties levied against any partner will be paid, independent of WORK costs, by the partner whose actions or lack of action caused the levy. That partner will indemnify and defend all other partners. 69. CALTRANS will administer all federal subvention funds identified on the FUNDING SUMMARY. 70. The cost to place PROJECT right of way in a safe and operable condition and meet all environmental commitments is a WORK cost. 71. Because IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for managing the scope, cost, and schedule of a project component, if there are insufficient funds available in this agreement to place the right of way in a safe and operable condition, the appropriate IMPLEMENTING AGENCY accepts responsibility to fund these activities until such time as PARTNERS amend this agreement. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. PACT Version 9.1 5.28-09 10 of 19 222 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 72. If there are insufficient funds in this agreement to implement applicable commitments and conditions included in the PROJECT environmental documentation, permits, agreements, and/or approvals that are in effect at a time that WORK stops, the partner implementing the commitments or conditions accepts responsibility to fund these activities until such time as PARTNERS amend this agreement. That partner may request reimbursement for these costs during the amendment process. 73. PARTNERS will pay invoices within 30 calendar days of receipt of invoice. 74. FUNDING PARTNERS accept responsibility to provide the funds identified on the FUNDING SUMMARY. 75. SPONSOR(S) accepts responsibility to ensure full funding for the identified scope of work. Cost: CONSTRUCTION Support 76. The cost to maintain the SHS within WORK limits is a WORK cost until PARTNERS execute a separate maintenance agreement or until completion of WORK whichever occurs first. We need t 77. CALTRANS will invoice COMMISSION fora ',,. "'`'deposit 30 working days prior to the construction contract bid advertisement date. This deposit represents the estimated Source Inspection costs. CALTRANS to pay for source ins rection. After PARTNERS agree that all Scope activities are complete, CALTRANS will submit a final accounting for all WORK costs. Based on the final accounting, PARTNERS will refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of this agreement. Cost: CONSTRUCTION Capital 78. The following partners will submit invoices for CONSTRUCTION Capital: • COMMISSION will invoice CALTRANS 79. PARTNERS will exchange funds for a fixed cost to be invoiced as a lump sum (single payment). PACT version 9.1 5-28-09 11 of 19 223 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvabie. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 80. COMMISION will invoice CALTRANS for a lump sum (single payment) of $800,000 30 working days prior to the construction contract bid advertisement date. 81• t g� = _ ? Check on $ amount for SFM, per cost estimate should be about $250,000. After PARTNERS agree that all Scope activities are complete, PARTNERS will submit a final accounting for all WORK costs. Based on the final accounting, PARTNERS will refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of this agreement. SCHEDULE 82. PARTNERS will manage the schedule for WORK through the work plan included in the PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN. GENERAL CONDITIONS 83. This agreement will be understood in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and laws of the State of California. This agreement will be enforceable in the State of California. Any legal action arising from this agreement will be filed and maintained in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this agreement resides. 84. Add RCTC comment. [What is the RCTC comment?]All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, and the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. r raY pt1 (..1. a) PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 and fu ess larlds orig thept�oper ilty�purchased i 12 of 19 224 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HO Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 86. PROJECT is subject to the intent, terns, conditions, requirements, and consi<aints of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). 87. PARTNERS agree to exhaust first, and completely, all American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds for each project component. Any additional non-ARRA funds will then be exhausted proportionally within each project component thereafter. 88. Any PARTNER who performs IQA does so for its own benefit, further, that PARTNER cannot be assigned liability due to it's IQA activities. 89. Neither COMMISSION nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CAL TRANS under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless COMMISSION and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS under this agreement. 90. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon COMMISSION under this agreement. It is understood and agreed that COMMISSION will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by COMMISSION under this agreement. 91. This agreement is not intended to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations, or rights in parties not signatory to this agreement. This agreement is not intended to affect the legal liability of PARTNERS by imposing any standard of care for completing WORK different from the standards imposed by law. 92. PARTNERS will not assign or attempt to assign agreement obligations to parties not signatory to this agreement. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 225 13 of 19 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvabie. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 93. Any ambiguity contained in this agreement will not be interpreted against PARTNERS. PARTNERS waive the provisions of California Civil Code section 1654. 94. A waiver of a partner's performance under this agreement will not constitute a continuous waiver of any other provision. An amendment made to any article or section of this agreement does not constitute an amendment to or negate all other articles or sections of this agreement. 95. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that right or power in the future when deemed necessary. 96. If any partner defaults in their agreement obligations, the non -defaulting partner(s) will request in writing that the default be remedied within 30 calendar days. If the defaulting partner fails to do so, the non -defaulting partner(s) may initiate dispute resolution. 97. PARTNERS will first attempt to resolve agreement disputes at the PROJECT team level. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CAL TRANS district director and the executive officer of COMMISSION will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If no resolution is reached, PARTNERS' legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTNERS agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTNERS from full and timely performance of WORK in accordance with the terms of this agreement. However, if any partner stops WORK, the other partner(s) may seek equitable relief to ensure that WORK continues. Except for equitable relief, no partner may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45 calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. Any civil complaints will be filed in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this agreement resides. The prevailing partner will be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a result of litigating a dispute under this agreement or to enforce the provisions of this article including equitable relief. 98. PARTNERS maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. 99. If any provisions in this agreement are deemed to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other agreement provisions invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable, and those provisions will be automatically severed from this agreement. PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 14 of 19 226 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. 100. This agreement is intended to be PARTNERS' final expression and supersedes all prior oral understanding or writings pertaining to WORK. 101. If during performance of WORK additional activities or environmental documentation is necessary to keep PROJECT in environmental compliance, PARTNERS will amend this agreement to include completion of those additional tasks. 102. PARTNERS will execute a formal written amendment if there are an chan es to the commitments made in this a a eement 103. This agreement will terminate upon COMPLETION OF WORK or upon 30 calendar days' written notification to terminate and acceptance between PARTNERS, whichever occurs first. However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, legal challenge, and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. 104. The following documents are attached to, and made an express part of this agreement: SCOPE SUMMARY, FUNDING SUMMARY. 105. Signatories may execute this agreement through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This agreement is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. CONTACT INFORMATION The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each partner to this agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. These changes do not require an amendment to this agreement. The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is: Ivan Benavidez, Project Manager 464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor San Bernardino, California 92401-1400 Office Phone: (909) 203-3589 Email: ienavidez@tcmgroup.us The primary agreement contact person for COMMISSION is: Lisa DaSilva, Capital Projects Program Manager 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92502 Office Phone: (951) 787-7141 Email: Idasilva@rctc.org PACT version 9.1 5-28-09 _ 15 of 19 227 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvabie. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that: 1. Each partner is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each partner has the authority to enter into this agreement. 3. The people signing this agreement have the authority to do so on behalf of their public agencies. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: By: Raymond W. Wolfe, PhD Anne Mayer District Director Executive Director CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE By: By: Lisa Pacheco Best Best and Krieger Budget Manager General Council PACT Version 9.1 5-28-09 15 of 19 228 08-R IV-215-25.5/27.0 EA:46420 Federal Funds District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. SCOPE SUMMARY v CO 10 Is CO 0 N C Q O. N • Z t> to O U U 5 Construction (CON) - 270, 285, 290, 295 X X 270 Construction Engineering and General Contract X X Administration 10 Construction Staking Package and Control X 15 Construction Stakes X 20 Construction Engineering Work X 25 Construction Contract Administration Work X 05 Secured Lease for Resident Engineer Office Space or X Trailer 10 Set Up Construction Project Files X 15 Pre -Construction Meeting X 20 Progress Pay Estimates X 25 Weekly Statement of Working Days X 30 Construction Project Files and General Field Office X Clerical Work 35 Labor Compliance Activities X X 40 Approved Subcontractor Substitutions X 45 Coordination X 50 Civil Rights Contract Compliance X 99 Other Construction Contract Administration Products X 30 Contract Item Work Inspection X X 35 Construction Material Sampling and Testing X X 05 Materials Sampling and Testing for Quality Assurance X 10 Plant Inspection for Quality Assurance X 15 Independent Assurance Sampling and Testing X X 20 Source Inspection X 40 Safety and Maintenance Reviews X X 45 Relief From Maintenance Process X 55 Final Inspection and Acceptance Recommendation X X 60 Plant Establishment Administration X 65 Transportation Management Plan Implementation During X Construction 75 Resource Agency Permit Renewal and Extension X Requests 80 Long -Term Environmental Mitigation/Mitigation X Monitoring During Construction Contract 99 Other Construction Engineering and General Contract X Administration 275 Construction Engineering and General Contract X Administration of Structure Work 285 Contract Change Order Administration X 290 Resolve Contract Claims X 295 Accept Contract, Prepare Final Construction Estimate, X and Final Report PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 17 of 19 229 District Agreement 08-1457 This agreement is not approvable. It must be sent to the HQ Office of Cooperative Agreements for review. PACT Version 9.1 3.31.08 18 of 19 230 I. CZ 64do64 20'4£'£ 1'6 uolsnA l0Vd 00'000'Z06'6E$ 00'000'ZO4'SE$ 00'000'009'4$ 00'000'00917$ 00'000'Z04'9£$ luauodwo0 Aq sleloNns 00'000' 499' 4$ 00'000' 499' 4 $ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'000'499'4$ d1SN NOISSINN00 1V001 00'000'00L'£$ 00'000'00L'E$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'000'00G'£$ 81-ddlS Nt31uIYUd30 31t11S 00'000404'94$ 00'000' 4 0 4' 9 4 $ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'000'404'914 daad NOISSINN00 1Ha303d 00'000'009'El$ 00'000'00£'6$ 00'000'00S14$ 00'000'009'0$ 00'000'00£'6$ aaj uolle64!N wopuN uowpodsueil NOISSINN00 1H001 00'000'00Z$ 00'000'00Z$ 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'000'00Z$ (BulyoleN) ead uoRe6m wwo;lun uoppodsuell NOISSINN00 1V001 00'000'00L'E$ 00'000'00L'E$. 00'0$ 00'0$ 00'000'00L'£$ ainseaN NOISSINN00 1b001 AxVIntIAlnS 9 IICIN113 L9VI-80 }uawaaaBy lola}sIo spund leaapa j OZ49ti :Va 0'LZ/T9Z-94Z-Ala-90 • 4 •malna.a ao} s}uawaaaBy an)}eaadoo0;o 03140 01-1 ay} o} was aq }snw }I •amenadde }ou si luawaaa6e s141 • NOi S#NNOO 1V89.03d • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding Modification for Riverside Transit Agency and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County Measure A and Jobs Access Reverse Commute Specialized Transit Grant Awards STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the reallocation of FY 2007 $58,319 Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds from the Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County (BGCSC) to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); 2) Approve programming of Measure A specialized transit funds to BGCSC in the amount of $82,048 for a total Measure A award of $462,141 with a revised local match requirement of $231,035; 3) Approve the reduction of $31,420 in Measure A specialized transit funds from RTA; and 4) Amend RTA's and BGCSC's current Measure A, JARC, and New Freedom (NF) agreements to reflect the proposed funding award modifications. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Upon the completion and adoption of the Public Transit -Human Services Coordination Plan for Riverside County in April 2008, the Commission conducted a Western County Universal Call for Projects for Measure A, JARC, and NF specialized transit grants. At its October 2008 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 09-26-033-00 with BGCSC for the Before and After School Transportation program and Agreement No. 09-26-025-00 with the RTA for the extended late night service. Both of these awards included both federal JARC funding as well as Measure A. The JARC program supports work -related transportation programs including projects relating to the development and maintenance of transportation services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. These funds are intended for public transportation projects designed to transport residents of urbanized areas and non -urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities. Agenda Item 9 232 DISCUSSION: As part of the Universal Call for Projects, BGCSC applied for and was awarded $113,468 in JARC funds and $348,673 in Measure A funds for a total funding amount of $462,141 to be applied towards its youth transportation project. Upon Commission approval, the project application and recommended JARC funding plan was forwarded to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Transportation Electronic Award Management (TEAM) system for FTA approval. In September 2009, staff was informed by the FTA that BGCSC's proposal was ineligible for the JARC funds due to the FTA's determination that the transportation provided was from program site to school and therefore functioning similarly to a school bus program. Despite arguments made by staff to the FTA as to the importance of the day care option for low-income working parents, the FTA maintained its decision regarding the project's ineligibility. Complicating the matter was the imminent lapsing of the FY 2007 JARC funds. Commission staff, working in partnership with RTA, then negotiated a fund swap to preserve the JARC funds for Riverside County. To complete the fund swap, staff is recommending Commission approval for the reallocation of FY 2007 JARC funds in the amount of $58,319 from the BGCSC to RTA's APC software project. RTA's project is part of the extended late night program previously approved by the Commission for the Universal Call for Projects. In exchange, staff further recommends the reprogramming of $82,048 in Specialized Transit Measure A funds (Year 1 $26,899, Year 2 $55,149) to complete the funding of BGCSC's project. This action would serve to off set the FTA decision regarding the ineligibility of BGCSC's program for JARC funding. In approving this action, the Commission would continue to provide uninterrupted funding to BGCSC's transportation services as well as preserve the federal JARC funds for use in Riverside County. With this reassignment, RTA's JARC funds will increase by $58,319 but its Measure A funds will be reduced by $31,420. The attachment identifies the funding adjustments needed for both the fund source and local match calculation. Lastly, the remaining year 2 BGCSC JARC funds would be made available for additional reallocation at a later date. Financial Impact There are sufficient funds in the Measure A Specialized Transit FY 2008/09 budget to cover the additional $82,048 Measure A funds needed to fully support the BGCSC's approved project and therefore, no budget adjustment is necessary. Agenda Item 9 233 • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2009/10 Amount: $82,048 Source of Funds: Measure A Specialized Transit Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 225 26 86101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \.442,144,14,„ Date: 10/19/2009 Attachment: Measure A and JARC Award Modifications Agenda Item 9 234 Measure A and JARC Award Modifications Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County A. Original Award ATTACHMENT Project Year Award+ Match Award Amount Required Agency Match Measure A as match for JARC JARC Operation Measure A Operation Total Award Year One $386,298 $34,991 $58,319 $179,773 $273,083 $113,215 Year Two $261,528 $33,089 $55,149 $100,820 $189,058 $72,470 2-Year Total $647,826 $68,080 $113,468 $280,593 $462,141 $185,685 B. Modified Award Project Year Award+ Match Award Amount Required Agency Match Measure A as match for JARC JARC Operation Measure A Operation Total Award Year One $409,604 $0 $0 $273,083 $273,083 $136,521 Year Two $283,572 $0 $0 $189,058 $189,058 $94,514 2-Year Total $693,176 $0 $0 $462,141 $462,141 $231,035 Net Change: (B)-(A) $45,350 -$68,080 -$113,468 $181,548 $0 $45,350 Riverside Transit Agency A. Original Award Project Year Award+ Match Award Amount Required Agency Match JARC Operations Measure A as match for JARC JARC Capital (APC Software) Measure A Operations Total Award Year One $985,416 $317,708 $190,625 $243,200 $106,800 $858,333 $127,083 Year Two $658,232 $329,116 $197,470 $0 $0 $526,586 $131,646 2-Year Total $1,643,648 $646,824 $388,095 $243,200 $106,800 $1,384,919 $258,729 B. Modified Award Project Year Award+ Match Award Amount Required Agency Match JARC Operations Measure A as match for JARC JARC Capital (APC Software) Measure A as match for JARC Capital Total Award Year One $985,416 $317,708 $190,625 $301,519 $75,380 $885,232 $100,184 Year Two $658,232 $329,116 , $197,470 $0 $0 $526,586 $131,646 2-Year Total $1,643,648 $646,824 $388,095 $301,519 $75,380 $1,411,818 $231,830 Net Change: (B) - (A) $0 $0 $0 $58,319 -$31,420 $26,899 -$26,899 Note: The difference between BGCSC's original and modified Measure A funding is $113,468. This will be supported by RTA's excess Measure A funds of $31,420 and an additional $82,048 Measure A award. 235 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 12, 2009 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Rail Study Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Coachella Valley Rail Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Given the renewed interest in developing intercity service passenger service to Coachella Valley, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments engaged Schiermeyer Consulting Services to complete a follow up study to update the Commissions' previous efforts. The Commission's Rail Department will provide a presentation that will speak to the following elements of the follow up report: 1. Description of the service: route, stations, initial service frequency, and potential schedule; 2. Projected capital needs: rolling stock equipment, layover facility, station; 3. Role of the state in financing intercity rail services; 4. The relationship of Metrolink services to state -funded intercity services; 5. Implementing state -funded intercity service in California; 6. Relationship of Amtrak Sunset limited to Coachella Valley corridor service; and 7. The marketing potential of Coachella Valley service. Agenda Item 10 236 600Z aagUJOAON alpPdfl AP11S AaI1eA pllaypeop alepdn Apn1S I!e& ifalle/1 ellatpeop 600Z • A}ffigisead HeH aapnuaua00 500Z • ApnlS lied /(allM eIlayoe00 666 1- • Apnis uoReijsuouaaa aoinaag pua)aaM Aallen eIlauoe00 £66 6 • Apn1S ATHigisead eilauoe00 sala6uy sod 1•66 1. • •alepdn paaN . ueld I!eb aleTS eivaomeo aye ui papnioui aq ainoa enaypeoo puawwooaa past . aoinaas Alpaaw! )iean.uay aol appeal si ainoa aye pauiwaalaa . Apn;s Aailep enaypeo3 6661 •sa�noa aye &Joie waui}sanui !elide° aofew e lo Amigiseaj. iepueug pue leuoRaiedo leopALid aye aol saiewpa ysqgeis3 . .aoinaaS HeH aalnuauaoo lo uoRewawalduai }o A}pgiseal auiwaalap isoo pue `suoReaadp `diysaapiH auiwex3 . asodand APMS AllInseaA aavnuauio3 SOOZ 2005 Study Map METROLINK LINES -w-- Ventura County Line Antelope Valley Line r� San Bernardino Line Riverside Line moos Orange County Line Inland Emplro/Orange County line �+ 91 Llne (Riverside, Fatally?, Downtown L4) +� Future Parris Valley Extension SERVICE ALTERNATIVES 1. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside - Banning 2. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside - Indio 3. Commuter Rail, PVL, Perris - San Jacinto 4. Intracounty Rail, PVL, Riverside - San Jacinto 5. Commuter Rail, Winchester, Perris - Temecula 6. Intracounty Rail, Winchester, Riverside - Temecula 7. Commuter Rail, 1-215, Perris - Temecula 8. Intracounty Rail, 1-215, Riverside -Temecula RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Commuter Frequency Results Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service 768 0 If 48 0 19% Q 0 176 hours Q 43.96% • . ,f $0.68 Q �. $299.9 Q $390,495 0 1. UPRR © BEAUMONT 34.5 2. 0 76.5 2,174 136 22% 124 hours 42.96% $0.63 $544.4 $250,414 UPRR INDIO • • Q 0 0• Q 0 0 3. T 16.5 1,338 84 61% 518 hours 44.32% $0.24 $111.5 $83,333 c, PVL SAN JACINTO Q Q • • • • • • • CD 5. t7 WINCHESTER 20.5 1,292 81 53% 486 hours 37.76% $0.25 $203.6 $157,585 iii RD TEMECULA Q Q• Q • Q • Q O M. 16.5 2,166 135 109% 932 hours 37.23% $0.12 $249.4 $115,143 E o U' 1-215 TEMECULA • • • Q • Q • Q Q Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Less Feasible 0 * Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South P ** Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the percentage of estimated, incremental operating costs recoaered through estimated, incremetal farebox rei Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. .aoinaaS Apaalui oipui oi saia6uy sod pue ueld I!e2i ale}S dO a4i 6upoddns - uoRniosaH lewaod e paidopy . suopepuawuaoaab SOOZ .sa6ualleuo luaaano pue spaau leuoi6aa A}iluapi aanaq aOinaas augap-aa pue alepdn . •saoinaag dui}insuoo aaAauaaaiyos ymnn peijuoo e paiewui evA0 . alepdn elialpeoD 600Z •aOinaas Alp.aawi o� saoinaas wioagaW lo diysuoReia. Alpaawi 6upueug ui ems an aloH . .spaeAaanoAe! `suoReis luewdinbe `spaaN paloafoad . .alnpayos leRua}od pue `Aouanbaay. `suoRels `ainoa :aoinaag lo uoviiaosaa . •aoinaas Aallen ellayoeoo leRuaiod 6uRaveW . '90in01as aopiaao° AallBn eIlaypeop col paijuan iasunS lo diysuopia. meivaoneo ui 90inaas Apaam-papunj ale}s lo uoi}eluawalduai . so MY II .+*n...0 MINIM .wan.a.vc TNI ,w., w O Ef SPeoa Aleoa PuaS fueul l h / curry I!etI PdX uogelS 6u!isn3 I ]r uozaqua Awnop aprsaanru ur wautufinv Bed aafuassed Ano.ra;u,r neJa -orpu� a saiefiuv so7 Y n. 1 !Van 8w07/sPuaLPeW ueid apob lieaa Wd 09:9 Wd 94:9 Wd 9i,:£ aNn081n0 31N311V0 dnod NMO1NM00 - 301%13A1U NOI1V1S NOINn Vl OIONI 01 WH 99:1 WV 0£:l aNn08Nl N0121311nd SONRIdS W1Vd S3130NV SO1 01 peilw n lasuns - ja!uo iseminnos - JALidaZ epopleo - 1116!PalS Tsa00 - eoueisiQ buoy . saaugins owoed . sumbeor ues . aoppmo ieiideo . zsuogsanb