Loading...
04 April 25, 2011 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects90824 Alexandra Rackerby From: Alexandra Rackerby Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:20 PM To: Alexandra Rackerby Subject: RCTC Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee - 'Pad Compatible Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf; Conflict of Interest Form.pdf Importance: High Good afternoon Commissioners, The Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda for Monday, April 25, 2011 is posted on our Website at http://www.rctc.orA/downloads/WRC/ipad wrc.pdf. Also, attached is the Conflict of Interest Memo and Form for your information. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Respectfully, Ailie Rackerby Riverside County Transportation Commission (951) 787-7141 i 11.36.54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, April 25, 2011 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California in compliance 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 you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to 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 Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 2 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. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 28, 2011 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 1 1) Receive and file a report on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. AGREEMENT WITH THE CALTRANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROUTE 91 IN THE EASTBOUND DIRECTION, THE STATE ROUTES 71 /91 INTERCHANGE, AND THE EASTBOUND GREEN RIVER ROAD ON -RAMP Page 4 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-033-01 (Caltrans No. 8-1380/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-31-033-00, with Caltrans for the State Routes 71/91 interchange project for the amount of $ 7,833,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 3 9. COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 13 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 with Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD), to participate in costs of utility relocations and associated work to be performed in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Reach 9 Phase 2B (R9Ph2B) bank protection project in advance of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) for $1,663,433, plus a contingency amount of $436,567 not to exceed $2.1 million. 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 4 10. AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RAILROAD CANYON AT INTERSTATE 15 INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Page 52 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-01, Amendment No. 1 to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Improvements Agreement No. 10-72-016-00, for the Railroad Canyon/ Interstate 15 interchange with the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) in order to authorize staff to complete the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase with the remaining $52,000 of the $1 million TUMF funds allocated to this phase and to increase the PA&ED phase funding amount by $206,000 to $1,206,000; 2) Approve Assignment and Assumption Agreement No. 1 1-31-107-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore to facilitate the assignment of the Lake Elsinore agreement (No. 1877) with SC Engineering to continue and complete the PA&ED services associated with the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange project in an amount not to exceed $192,000, with a contingency of $32,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $224,000; 3) Approve Agreement No 11-31-107-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 11-31-107-00, to facilitate changes to the Lake Elsinore agreement that are necessary to ensure that the language included therein is consistent with the Commission's standard professional services agreements; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with Caltrans to reflect non -funding changes related to the project on the behalf of the Commission; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 5 11. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 74 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 201 1 /12 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $7,149,700 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance of way, and $1,255,536 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. AGREEMENT WITH AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES TO PROVIDE ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR COMMISSION - OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 80 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-054-00 to Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) to perform elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services to the Commission -owned commuter rail stations for a five year period of performance, inclusive of two single year options, for an amount that is not to exceed $110,362; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 11-24-054-00, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 6 13. AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 83 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-105-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,577,721 in state funding for FY 2010/1 1; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. AWARDS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 93 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-45-053-00 to Tri-City Towing Service for tow truck services on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program for a total contract amount not to exceed $950,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 1 1-45-060-00 to Roy & Dot's Towing for tow truck services on Beat No. 25 of the FSP program for a total contract amount that is not to exceed $1,425,000; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the three-year agreement, and two, one-year options to extend the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee April 25, 2011 Page 7 15. LIST OF PRE -QUALIFIED FIRMS AND AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL GOODS MOVEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 97 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call goods movement support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, for up to a five-year period of performance, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,250,000; a) Agreement No. 11-67-101-00 with Cambridge Systematics; b) Agreement No. 1 1-67-098-00 with InfraConsult; c) Agreement No. 1 1-67-099-00 with lteris; and d) Agreement No. 11-67-100-00 with MIG, Inc. 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 17. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 23, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN -IN SHEET APRIL 25, 2011 NAMEt. AGENCY E M �A/1,IL ADDRESS / el// r / NA- �/ i C, fir � N 6,4.4cv 0'5_.4 a �S � t NN P P /3 .-. ilt-; r matt, A °id, 4."-� 'Idaa I/ ' �r..9P-ua_ ;4-vD2,,,-„____.) �?'cd(--- L51H `'')4fre1A-77-4::) C ft2 I At �,1- -H-ct-7 a. (A--AkAPr 4— �-o0-r`7 4-3- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL April 25, 2011 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I O O County of Riverside, District V ,17' O City of Banning �' O City of Corona ,0' O City of Eastvale i.' O City of Menifee O City of Moreno Valley ,Er. City of Norco PJ ~ O City of Perris ,er O City of San Jacinto ,Q' O City of Wildomar 0 3003 dIZ A110 133111S _?Gorte3 :'ON 3N0Hd 3000 dIZ A110 3z's"eS :SS31100V SS3NISne df10HIJ / NOIIVZINVOHO / A3N30V d0 31NVN Sig„/S 39 j 41 /7 :ONI1N3S31Ad31:1 133111S o,s z 6 _9e2r0511 �Y -7 l S /IfiVfVY N"n'S 0 1 •SS37i0OV 75+iv? *z1f-4406 '-ON 3N0Hd C771�'tsv�'L7$ 79 .4t,Iirl _$, 2 rr.4P79 G77,i°7nrcre QL 1Pla' oria '1N311 VON3DV 30 103P8f1S :31NVN 01 IVON30V 3H1 NO 4331SI1 SV1 I :'ON IN311 ti0N3J1d :S1N3INWO3 3118nd P :S1N31NWO3 onand d0 103f8f1S Al N33H3 �% QZ /SZ VW V :31" nuweta 71-11 Jn Mu77a1 MLA 1 n 1 1 IIAIa AC nmw W11141311 AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, March 28, 2011 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Karen Spiegel at 1:32 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Marcelo Co led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Marion Ashley Ben Benoit Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Marcelo Co Berwin Hanna Andrew Kotyuk Darcy Kuenzi Adam Rush Karen Spiegel 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes March 28, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to approve the minutes of September 27, 2010, as submitted. Abstain: Hanna, Kotyuk, Kuenzi, Rush 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to this agenda. 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS At this time, Chair Spiegel opened nominations for the slate of officers. Commissioner Marion Ashley nominated Commissioner Daryl Busch. Commissioner Busch declined the nomination. Commissioner Busch, seconded by Commissioner Adam Rush, nominated Commissioner Darcy Kuenzi for the Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Spiegel closed nominations. Commissioner Kuenzi was unanimously elected as the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Chair for 2011. At this time, Commissioner Kuenzi assumed the Chair. Commissioner Ashley, seconded by Commissioner Bob Buster, nominated Commissioner Rush for the Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Kuenzi closed the nominations. Commissioner Rush was unanimously elected as the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Vice Chair for 2011. 8. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO PROVIDE RAILWAY FLAGGING SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT DURING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE WORK Joe Colayco, Staff Analyst, presented a brief overview of the terms of the amendment to the agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company to provide railway flagging services for the Perris Valley Line project during preliminary and final engineering, environmental, construction, and property maintenance work. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes March 28, 2011 Page 3 M/S/C (Busch/Spiegel) to: 11 Approve Agreement No. 09-33-013-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 09-33-013-00, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) to extend the term for an additional three years and two one-year options, and additional compensation in the amount of $250,000 for the continued provision of railway flagging services; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. At this time, Commissioner Ben Benoit arrived at the meeting. 9. 2011 CORRIDOR MOBILITY IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT - CALL FOR PROJECTS Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, presented a brief overview of the 2011 Corridor Mobility Improvement Account - Call for Projects. She noted that after discussions with CTC staff, it was determined the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project was not eligible for submittal because it does not directly enhance a CMIA project and therefore removed from the staff recommendation. M/SIC (Busch/Hanna) to: 1) Approve the nomination and application submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the Interstate 215 Widening project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Abstain: Ashley 10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT There were no reports from the Commissioners or staff. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes March 28, 2011 Page 4 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:59 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled for April 25, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file a report on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2004, the Commission approved 24 projects for the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program. The total amount of the requested funding was $185 million. To date, $104 million has been programmed using $78.5 million of TUMF Regional Arterial funds and $25.4 million of TUMF CETAP funds. A summary of the TUMF programming is as follows: Project Phase Amount (in millions) PA&ED (Preliminary Engineering) $ 6.031 PS&E (Design) 9.935 Right -of -Way 43.347 Construction 44.609 Total $ 103.922 On April 4, 2011, a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee was convened to review the TUMF Regional Arterial FY 201 1 /12 fund balance and programming needs. The amount of FY 2011/12 TUMF funds available for programming is approximately $1 million. After reviewing the programming needs, the subcommittee supported the city of Lake Elsinore's request that the Commission take the lead in completing the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase for the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange project and to Agenda Item 7 1 program the additional funds in the amount of $206,000 to complete the PA&ED from a future project phase. The subcommittee also supported that any new programming of the remaining TUMF Regional Arterial funds be allocated for the construction phase only. The attachment lists the TUMF Regional Arterial projects' construction schedule. TUMF funding is available for three of the ten projects scheduled to begin construction in FY 201 1 /12: • Temecula, French Valley Phase 1; • Temecula, SR-79 South Ultimate Interchange improvements; and • Corona, Green River Road Temecula's projects were funded with TUMF CETAP funds and Corona's Green River Road project was previously programmed for construction. The subcommittee expressed that there will be at least $30 million of additional funding needs for projects that will be ready for construction later in the fiscal year. Additionally, we were recently notified by the city of Corona that a developer reimbursement request in the amount of approximately $3 million may be submitted within the next couple of years for programming. This is the first notification received to date; however, developer reimbursements will be paid out on a first come -first serve basis. Through FY 201 1 /12 $215,000 is projected to be available specifically for developer reimbursements. Commission staff will continue to work with local agencies to seek funding for construction projects. Unfortunately, staff does not expect to have additional TUMF Regional Arterial funds to fund construction projects in the near future under the current economic conditions. Agenda Item 7 2 TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIALS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Agency Project Limits Project Number CONSTRUCTION START FISCAL YR. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED CO PLETED San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Sanderson to Wly City Limits 5117 2006/07 7/07 ' Riverside Van Buren Blvd Andrew to Garfield 5122 2006/07 2/08 Corona El Cerrito Bedford Cyn Rd to 1-15N.B. 5101 2006/07 8/08 Riverside County of Riverside ' Van Buren Blvd Van Buren Blvd Santa Ana River to Jackson UNDER CONSTRUCTION Clay to 1200'.S. of Santa Ana River 5108 5115 2009/10- 2008/09 11/10 (Phase 1) Riverside Van Buren Blvd IC @ SR)9��1,y" 5125 2009/10 ^1 .i 111 Ei�h'(�Ij �i � � .'W F4r4i � `15 4 lit��' i�i1i °�rloa y _ r n County of Riverside SR 79 Thompson to Domenigoni 5114 2010/11 Corona Green River Road Dominguez Ranch Rd to SR 91 5103 2010/11 Corona Foothill Parkway Lincoln to Green River 5102 2012/13 County of Riverside Van Buren Blvd Washington to Wood 5116 2011/12 Perris Perris Blvd PVSD to Ramona Expressway 5128 2011/12 Temecula French Valley Pkwy I.0 @ 1-15 5119 2011/12 Temecula SR 79 S Ultimate IC SR 79 South @ I-15 5120 2011/12 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Ironwood to Manzanita 5105 2011/12 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd Cactus to PVSD Lateral "B" 5106 2011/12 San Jacinto Ramona Expressway Seventh to Cedar 5118 2011/12 County of Riverside Schleisman Rd I.0 @ I-15 5113 TBD Lake Elsinore Railroad Cyn Rd I.0 @ 1-15 5104 TBD County of Riverside Reche Cyn/Reche Vista Heacock to S.B Co Line 5107 TBD * TBD - Date cannot be determined until significant environmental impacts have been addressed. phb 2/8/2011 pb 218111 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Khalid Bazmi, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Caltrans for Improvements to State Route 91 in the Eastbound Direction, the State Routes 71 /91 Interchange, and the Eastbound Green River Road On -Ramp STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-033-01 (Caltrans No. 8-1380/1), Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-31-033-00, with Caltrans for the State Routes 71 /91 interchange project for the amount of $ 7,833,000; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Caltrans and the Commission entered into an Agreement No. 08-31-033-00 on July 17, 2008, defining the terms and conditions of a project for state highway system improvements consisting of the replacement of the existing eastbound (EB) SR-91 to northbound (NB) SR-71 connector with a direct fly -over connector; provide a collector -distributor road in the EB direction between the Green River Road interchange and the 71 /91 Junction; extend the existing auxiliary lanes from the southbound (SB) SR-71 to EB SR-91 connector to Serfas Club Drive; and extend the fifth general purpose lane from SR-71 to Serfas Club Drive in the EB direction. The agreement was for funding of preliminary engineering; environmental clearance, plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), and right of way acquisition and capital activities. The Commission awarded a contract to Parsons Transportation Group on October 10, 2007, for project report and environmental document (PR/ED) and environmental services. The PR/ED work is nearing completion. The draft environmental document was circulated in November 2010. Thirteen comments were received during the public comment period. Responses to comments were prepared and submitted as part of the final environmental document on Agenda Item 8 4 March 14, 2011. Project report approval and environmental clearance is anticipated by summer. In order to move forward, the existing cooperative agreement between the Commission and Caltrans needs to be amended to reflect changes in scope, post miles, and programming available funds from various sources. The project cost summary in the Cooperative Agreement No. 08-31-033-00 was $11,885,000 to be funded with State Transportation Improvement Program -Regional Improvement Program funds (STIP-RIP). The amended Cooperative Agreement No. 08-31-033-01 reflects an increase in cost estimates and funding of $7,833,000 for a total cost estimate and project funding of $19,718,000, as follows: Phase PA&ED PS&E R/W Total Federal: Demo TEA 21 $3,196,000 $3,196,000 SAFETEA-LU 7,504,000 $796,000 8,300,000 FFY 1995 Appropriation 1,000,000 1,000,000 FFY 2006 Appropriation 990,000 990,000 State: STIP-RIP $5,273,000 5,273,000 Local: Measure A 959,000 959,000 Total $5,273,000 $11,700,000 $2,745,000 $19,718,000 Toll Credits 2,340,000 159,200 2,499,200 A significant amount of the additional federal funds outlined above, $8,300,000, was transferred from Irvine Corona Expressway (ICE) tunnel project, by the State Route 91 Advisory Committee on March 4, 2011. The ICE tunnel project was deferred and the remaining federal funds were split between the 71 /91 project and the 91 /241 project. The remaining additional federal funds are comprised of several federal earmarks. Staff is recommending approval of Agreement No. 08-31-033-01 with Caltrans, which reflects changes in scope, post miles, and programming available funds from various sources. Agenda Item 8 5 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12+ Amount: S 7,833,000 Source of Funds: Federal (TEA 21, SAFETEA-LU, Earmarks), State (STIP-RIP), and Measure A Budget Adjustment: N/A GLA No.: 003021 414 41410 0000 262 31 41401 (Federal) 003021 415 41502 0000 262 31 41501 (State) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \_1.41,,,dari'Aa2n Date: 04/13/11 Attachment: District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 Agenda Item 8 6 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 08-Riv-91 PM R0.6/R2.6 08-Riv-71-PM 1.6/3.0 Improvements on SR-91/SR-71 Construct EB 91 to NB 71-direct fly -over connector, and reconstruct the Green River Road EB on -ramp EA OF541K District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/ 1 Project Number 0800000137 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON , 2011, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE," and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public entity, referred to herein as "RCTC." RECITALS 1. The parties hereto entered into a Agreement No. 8-1380 on July 17, 2008, defining the terms and conditions of a project to construct State Highway System (SHS) improvements consisting of the replacement of the existing eastbound (EB) State Route 91 (SR-91) to northbound (NB) State Route 71 (SR-71) connector with a direct fly -over connector; provide a collector -distributor road in the EB direction between the Green River Road Interchange and the SR-91/SR-71 Junction; extend the existing auxiliary lanes from the southbound SR-71 to EB SR-91 connector to Serfas Club Drive; extend the existing auxiliary lanes from the westbound SR-91 to NB SR-71 connector to Serfas Club Drive; and extend the existing fifth general purpose lane from SR-71 to Serfas Club Drive in the EB direction, referred to herein as "PROJECT." 2. The purpose of this Amendment No. 1 is to revise changes to the PROJECT description and post -miles due to geometric adjustments and funding plan. 3. Toll Credits in the number of 2,499,200 will be used during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and right of way phases of this PROJECT. Draft:3/18/11 1 7 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED 1. The Post Miles shown on the original Agreement are hereby revised to read 08-Riv-91 PM R0.6/R2.6 and 08-Riv-71 PM 1.6/3.0. 2. Under RECITALS of Agreement No. 8-1380, Articles 2 and 3 are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: RCTC desires to construct SHS improvements consisting of the replacement of the existing eastbound (EB) State Route 91 (SR-91) to northbound (NB) State Route 71 (SR-71) connector with a direct fly -over connector; referred to herein as "PROJECT." RCTC is willing to be responsible for PROJECT cost for capital outlay and support using STATE's Transportation Improvement Program -Regional Improvement Program (STIP-RIP), Demo-SAFETEA-LU, Demo -TEA 21, Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1995 Appropriation, FFY 2006 Appropriation, Local funding sources and RCTC's Toll Credits, which are to be used for Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), and right of way activity costs for PROJECT. STATE's Independent Quality Assurance (1QA) of PROJECT PA&ED, PS&E and right of way and STATE's costs incurred as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Lead Agency, if applicable, in the review and approval, if appropriate, of the PROJECT environmental documentation prepared entirely by RCTC, will be borne by STATE. The PROJECT estimated cost is $19,718,000 as shown on Exhibit A/1, attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement." 3. Under SECTION I of Agreement No. 8-1380, Articles 1 and 2 are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: RCTC is willing to be responsible for PROJECT PA&ED, PS&E and right of way activity costs in the amount of $19,718,000 to be funded by STATE's STIP-RIP funds in the amount of $5,273,000, Demo-SAFETEA-LU funds in the amount of $8,300,000, Demo -TEA 21 funds in the amount of $3,196,000, FFY 1995 Appropriation funds in the amount of $1,000,000, FFY 2006 Appropriation funds in the amount of $990,000, Local funds in the amount of $959,000, and RCTC's Toll Credits in the number of 2,499,200, as shown on Exhibit A/1, attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement. The costs for STATE's IQA, and STATE's review, comment, and approval if appropriate, of the PROJECT environmental documentation for CEQA, and NEPA if applicable, shall be borne by STATE. In the event that an increase in PROJECT funding becomes necessary, said funding will be paid, in full, by RCTC using RCTC funds, pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement." Draft: 3/ 18/ 11 2 8 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 To submit an initial billing in the amount of $1,170,000 to STATE within (30) days upon execution of this Agreement and prior to commencement of any work performed by RCTC. Said initial billing represents two months estimated cost of preliminary engineering, PS&E, and for one month estimated right of way capital and right of way acquisition cost for PROJECT, to be funded from STA It's STIP-RIP funding source." 4. Under SECTION 11 of Agreement No. 8-1380, Articles 3, 4 and 5 are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: To allocate funds in the amount of $5,273,000 from STATE's STIP-RIP funding source to PROJECT. These Funds were programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at the September 5, 2007 meeting for PROJECT development services for PROJECT." To deposit with RCTC within twenty-five (25) days of receipt of billing therefor, the amount of $1,170,000 which figure represents the estimated initial deposit for two months estimated costs of preliminary engineering, PS&E, and for one month estimated right of way capital and right of way acquisition cost, to be funded from STATE's STIP/RIP funding source, required for PROJECT. Total anticipated PROJECT cost, to be paid from STATE's STIP-RIP funding source, is estimated to be the amount of $5,273,000." To deposit with RCTC not later than twenty-five (25) working days of receipt of billing or the beginning of each month the estimated expenditures for that month, and to continue making such advance deposits on a monthly basis until completion of PA&ED, PS&E, and right of way activities for PROJECT or until the STATE's STIP-RIP amount to the extent of $5,273,000 is paid out to RCTC, whichever occurs earlier." 5. Under SECTION 11 of Agreement No. 8-1380, new Article 6 is hereby added to read as follows: STATE will administer all federal subvention funds identified on Exhibit A/1." 6. Under SECTION EH of Agreement No. 8-1380, new Article 26 is hereby added to read as follows: "26. The cost of any engineering support performed by STATE includes all direct and applicable indirect costs. STATE calculates indirect costs based solely on the type of funds used to pay support costs. State and federal funds are subject to the current Program Functional Rate. Local funds are subject to the current Program Functional Rate and the current Administration Rate. The Program Functional Rate and the Administration Rate are adjusted periodically in accordance with State and Federal regulations." Draft: 3/ 18/ 11 3 9 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/I 7. The new Exhibit A/1, dated March 18, 2011, replaces the original Exhibit A of Agreement No. 8-1380 and any reference to Exhibit A in the Agreement is deemed to be a reference to new Exhibit A/1. 8. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 9. This Amendment No.1 to Agreement is hereby deemed to be a part of said Agreement. Draft: 3/ 18/ 11 4 10 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: RAYMOND W. WOLFE, PhD ANNE E. MAYER District Director Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Attest: By: Attorney, Department of Transportation CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: By: LISA PACHECO District Budget Manager CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS AND POLICIES: By: Accounting Administrator Draft: 3/18/1 1 5 BEST, BEST AND KRIEGER Legal Counsel 11 District Agreement No. 8-1380 A/1 EXHIBIT "A/1" PROJECT COST SUMMARY Dated: March 18, 2011 PHASE Demo- TEA 21 Demo- SAFETEA-LlJ STIP-RIP FFY 1995 Appropriation FFY 2006 Appropriation Local Total PA&ED & PS&E $3,196,000 S7,504,000 $5,273,000 $1,000,000 $16,973,000 R/VV $796,000 $990,000 $959,000 $2,745,000 Total $3,196,000 S8,300,000 $5,273,000 $1,000,000 $990,000 $959,000 $19,718,000 Draft: 3/18/11 6 Toll Credits 2,340,000 159,200 2,499,200 12 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Khalid Bazmi, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Cost Participation Agreement with Orange County Flood Control District and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-31-090-00 with Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD), to participate in costs of utility relocations and associated work to be performed in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Reach 9 Phase 2B (R9Ph2B) bank protection project in advance of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) for $1,663,433, plus a contingency amount of $436,567 not to exceed $2.1 million. 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The USACE R9Ph2B project is part of the larger Santa Ana River mainstem project. The R9Ph2B project is located along the Santa Ana River just north of and adjacent to westbound SR-91 between Coal Canyon Road and approximately 1,700 feet east of the Orange -Riverside County line. The project is critical to the protection of the SR-91 from current and future flood control releases from Prado Dam. As the local sponsors of the Santa Ana River mainstem project, OCFCD and RCFC & WCD are responsible for relocation of utilities within Orange and Riverside Counties, respectively. OCFCD is also the owner of the Green River Golf Club where the majority of the R9Ph2B construction would take place. The Commission is the Agenda Item 9 13 project sponsor of the SR-91 CIP, which includes widening of a segment of SR-91 adjacent to R9Ph2B. The USACE R9Ph2B project entails construction of bank protection along the Santa Ana River to protect the adjacent SR-91 and surrounding homes in the basin. The improvements to the Prado Dam will provide the USACE the ability to release larger flows downstream into the Santa Ana River — up to 30,000 cubic feet/second. The proposed USACE project is necessary to ensure the SR-91 is not impacted as a result of these storm water flows. The project is immediately adjacent to the SR-91 CIP that is currently in the preliminary engineering and environmental phase and includes one alternative that would widen the freeway to provide an extension of the existing Orange County Transportation Authority median express lanes, as well as the addition of a general purpose lane. Over the last two years, the SR-91 CIP team and USACE conducted several coordination meetings to understand the impacts that their respective projects would have on each other. The R9Ph2B project would accommodate alternatives being analyzed and considered in the project report and draft environmental impact report/draft environmental impact statement. As such, the R9Ph2B project would not prejudice selection of a preferred alternative for the SR-91 CIP. The original USACE plans showed construction of a temporary bridge and temporary access road to the Green River Golf Club across the Santa Ana River, about 1,000 feet upstream of the existing Green River Golf Club access road bridge. This temporary access would allow the USACE project to build a temporary diversion channel to construct the bank protection adjacent to SR-91 and a flood gate where the existing Green River Road crosses the embankment. As a result of the agency coordination, it was agreed that it would be mutually beneficial for all parties to revise the USACE plans by upgrading the temporary bridge and access road to provide permanent access. Included in this change is the relocation of existing utilities within the existing Green River Road. Additionally, a temporary bike detour will be constructed along the proposed Green River Golf Club access road and on the north side of the Santa Ana River within the limits of the R9Ph2B. Southern California Edison (SCE) and AT&T overhead lines are on the north side of existing Green River Road. Additionally, a 12" city of Corona water line, 4 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) line, and underground AT&T fiber optic line are within the existing Green River Road. The water line and gas line cross the Santa Ana River via the existing bridge to the Green River Golf Club clubhouse. The AT&T fiber optic line crosses under the Santa Ana River just east of the existing golf club access road bridge to the Green River Golf Club clubhouse. The R9Ph2B project will impact the existing SCE and AT&T overhead lines along Agenda Item 9 14 existing Green River Road. The water line, gas line, and AT&T overhead lines will be relocated into the proposed new access road and bridge over the Santa Ana River. The underground AT&T fiber optic line will be relocated in a new bored conduit under the proposed and temporary diversion channels, adjacent to its existing location. Coordination between the R9Ph2B and the SR-91 CIP has been ongoing to ensure the utilities will be relocated to their ultimate location. Both the USACE project and SR-91 CIP will recognize direct benefits from converting the temporary upstream bridge to a permanent bridge with the relocation of the existing utilities in Green River Road to the new bridge and access. A cost sharing plan was developed by staff of the three affected agencies: Commission, OCFCD and RCFC & WCD. Benefits to the USACE Project New Bridge over the Santa Ana River Initially, the USACE project was to construct a temporary bridge over the Santa Ana River, to enable temporary closure of the existing golf club access road bridge, allowing work to be performed in the immediate area. Following completion of the aforementioned work, the temporary bridge was to be removed and the existing bridge reopened. A revision to the USACE project contract plans is being developed to convert the temporary bridge and access road to a permanent access road to the golf club access road. This new access road also includes a permanent bridge over the Santa Ana River. This alternative would eliminate the need for the flood gate at the existing bridge, allow the proposed bridge to be designed for future flood events which exceed the capacity of the existing bridge, accommodate the permanent bike trail via the channel access road on top of the embankment, and improve access to and the viability of the golf course. Utility Relocations Several utilities along existing Green River Road will need to be relocated as part of the R9Ph2B project. It is proposed to relocate those utilities to their ultimate locations relative to the planned SR-91 CIP. The existing SCE and AT&T overhead lines will be relocated to their ultimate locations on the north side of the Santa Ana River. The existing underground utilities, consisting of gas and water, will be also relocated to their ultimate locations within the new access road and bridge across the Santa Ana River. The underground AT&T fiber optic line will be relocated in a new bored conduit under the proposed and temporary diversion channels, adjacent to its existing location. By relocating the uti►ities to their ultimate location, the utilities will only need to be moved once. This will eliminate the need to construct a new utility bridge across Santa Ana River and will allow for a contiguous construction of the proposed embankment. Agenda Item 9 15 Benefits to the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Utility Relocations Green River Road would need to be realigned due to the SR-91 CIP widening. This realignment would require relocation of the same utilities that are being relocated as part of the USACE project. Relocating the aforementioned utilities early, as part of the USACE project, reduces the construction duration for the SR-91 CIP. Additionally, the overall utility relocation cost would be reduced since OCFCD and RCFC & WCD would pay for two-thirds of the utility relocation cost for gas and water lines. RCFC & WCD and the Commission will share equally the cost of relocation of the electric and AT&T lines. Relocating the underground utilities within the new access road later would require permanent easements within ACOE jurisdictional areas and OCFCD right of way that could potentially delay the construction schedule of the SR-91 CIP and increase costs to the project. Improvements to Green River Road The SR-91 CIP originally proposed to reconstruct existing Green River Road from the GRGC access road to approximately 2,600 feet east of the existing golf course access bridge. The revised USACE project reduces the overall length of the Green River Road improvements by approximately 1,500 feet. A private access road would be constructed by the SR-91 CIP for access to the Star Ranch property west of the proposed golf course access road intersection. New Bridge over the Santa Ana River The existing Green River Road and golf course access road bridge adjacent to the SR-91 posed a number of challenges for the SR-91 CIP and the USACE project. The USACE planned to construct a flood gate to protect the existing Green River Road and the bridge. The SR-91 CIP improvements would have required reconstruction of the proposed flood gate and a portion of the USACE project embankment. Relocation of the proposed access road and bridge over the Santa Ana River improves the conditions in the already constrained area, avoids reconstruction of the flood gate, and minimizes reconstruction of the proposed embankment. Project Details and Costs New Bridge and Driveway The proposed new bridge and driveway will replace the existing bridge and driveway over the Santa Ana River for access to the golf course. This new 130 foot single span precast concrete bridge and golf course access road is estimated Agenda Item 9 16 to cost approximately $3.28 million. The Commission's estimated cost share is $364,612. Temporary Bike Detour A temporary bike detour will be constructed along the proposed Green River Golf Club access road and on the north side of the Santa Ana River within the limits of the R9Ph2B at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. The Commission's estimated cost share is zero. Utility Relocations The new bridge and access road will accommodate utility relocations from existing Green River Road into the new golf club access road. The existing SoCalGas line and city of Corona water line will be relocated underground within the new GRGC access road. The SCE and AT&T overhead facilities will be relocated between the south side of the new golf course access road and north side of the Santa Ana River on new wood poles. The AT&T underground legacy line will be rebored to pass under the Santa Ana channel and temporary diversion channel in approximately the same location it currently occupies. The size and type of the utilities, relocation lengths and estimated costs are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 Estimated Utility Relocation Costs No. UTILITY RELOCATION LENGTH(linear feet) TOTAL COST 1 4" GAS - SoCalGas 1700 $ 0 2 12" WATER - CITY OF CORONA 1700 223,850 3 12KV OVERHEAD - SCE 2500 298,408 4 OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC LINE - AT&T 2500 0 5 12 DUCT UNDERGROUND - AT&T 1700 2,150,000 TOTAL $ 2,672,258 The Commission's estimated cost share for utility relocation is $1,298,821. The total Commission estimated cost -share for the improvements included as part of the cost participation agreement with OCFCD, RCFC & WCD, and the Commission that would accommodate the proposed ultimate improvements for the SR-91 CIP is approximately $ 1,663,433. Agenda Item 9 17 RECOMMENDATION: In summary, the SR-91 CIP team through close coordination with USACE has been able to propose modification to the USACE project that will be mutually beneficial to all parties. By sharing the differential construction costs for a new bridge that relocates the access to the Green River Golf Club to the east and associated utility relocations from the existing Green River Road into the new access road, the relocation of the AT&T fiber optic underground legacy line, the SR-91 CIP will save future utility relocation and construction costs of approximately $5 million. Staff recommends that the Commission enter into a cost sharing agreement with the RCFC & WCD and OCFCD to fund their fair share of these improvements. A letter of intent detailing key points of the agreement and cost sharing between the three agencies is attached. Staff is recommending approval of Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 with OCFCD and RCFC & WCD, to participate in costs of utility relocations, and associated work to be performed in conjunction with the USACE R9Ph2B bank protection project in advance of the SR-91 CIP in the total not to exceed amount of $2,100,000 including a contingency of $436,567. There is sufficient capacity in the FY 2010/11 budget for anticipated expenditures of $1,300,000, although a transfer from the SR-91 CIP engineering expenditures to the SR-91 CIP construction expenditures is required. The remaining $800,000 of expenditures has been included in the FY 2011/12 budget that will be presented to the Commission in June 2011 for approval. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: NO N/A Year: FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 Amount: $1,300,000 $800,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County highway, 2010 Bonds proceeds Budget Adjustment: Yes (transfer) N/A 003028 81301 00000 0000 262 31 81301 $1,300,000 FY 2010/11 GLA No.: 003028 81110 00000 0000 262 31 81101 ($1,300,000) FY 2010/11 003028 81301 00000 0000 262 31 81301 $800,000 FY 2011/12 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ 4*izellr Date: 04/14/11 Attachment: Draft Agreement Cost Sharing of Relocation of Driveway, Bridge, and Utilities Agenda Item 9 18 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 AGREEMENT This agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT' and for purposes of identification hereby numbered D11-002 (ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Agreement Number) and 11-31-090-00 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Agreement Number) and dated the day of 2011, is BY and AMONGST ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic, hereinafter referred to as "OCFCD," AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic, hereinafter referred to as "RCFC&WCD," RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a body corporate and politic, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC," Which are sometimes individually referred to as 'PARTY," or collectively referred to as "PARTIES." RECITALS WHEREAS, the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA), Public Law 99-662, authorized construction of flood control improvement features for the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project ("SARMP") which includes, as a component, improvements to the Lower Santa Ana River ("LSAR"); WHEREAS, improvements to the LSAR include construction of approximately 6,000 linear feet of bank protection and a temporary water diversion canal extending through the counties of Orange and Riverside, also known as Santa Ana River Reach 9 Phase 2B (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT); WHEREAS, PROJECT is located within the southern portion of the Green River Golf Club ("GRGC") and adjacent to State Route 91 freeway ("SR-91"), between Coal Canyon Road and the Green River Mobile Home Park, as shown in Exhibit A (SAR Reach 9 Phase 2B Location Map) which is attached Page 1 19 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCiC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 hereto and incorporated by this reference; WHEREAS, the purpose of PROJECT is to protect the SR-91, the only major route for commuters between Riverside and Orange Counties, from damages due to storm water releases from Prado Dam; WHEREAS, OCFCD and RCFC&WCD, pursuant to their Local Cooperation Agreement ("LCA") with United States Army Corps of Engineers ("CORPS"), are the Local Sponsors of PROJECT with the CORPS, as the PROJECT proponent, responsible for the preparation of PROJECT plans, specifications and estimates, construction administration, and for compliance with all applicable legal requirements related thereto, as authorized by WRDA; WHEREAS, as Local Sponsors, OCFCD and RCFC&WCD are responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights -of -way, relocations and disposal sites (hereinafter referred to collectively as "LERRDS") required for construction of SARMP, within their respective jurisdictional boundaries; WHEREAS, OCFCD is the fee owner of GRGC and desires to implement various features for the GRGC as part of PROJECT; WHEREAS, in order to ensure flexibility for potential future projects, including but not limited to the proposed SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project, RCTC is cost -sharing with the Local Sponsors in the relocation of existing utilities and other facilities in an effort to minimize any future potential disturbances to these facilities and/or relocations within the PROJECT site; WHEREAS, as Local Sponsors, OCFCD and RCFC&WCD, by way of a request to the CORPS, are allowed to implement during construction additional features not otherwise included within the scope of CORPS' responsibilities, funding or otherwise, per the LCA for PROJECT (hereinafter referred to as "BETTERMENTS"); WHEREAS, PARTIES desire to include various LERRDS and BETTERMENTS as part of Page 2 20 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 PROJECT, including the relocation of the bridge and driveway, the relocation of various utilities that are in conflict with PROJECT and other potential future SR-91 improvements, and the construction of a temporary bikeway detour, hereinafter referred to collectively as "RELOCATIONS"; WHEREAS, PARTIES understand that CORPS, as the project proponent for the entire SARMP, has sole authority to determine which additional features requested by PARTIES to be implemented are included within the scope of the CORPS' responsibilities per LCA for PROJECT (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT COST"), or otherwise classified as LERRDS or BETTERMENTS; WHEREAS, PARTIES desire to enter into AGREEMENT for the purpose of defining the roles and responsibilities of PARTIES for the cost -share of RELOCATIONS; WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for PARTIES to cooperate with the financing of the design and construction of RELOCATIONS. NOW, THEREFORE THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. RECITALS The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this AGREEMENT is to establish the terms and conditions for implementation of RELOCATIONS, and establish the terms under which PARTIES will contribute towards the cost -share of said RELOCATIONS. 3. PROJECT COORDINATION a. OCFCD's Director of the OC Public Works Department ("OC Public Works"), or an authorized designee, hereinafter referred to as "OCFCD REPRESENTATIVE," shall be OCFCD's representative in all matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT. b. RCTC's Executive Director, or an authorized designee, hereinafter referred to as Page 3 21 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 "RCTC REPRESENTATIVE," shall be RCTC's representative in all matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT. c. RCFC&WCD's General Manager -Chief Engineer, or am authorized designee, hereinafter referred to as "RCFC&WCD REPRESENTATIVE," shall be RCFC&WCD's representative in all matters pertaining to this AGREEMENT. 4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The term of this AGREEMENT shall commence upon the date of the last to sign of the respective Boards of each PARTY. Thereafter, the AGREEMENT shall remain in effect until 90 days after CORPS' final accounting of the costs related to RELOCATIONS, as defined in this AGREEMENT, has been submitted to PARTIES, unless earlier terminated by one PARTY provided that ninety (90) days written notice of termination is given to all other PARTIES pursuant to the requirements set forth in Paragraph 6, and that the financial and other obligations incurred to that point of the PARTY seeking termination have been fully satisfied as determined by the other PARTIES. 5. PARTY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES a. A summary of the cost -share amounts and percentages as described in this Paragraph 5 is tabulated and attached hereto as Exhibit B (OCFCD, RCFC&WCD and RCTC Cost Share Summary Table for Relocations) and incorporated by this reference. Table 1 of Exhibit B includes the estimated cost -share amounts and Table 2 of Exhibit B sets forth the specific cost -share percentages as allocated between the PARTIES. PARTIES understand and agree that the information indicated in Exhibit B, Table 1 is a good faith estimate of the various costs, and may be subject to adjustments as PROJECT design and/or construction progresses. Notwithstanding Page 4 22 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 any adjustments to the various costs, the final costs shall be based upon CORPS' final accounting of cost for RELOCATIONS and shall be allocated per the specific cost -share percentages set forth in Table 2 of Exhibit B. b. PARTIES shall contribute equally to the incremental difference in the construction cost between a temporary and permanent bridge and driveway, as shown in Exhibit B, Table 1, Item 1(a), Column 10. Including adjustments for contract administration and contingencies, the difference, estimated at approximately EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($830,000), shall be shared equally by all PARTIES. The CORPS considers the incremental difference in cost an "BETTERMENT", and PARTIES concur, since PROJECT only requires a temporary bridge and driveway during construction. Similarly, the incremental design cost, as shown in Exhibit B, Table 1, Item 1(b), Column 10 and estimated to be approximately TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($265,000), for the permanent bridge and driveway shall be shared equally among PARTIES. c. OCFCD shall assume 97% of the cost, as shown in Exhibit B, Tables 1 and 2, Item 2(a), Column 5, for implementation of the temporary bikeway detour, which is estimated at approximately EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($865,000), since the existing Class I bikeway is located almost entirely within Orange County. RCFC&WCD shall pay for the remaining 3%, as shown in Exhibit B, Tables 1 and 2, Item 2(a), Column 7, estimated at approximately TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($27,000). The CORPS considers this temporary bikeway detour as LERRDS within Orange and Riverside Counties, and PARTIES concur. Similarly, the design cost for the bikeway detour shall be shared by the same Page 5 23 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 percentage between OCFCD and RCFC&WCD, as shown in Exhibit B, Table 2, Item 2(b), Columns 5 and 7. d. PARTIES shall contribute equally for the funding of the gas (via the Gas Company) and water (via City of Corona) utility relocations, which is shown in Exhibit B, Tables 1 and 2, Items 3 and 4. The CORPS considers these utility relocations BETTERMENTS and therefore constituting RELOCATIONS per this AGREEMENT, and PARTIES concur, since these services only pertain to the GRGC. These utility relocations will be implemented as part of the CORPS design and construction contracts. RCTC shall remit its portion of the cost -share directly to RCFC&WCD, within thirty (30) days upon receipt of an invoice from CORPS. e. OCFCD shall be solely responsible for the relocation of irrigation and wells impacted by PROJECT within the GRGC, as shown in Exhibit B, Tables 1 and 2, Item 5. The CORPS considers these relocations as BETTERMENTS and therefore constituting RELOCATIONS per this AGREEMENT, and PARTIES concur, because these utilities service only the GRGC. f. RCFC&WCD and RCTC shall share equally in the cost for implementation of the power (via SCE) and cable/internet/phone (via AT&T) relocations, as shown in Exhibit B, Tables 1 and 2, Items 6 and 7. The CORPS considers these RELOCATIONS as LERRDS within Riverside County, and PARTIES concur. Should RCFC&WCD and RCTC desire to include these RELOCATIONS as part of a CORPS construction contract change order, payment shall be remitted directly to the CORPS by way of RCFC&WCD. RCTC shall remit its portion of the cost -share directly to RCFC&WCD, within ninety (90) days upon receipt of an invoice from CORPS, as the Page 6 24 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 latter is the Local Sponsor of the SARMP in Riverside County. g. Each PARTY shall each be responsible for its own individual administration costs, including, but not limited to, right-of-way engineering and real estate services (e.g., quitclaim, easement deed preparation, and recording). h. Pending the determination of prior rights, OCFCD and RCTC shall cooperate with RCFC&WCD in its issuance of notices to relocate utilities within Riverside County and with the preparation of reimbursement agreements with the utility agencies. i. Concerning those RELOCATIONS that are a part of the CORPS construction contract (either by bid documents or by contract change orders) for PROJECT, RCTC may, at its sole discretion and solely for the benefit of RCTC, at no cost to OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, or CORPS, furnish a Project Manager during construction. RCTC Project Manager's access to the PROJECT site shall be subject to meeting all CORPS regulations as dictated by CORPS' Resident Engineer. RCTC shall be entitled to consult and cooperate with CORPS' Resident Engineer, ensure conformance of the construction of RELOCATIONS with the approved plans and specifications, and provide review and approval for any change orders associated with the items listed in Exhibit B. However, after consultation and cooperation with RCTC, the decision of CORPS' Resident Engineer regarding all matters involving the construction of RELOCATIONS shall be final. j. All proposed contract change orders for RELOCATIONS shall be subject to review, consultation and concurrence by RCTC prior to their execution and implementation. However, RCTC's decision regarding contract change orders shall be subordinate to CORPS' Resident Engineer's decision, which shall be final. Page 7 25 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 k. As construction of the items of work identified in Exhibit B for RELOCATIONS under this AGREEMENT progresses, it may be determined that some items of work or portions thereof may not be required, resulting in excess funds. Further, actual construction costs may be less than the estimated funds as shown in Exhibit B. As such, each PARTY's unused funds may be shifted among the various items of work listed in Exhibit B at the discretion of each PARTY. Refund of overpayment to any PARTY shall be based on a final accounting provided by the CORPS. I. Similarly, as construction of the items of work identified in Exhibit B for RELOCATIONS under this AGREEMENT progresses, it may be determined that additional funds not previously anticipated may be required. As such, all PARTIES agree that they will contribute using the same cost -share percentages shown in Exhibit B, Table 2 for tasks that have been previously identified. Any additional tasks required for the implementation of RELOCATIONS that were not previously identified in Exhibit B shall be funded per CORPS' determination of the type of work necessary (PROJECT COST, LERRDS or BETTERMENT) and with the mutual written consent of all PARTIES. 6. NOTICES a. Notices or other communications which may be required or provided under the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be given as follows: OCFCD: Director OC Public Works Department County of Orange P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Facsimile No. (714) 834-2395 Page 8 26 RCFC&WCD: RCTC: OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 General Manager -Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 Facsimile No. (951) 788-9965 Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Facsimile No. (951) 787-7920 b. All notices shall be in writing and deemed effective when delivered in person, on the day of delivery, on the business day following deposit of notice with an overnight delivery service such as Federal Express, or on the fifth business day after deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed as above. Any notices, correspondence, reports, and/or statements authorized or required by this AGREEMENT, addressed in any other fashion shall be deemed not given. c. Each PARTY hereto may change its address to which notices are to be sent by giving notice of such change to the other two PARTIES. 7. INDEMNIFICATION a. Indemnification by RCTC RCTC hereby agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel approved in writing by OCFCD and RCFC&WCD), and hold harmless OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, Counties of Orange and Riverside ("COUNTIES') and the officers, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials, employees, authorized agents and representatives of OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, and/or COUNTIES ("OCFCD/RCFC&WCD/COUNTIES INDEMNITEES") from any and all losses, injuries, liability, damages, claims, proceeding or action, present or future, costs and expenses (including but not limited Page 9 27 26 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 to attorney fees and court costs, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards), incurred by or made against OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, COUNTIES, or any OCFCD/RCFC&WCD/COUNTIES INDEMNITEES, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to: (i) any breach of this AGREEMENT by RCTC, or (ii) the actual or alleged willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of RCTC and/or RCTC INDEMNITEES (as defined below) in connection with the performance under this AGREEMENT; provided, however, that the indemnification provided by this subparagraph shall not operate to relieve OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, or COUNTIES from any loss, injury, liability, damages, claims, costs or expenses to the extent determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been proximately caused by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, COUNTIES, or the OCFCD/RCFC&WCD/COUNTIES INDEMNITEES, or any of them. As used in this subparagraph and subparagraphs b and c below, the term "OCFCD/RCFC&WCD/COUNTIES INDEMNITEES" shall include any of the officers, Board of Supervisors, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents or representatives of the OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, County of Orange, and County of Riverside. b. Indemnification by RCFC&WCD RCFC&WCD hereby agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel approved in writing by OCFCD and RCTC), and hold harmless OCFCD, County of Orange ("ORANGE COUNTY"), RCTC and the officers, Board of Supervisors, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives of OCFCD, RCTC and/or COUNTY ("OCFCD/ORANGE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES") from any and all losses, Page 10 28 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 injuries, liability, damages, claims, proceeding or action, present or future, costs and expenses (including but not limited to attorney fees and court costs, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards), incurred by or made against OCFCD, ORANGE COUNTY, RCTC or any OCFCD/ ORANGE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to: (i) any breach of this AGREEMENT by RCFC&WCD, or (ii) the actual or alleged willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of RCFC&WCD and/or RCFC&WCD INDEMNITEES (as defined above) in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT; provided, however, that the indemnification provided by this subparagraph shall not operate to relieve OCFCD, ORANGE COUNTY or RCTC from any loss, injury, liability, damages, claims, proceeding or action, present or future, costs or expenses (including but not limited to attorney fees and court costs, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards) to the extent determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been proximately caused by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of OCFCD, ORANGE COUNTY, RCTC or the OCFCD/ORANGE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES. c. Indemnification by OCFCD OCFCD hereby agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel approved in writing by RCFC&WCD and RCTC), and hold harmless RCFC&WCD, County of Riverside ("RIVERSIDE COUNTY"), RCTC and the officers, Board of Supervisors, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives of RCFC&WCD, RCTC and/or RIVERSIDE COUNTY ("RCFC&WCD/RIVERSIDE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES') from any and all losses, injuries, liability, damages, claims, Page 11 29 OCFCD Agreement No. 011-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 proceeding or action, present or future, costs and expenses (including but not limited to attomey fees and court costs, cost of investigation, defense and settlements or awards), incurred by or made against RCFC&WCD, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RCTC or any RCFC&WCD/RIVERSIDE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES, based upon, arising out of or in any way relating to: (i) any breach of this AGREEMENT by OCFCD, or (ii) the actual or alleged willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of OCFCD and/or OCFCD INDEMNITEES (as defined above) in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT, provided, however, that the indemnification provided by this subparagraph shall not operate to relieve RCFC&WCD, RIVERSIDE COUNTY or RCTC from any loss, injury, liability, damages, claims, costs or expenses to the extent determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been proximately caused by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of RCFC&WCD, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RCTC or the RCFC&WCD/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY/RCTC INDEMNITEES. 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS This AGREEMENT is by and amongst the PARTIES for the purposes described herein and is not intended and shall not be construed so as to create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, as amongst the PARTIES. 9. SUCCESSORS This AGREEMENT shall be binding on the successors of the PARTIES hereto and shall not be succeeded by any PARTY without the prior written consent of the other PARTIES. The consent of such other PARTIES shall not be withheld unreasonably but, prior to approving any such succession involving the performance of any obligations pursuant to this Page 12 30 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 AGREEMENT, the other PARTIES shall be satisfied by competent evidence that the successor is technically qualified and financially able to perform those services to be succeeded. Failure to obtain the other PARTIES' required prior written approval of any proposed succession will render such succession void. 10. WAIVER OF RIGHTS The failure of PARTIES to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy that PARTIES may have, and shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to require strict performance of all the terms, covenants and conditions of this AGREEMENT thereafter, nor shall such failure constitute a waiver of any remedy for the subsequent breach or default of any term, covenant or condition of this AGREEMENT. 11. APPLICABLE LAW This AGREEMENT has been negotiated and executed in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 12. SEVERABILITY If any part of this AGREEMENT is held, determined or adjudicated to be invalid, void or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this AGREEMENT shall be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible. 13. ATTORNEY FEES/COSTS Should litigation be necessary to enforce any terms or provisions of this AGREEMENT, then each PARTY shall bear its own litigation and collection expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorney fees. Page 13 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 14. EXHIBITS This AGREEMENT incorporates by this reference, the following exhibits, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein: a. Exhibit A b. Exhibit B 16. WAIVER AND INTERPRETATION Titles or captions contained herein are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no way define, limit, extend or describe the scope of this AGREEMENT or any provisions hereof. No provision in this AGREEMENT is to be interpreted for or against a PARTY because that PARTY or its legal representative drafted such provision. 16. AUTHORITY The PARTIES to this AGREEMENT represent and warrant that this AGREEMENT has been duly authorized and executed and constitutes the legally binding obligation of their respective organizations or entities, enforceable in accordance with its terms. 17. AMENDMENT(S) It is mutually understood and agreed by PARTIES that no addition to, alteration of, or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT, nor any oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be valid unless made in writing and signed and approved by all PARTIES. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This document sets forth the entire AGREEMENT between the PARTIES and may be modified only by a written amendment amongst the PARTIES hereto, in accordance with Paragraph 17 ("AMENDMENT(S)"), above. Page 14 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /Il 111 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCiC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 19. SIGNATURE IN COUNTERPART This AGREEMENT may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts or copies by the PARTIES hereto. Each counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same AGREEMENT, which shall be binding and effective as to the PARTIES hereto. Page 15 33 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 RCTC Agreement No. 11-31.090-00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT in counterparts on the dates opposite their respective signatures and each such counterpart shall be deemed an original: Orange County Flood Control District, a body corporate and politic Date: By Chair of the Board of Supervisors Orange County, CA Date: Date: 14 —1-2 yt i APPROVED AS TO FORM Office of the County Counsel Oran County,California By: Deputy Signed and certified that a copy of this document has been delivered to the Chair of the Board per G.C. Sec 25103, Reso 79-1535. Attest: Darlene J. Bloom Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Orange, California Page 18 34 on OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT in counterparts (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAMELA J. WALLS County Counsel By: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT a body corporate and politic in the State of California By: MARION ASHLEY, Chairman Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors ATTEST: KECIA HARPER -THEM Clerk of the Board By: NEAL KIPNIS Deputy Deputy County Counsel (SEAL) Deputy Page 17 35 OCFCD Agreement No. D11-002 ROTC Agreement No. 11-31-090-00 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have executed this AGREEMENT in counterparts on the dates opposite their respective signatures and each such counterpart shall be deemed an original: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION A body corporate and politic in the State of California Date: By: Chairman, Commission SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION By: APPROVED AS TO FORM GENERAL COUNSEL, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: General Counsel Date Page 18 36 ��(�i�� � �hr �; S310N3SV N33M138 JNIHVHS 1S00 103r0ad SZ 3SVHd 6 H9V3a a3Ala VNV V1NVS 103r0ad 1N3IN3A0adWI HOGISSOO L6 aS 0 L0'838.98 913'808`1.e ZZS'6891.8 EE4'E99`LS S9V101 ONVNO 9L8'ZOZ'1S 188 St. `LS 00'/6 680'SE4 00'C O — 3N1L/ 3N(S M3N d.O fSHi SNOD (9) 9E9'E80'LS Zl9'49£S £E'EE ZL9'49ES EVES ZL9`49ES E£'EE OVOU 4 3001E19 M3N 100tl1SN00 000'0SL'3$ 0 -- 000'SLO'LS 00'0S 000'SLO'l$ 00'OS 00 1siV O31V00l3o 909'96ZS 0 -- 40Z'ons OO'OS 90Z'69LS 00'0S OV3HH3A0 ANZL 338 0311/3013H (JE 098%ZZS LL9'4LS ME£ LL9'9LS E£'EE LL917LS EE'S£ 9311/M „ZL VNO900 031V0013a ® 0 0 -• 0 •- 0 -- SV9 „9 036 O31V0013N Ci} S�Y101 1NOONY 1N3083d LNOONV 1N3Ond 1NflONY 1N3093d NOI1dItl083O 'ON MIMI 00d00 39YN8 00d03 3NV108 01OU JNIaVHS 1S00 A0N39V 1181HX3 EXHIBIT D a( ORANGE COUNTY ublicWorks Our Comm SEP 3 0 2119 OLt Commitmrnt. t2© Jess A. Carbeial, interim Director 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, CA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 te: (714) 8342300 x: (714) 83 -5188 ANDRSiDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTRL WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Warren D. "Dusty" Williams, General Manager -Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportationtommission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Santa Ana River — Reach 9 Phase 2B Project Letter of Intent for Cost -Sharing of Relocation of Driveway, Bridge, and Utilities Dear Mr. Williams and Ms. Mayer: This letter serves to document the agreement of the staffs of the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) as to essential terms of an agreement defining the agencies' cost -share and other responsibilities for the relocation of various facilities as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Reach 9 Phase 2B (R9Ph2B) bank protection project. The agreement is subject to the final approval by the governing boards of all the parties. The signatories to this letter agree to recommend to their respective boards approval of an agreement containing the essential terms contained herein. The Corps` R9Ph2B project, as part of the larger Santa Ana River Mainstem Project (SARMP), is located along the Santa Ana River just north of and adjacent to the westbound SR-91 between Coal Canyon Road and approximately 1700 feet east of the Orange/Riverside county boundary. This project is critical to the protection of the SR-91 from current and future flood control releases from Prado Dam. As the local sponsors of the SARMP, OCFCD and RCFC&WCD are responsible for the relocation of utilities within Orange County and Riverside County, respectively. OCFCD is also the owner of the Green River Golf Club (GRGC) where the majority of the R9Ph2B construction would take place. RCTC, on the other hand, is the project proponent of the SR-91 Capital Improvement Project (CIP), which includes widening of a segment of the freeway adjacent to R9Ph2B. 40 SAR Reach 9 Phase 2B Project Letter of Intent for RCFCWCD and RCTC Page 2 As you already know, our staffs have agreed after several consultations that each agency will benefit in coordinating our efforts together and equitably sharing the cost for various tasks required during the Corps' implementation of the R9Ph2B project, including the relocation of the existing GRGC bridge and utilities. The utility relocations, as required for the SARMP, are entirely a local sponsors' responsibility. RCTC, however, has expressed its willingness to contribute to these tasks, financially or otherwise, to facilitate modifying utility relocations to be compatible with the future widening of the freeway. The bridge relocation benefits the GRGC since it would replace an existing bridge that is near the end of its useful life. It would also benefit RCFC&WCD since a new relocated bridge wouldeliminate a "gap.' in the Santa Ana River levee thereby eliminating additional O&M responsibility for RCFC&wCD and provide a crossing for utilities. It would also enable flexibility in RCTC's proposed expansion of SR 91 in the future given the limited right-of-way available to provide access to GRGC and Star Ranch culvert, and to relocate the existing bikeway. (Please refer to our letter dated May 21, 2009 requesting the Corps to construct the temporary access road/bridge as permanent facilities.) Moreover, the Corps' response letter dated July 13, 2009 has concurred that the relocated bridge is a superior design, especially since the cost is more or less the same as the temporary bridge after accounting for cost savings related to the elimination of sheet pile/stop log system. As you may already know, the Corps' R9Ph2B project is _being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as stimulus funds) and has an expedited construction schedule that requires extraordinary commitment and cooperation from our agencies in order to meet the Federal appropriations deadline. The Corps has completed its construction bid documents and plans to award the contract by September 30, 2009. For our part, an agreement between our agencies is required to address cost - sharing and other issues prior to the advertisement for bids. The Corps' schedule, however, does not allow adequate time to draft an agreement and have our respective governing boards approve and execute it. In the interim while t3CFCD staff is preparing a draft agreement, we request your concurrence to the following key points that will be included in the proposed three -party agreement, which we will subsequently recommend to our respective boards when we bring the agreement to our boards for approval and execution. Please note that these key points were formulated based upon previous meetings between our staffs and based upon the Corps' interpretation of the SARMP Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) as contained in the Corps letter mentioned above. We are sending a table (attached) which summarizes the proposed cost -share among the agencies including "LERRDs" (Lands, Easements, Relocation, Right -of -Way and Disposal Sites) as described in the LCA. The estimated construction costs as shown on the table were increased by 25% to account for contract administration and contingencies. The key points for the proposed three -party agreement are as follows: 41 SAR Reach 9 Phase 28 Project Letter of Intent for RCFCWCD and RCTC Page 3 1) OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, and RCTC shall contribute equally in the incremental difference in cost between a temporary and permanent bridge/driveway. Including adjustments for contract administration and contingencies, the difference (approximately $750,000) shall be shared equally by the three agencies. The Corps considers the incremental difference a "betterment" since the R9Ph2B project only requires a temporary access road/bridge during construction. Similarly, the incremental design cost (approximately $265,000) for the permanent bridge shall be shared equally among the three agencies. 2) OCFCD shall assume 97% of the cost for implementation of the bikeway detour since the existing Class I bikeway is located almost entirely within Orange County. RCFC&WCD shall pay for the remaining 3%. The Corps considers this relocation as "LERRDs" within Orange and Riverside Counties. Similarly, the design cost for the bikeway detour shall be shared by the same percentage between the two agencies. 3) OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, and RCTC shall contribute equally for the funding of the gas and water utility relocations. The Corps considers these utilities "betterments" as they service only the golf course. It is anticipated that these utility relocations would be implemented as part of the Corps design and construction contracts. RCTC shall remit its portion of the cost -share directly to RCFC&WCD as the latter is the local sponsor of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project within Riverside County. RCFC&WCD, in turn, would remit the funds directly to the Corps before the award of the construction contract. 4) RCFC&WCD and RCTC shall share equally in the cost for implementation of the power and cable/internet/phone relocations. The Corps considers these relocations as "LERRDs" within Riverside County. Should RCFC&WCD and RCTC wish to include said relocations as part of the Corps construction contract, payment shall be remitted directly to the Corps by way of RCFC&WCD. RCTC shall remit its portion of the cost -share directly to RCFC&WCD as the latter is the local sponsor of the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project within Riverside County. 5) OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, and RCTC shall each be responsible for its own individual administration costs, including right-of-way engineering and real estate services (e.g., quitclaim, easement deed preparation, and recording). 6) Pending the determination of prior rights, OCFCD and RCTC shall cooperate with RCFC&WCD in its issuance of notices to relocate and the preparation of reimbursement agreements with the utility agencies. 7) OCFCD, RCFC&WCD, and RCTC agree to enter into a cooperative agreement to include the key points outlined herein. The three agencies shall endeavor to finalize the agreement within 30 days from the execution of this letter and proceed thereafter for their respective boards' approvals. 42 SAR Reach 9 Phase 28 Project Letter of Intent for RCFCWCD and RCTC Page 4 It is mutually agreed by OCFCD, RCFCMCD, and RCTC that the key points described in this letter of intent, including the cost -sharing distribution, are not binding and are subject to approval of an agreement by each party's respective governing board. I sincerely believe that this cost -share is fair and our agencies would mutually benefit in this proposed agreement. I would truly appreciate your timely concurrence by signing in the space below. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call Nadeem Majaj at (714) 667-3220 or Lance Natsuhara at (714) 834-5398. Sincerely, Ignacio G. Ochba, l irector/Chief Engineer, CC Engineering Orange County Flood Control District Concurrence: Warren D. "Dusty" Williams General Manager -Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ne Mayer Executive Director. Riverside County Transportation Commission Attachments: R9Ph2B Cost -Share Summary Table Local Sponsors' Letter to Corps dated May 21, 2009 Corps Response Letter dated .July 13, 2009 cc: Nadeem Majaj, OCPW Lance Natsuhara, OCPW Zully Smith, RCFCWCD Michael Blomquist, RCTC Khalid Bazmi, RCTC S:ISARPENGINEERINGtGreg Meech 9 Phase 291 EtLetter of intent - Coat Share RCFCWCD 8 RCTC (FINAL).doc 43 Re 9 Phase 2B Cost -Share Summary Table" 1. a) Bridge and Drwy b) Bridge and Drwy (Design) 2. a) Bikeway Detour*** $2,250,000.00 $794,000.00 $625,000.00 , ;I; $1,500,000.00 $52 3.33 FC1) r'. $606,250.00 6250,000.00 $88,222.22 $18,750.00 $250,000.00 U8,222.22 ;CTC $250,000.00 $88,222.22ti $750.000.00 $264,666.67 $625,000.00 b) Bikeway Detour (Design)*** 3. Gas (The Gas Company) $310,000.00 $125,000.00 8$00,700.00 $41,666.67 $9,300.00 $41,666.67 641,666.67 $310,000.00 $125,000.00 4. Water (City of Corona)_ 5. GRGC irrigation &_Wells **** $600,000.00 61,120,000.00 a` 6200.000.00 S1,120,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $600.000.00 61,120,000,00 6. Power (SCE) 6406,000.00 $203.000.00 $203,000.00 $406,000.00 7. Cable/Internet/phone (AT&T)***** $466,000.00 6233,000.00 $233,000.00 $466.000.00 Total $6,696,000.00 $2,029,333.33 $906,950.00 $1,699,888.89 $464,050.00 _. _$579.888.89 $1,015,888.89 $4666,666.67 �l 1. a) Bridge and Drwy N b)Bridge and Drwy (Design) 2. a) Bikeway Detour*** b ikeway Detour fDesign)*** 3. Gas (The Gas Company) 4. Water (City of Corona) 5. GROG Irrigation & Wells **** .e; 62,250,000.00 $794,000.00 $625,000.00 $310,000.00 $125,000.00 $600,000.00 $1,120,000.00 80 Cost 66.67% 66.67% hal In t ettOtita nn.i Y 1• nxa"*n . RPp 97.00% 97.00% P 11.11% 33.33% 33. 100.00% ' 111 i,., i' LI ;Ri)s 3.00% 3.00% 11.11% 11_11% 33.33% 33.33% 11.11% 11,11% 33.33% 33.334'o 33.33% 33.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 6.. Po wet (SCE) 7. Cable/Internet/Telephone (AT&T)** Total $406;C100.00 $466,000.0 $6,696,000.00 " Final Amount subject to Final Accounting by Corps Estimated Construction Cost plus 25% for contract administration and conting "" Estimate Based on Proportion of Class I Bikeway within Counties of Orange and Riverside **** OCFCD only Estimate Includes copper line relocation 50.00%* 50.00% es where applicable 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 100.00% Our Community. Our Commitment. Bryntt •SpnY/e, Din apr 300 N. Flower Siren Santa. Ana, CA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana CA 92702-4048 Telephone: (714) 834-2300 Fax: (714)834-51U May 21, 2009 Brian M. Moore, Deputy District Engineer Project Management USACE, Los Angeles District 915 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Lower Santa Ana River Reach 9 Phase 2B Project— Permanent Access Bridge/Road for the Green River Golf Club Dear Mr. Moore_ After consultation with the Riverside Transportation Commission (ROTC), the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), the Local Sponsors of the Reach 9 Phase 2B feature, request that the Corps consider constructing the proposed temporary bridge and access road shown on the current 90% plans, as permanent facilities. After some preliminary evaluations, we believe that it can be accomplished at approximately the same cast and would be mutually advantageous to the Corps, the Local Sponsors and RCTC for the following reasons: • A permanent pre -cast concrete bridge with an intermediate center pier in the river can be constructed roughly at the same cost as the proposed temporary bridge. The comparison was based on the cost estimates prepared by our consultant, Boyle Engineering, which indicate that a temporary prefabricated steel bridge would cost approximately $1.05 million, while a permanent pre -cast bridge would' cost about $1.06 million. Some additional cost will be required for bridge abutments, armoring and for mitigation. Attached is a copy of the preliminary cost comparison. • Demolition of the existing bridge and closing the "gap" at the existing bridge entrance is a superior engineering design that the Local Sponsors highly recommend. This would eliminate the proposed sheet piles and floodwall/stop-log system, which would result in potential cost savings for the project. The cost for demolishing the existing bridge could easily be offset by the savings due to the elimination of the sheet piles/stop-log system. The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Divisions for both Local Sponsors have expressed serious concerns regarding their ability to respond in a timely manner and other logistical problems, if/when the Corps may need to make higher releases out of Prado Dam. As you may know, the Reach 9 Phase 2B project is located at the extreme edge of both counties and during flood fighting times, resources will be limited. Eliminating the floodwall/stop-log system would result in 45 Letter to Brian M. Moore Page 2 of 3 improved Prado Dam operations, since no coordination would be required between the Dam Operators and the Local Sponsors for the O&M of the floodwall/stop-log system during releases of high flows. * The proposed permanent bridge would enable flexibility in the future expansion of the 91 freeway given the limited right-of-way along the terminus of Green River Road, The portion of the Green River Road at this location would only need to provide private access to the Star Ranch property instead of meeting City of Corona standards for local road widths. Moreover, it would also allow the relocation of existing SCE power lines away from this narrow portion of Green River Road. • The proposed permanent bridge would replace an existing bridge that was constructed in 1958 that is near the end of its useful life. Since the existing bridge also provides the utility crossing fora water line and gas line to the clubhouse, these utilities would likewise be threatened during the release of higher flows from Prado Dam. With the proposed permanent bridge, the local sponsors would be able to relocate these utilities and provide a more stable utility crossing. We believe that the cost for converting the proposed temporary access to a permanent access road/bridge can be accomplished for roughly the same cost after accounting for cost savings related to elimination of the sheet pile/stop log system. Should there be a cost increase, the Local Sponsors accept that any incremental increase in cost would be borne by the Local Sponsors and potentially other interested parties, such as RCTC. OCFCD has requested Boyle Engineering to prepare a cost estimate fora modified permanent bridge that would lower the elevation of the pile caps of the bridge abutments for better structural stability. This modified bridge is very likely the design that the Local Sponsors will recommend for construction. We will provide you with a refined cost estimate for this alternative as soon as it is available. We have been informed that the Corps plans to award the construction contract by September 30, 2009. Since it would be unlikely that the Corps can prepare plans for the permanent bridge in a short amount of time, OCFCD will provide a set of specifications for the bridge that is adequate for a design -build item, which can be added to the Corps' plans and specifications. In summary, the local sponsors are requesting that the Corps agree to construct a permanent access/bridge instead of the temporary one shown on the 90% plans with the understanding that the Local Sponsors will be responsible for the incremental increase in Reach 9-Phase 28 construction cost related to this change, if any. We also would like the Corps' approval for the proposed design -build concept for the bridge so that OCFCD can authorize Boyle Engineering to proceed with the preparation of the specifications. Your prompt attention to this request and written concurrence would be greatly appreciated. Please call Lance Natsuhara at (714) 834-5398 or Zully Smith at (951) 955-1299 if you have questions or need any additional information. 46 Letter to Brian M. Moore Page 3 of 3 Dusty Williams, General Manager/Chief Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Ignacio G. Ochoa, Chief ngineer OC Public Works/OC Flood Control District Attachment: Preliminary Cost Comparison cc: Zully Smith, RCFC&WCD Rick Leifield, USAGE Nadeem Majaj Assistant Chief Engineer/ OC Flood Control District Kevin Onuma, Manager, OCPW/Flood Control Division Lance Natsuhara, Manager, OCPW/Santa Ana River Project 47 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,OS ANC;ELF$ DiSrRIGr CORPS: -ENOINE R`t: F J T_iOX 53' 711 LO3 r•NC&LES. CA'LIFCRNO K:C.5',:2325 EPi y in R'.-�'. pp'vyN ._x Civil Works Branch Mr Ignacio G Ochoa, Chief Engineer Orange County Public Works OrangeCounty Flood Control District 00 N. Flower Street P_O Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 .tuly 13, =009 Mr. Dusty Williams, General Manager/Chief Engineer Riverside County blood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 Dear Mt Ochoa and Mr. Williams: Reference your letter dated May 21, 2009, regarding the Lower Santa :Alta River reach 9 Phase 2B project, and the proposed permanent access bridge and road for the Green River Golf Course. As a result of the management level teleconference on June 30, 2009, between Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), Riverside County Flood Control, Water Conservation District, and the Cotes of Engineers on this topic, I would like to also address the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) bicycle trail relocation as well. Your letter proposed designing the golf course temporary access bridge and road as ? permanent structure. We have determined that either a temporary bridge and access road or a permanent bridge and access for the golf course is considered a betterment because the golf course was acquired for the project flood control impact without conditions to keep it operational. This determination is consistent with the Local Cooperation .Agreement (I,(. r\ daied December ±4, 1989, Article I, Paragraph H, and Corps guidance, provided as an enclosures €r addition, costs associated with those project features required to protect the existing bridge .,icy as the stop logs and sheet piles, are betterment as well if the non -Fed sponsor would like lei maintain access to the golf course, you would be responsible for 100% of the cost for either temporary or permanent bridge, and access road as betterment .As the new owner of the property, OCFCD must keep the property available for project purposes and mast maintain it be available for the project for so long as the project remains authorized by Congress The acquired is required for the project to meel the project purpose, in This ingance. flood ~c,. The only access required tsar the project purpose would be re r!iairnirt the land in 8 ,ITI7!.il f ,. tic)(sC1 lY; iter (for example_ Mowing). 48 However, we have also determined that construction associated with Reach 9, Phase 213 will require a temporary construction access bridge and road in the vicinity of the new bridge you: proposed in OCFCD Exhibit 1 Proposed Road Alignment. A temporary construction access bridge and access road would be a project construction cost to be cost shared between Federal and Non -Federal sponsors. The CAL.TRANS bike trail detour and trail bridges, as shown on OCFCD -Exhibit 2: Bike Detour Plan, are directly related to project temporary construction impacts and are considered a compensable Land, Easements, Relocation, Right of Way and Disposal Site (LERRDS) cost This determination is also consistent with the Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) dated December 14, 1989. If the Corps builds a permanent access bridge at your request, the incremental cost calculated between a temporary construction bridge and access road, and a permanent bridge and road built for golf course access, would be considered betterment costs. Furthermore, if the permanent bridge and road incorporate a lane for the bike trail detour, the sponsors would receive compensable LERRDS credit for the cost of the bike trail detour lane: We understand CALTRANS must approve the bike trail detour design as pan of the sponsors' application process to secure an encroachment permit for our project right-of-way certification before project advertisement. In order to expedite the sponsors' permit application process, the Corps plans to design the relocated CAL:TRANS bike trail and effected utilities on behalf ofthe sponsors Your assistance will be required to obtain the appropriate CALTR.ANS requirements: The Corps will contact CAL: TRANS for an executive level meeting after your permit application is submitted to expedite the approval process Please provide your concurrence on this approach. The concept of removing the existing bridge and eliminating the associated stop log system is the best design for the channel and flood control operation, andd will be the choice of the Corps on the final design Your letter requested approval for the proposed design -build specification concept for the permanent bridge The Corps cannot include a design -build feature in a contract without a lengthy two phase process to evaluate technical qualifications and price proposals. The two phase process would not meet our scheduled award date. The Corps will accept a complete design for the permanent bridge. The contract award for Reach 9 Phase 2B constuction must take ;place by September 24, 2009, therefore the design of a permanent bridge must be complete to include in a bid amendment not later than August 3 I. 2009 in order to award the entire Pliast 2B contract. 49 Thank you for your suggestions to enhance the design of the project. A copy of this leite rl he forwarded to Mr. Lance !\atsuhara and Ms. Zully Smith. Should you have am questions please feel free to call me at (213) 452-3971, or your staff may contact my Project Manarier NIT Tomas Bucklew at (21 ) 452-4005. Sincerely, Brian N1. Moore, Deputy District Engineer for Project Management 50 AECOM Green River Golf Club Access Road - Opinion of Probable Co of Construction Green River Golf Club Access Road — Opinion of Probable Cost of Construction Executive SUMrrtary Construction of an access road from Green River Road to the golf course clubhouse road is under consideration, The road will provide access to the golf course when the Army Corps of Engineers constructs improvements to the Santa Ana River that will eliminate the existing access to the course. The purpose of this study is to provide an estimate of probable cost of construction for the access road, including a new bridge over the Santa Ana River. Following is a summary of the estimated costs. Costs are t20 percent and do not include costs for construction of the pavement section: I Bridge Type (including access road) Temporary Prefabricated Truss Purchase 18-Month Rental Permanent Precast Concrete Total Cos $1.24 million SI.05 million $1.06 million Steel Plate Girder $1.27 million X:10CRDMD1600986771Docs11220 Reports\Green River Access Road.dcc Paget 51 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Agreement for the Railroad Canyon at Interstate 15 Interchange Project in the City of Lake Elsinore STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-01, Amendment No. 1 to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Improvements Agreement No. 10-72-016-00, for the Railroad Canyon/ Interstate 15 interchange with the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) in order to authorize staff to complete the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase with the remaining $52,000 of the $1 million TUMF funds allocated to this phase and to increase the PA&ED phase funding amount by $206,000 to $1,206,000; 2) Approve Assignment and Assumption Agreement No. 1 1-31-107-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore to facilitate the assignment of the Lake Elsinore agreement (No. 1877) with SC Engineering to continue and complete the PA&ED services associated with the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange project in an amount not to exceed $192,000, with a contingency of $32,000, for a total not to exceed amount of $224,000; 3) Approve Agreement No 11-31-107-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 1 1-31-107-00, to facilitate changes to the Lake Elsinore agreement that are necessary to ensure that the language included therein is consistent with the Commission's standard professional services agreements; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with Caltrans to reflect non -funding changes related to the project on the behalf of the Commission; and 6) Forward to the Commission for final approval. Agenda Item 10 52 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Lake Elsinore initiated the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange project to improve safety, circulation, and level of service (LOS) of the interchange. The city contracted with SC Engineering to perform the various duties involved in the PA&ED phase such as prepare the project report, perform environmental studies, and prepare the environmental document. In December 2008, the city entered into a project development cooperative agreement with Caltrans. In February 2010, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 10-72-016-00 with Lake Elsinore to provide $1 million of TUMF Regional Arterial program funds for the project's PA&ED phase. The city has now requested that the Commission manage the completion of the PA&ED phase given the Commission's experience with delivering state highway projects. Lake Elsinore has completed 70% of the PA&ED phase. The unexpended balance of Agreement No. 10-72-016-00 is $52,000. The city is proposing to amend the TUMF agreement allowing the Commission to use the balance of funds to complete the phase. Staff reviewed the city's proposal and is recommending that the Commission approve this request to complete the PA&ED phase; however, staff estimates that the cost to complete this phase, including estimated Commission staff and other costs (estimated at $34,000), is $206,000. These additional funds will be reprogrammed from a future phase, which is supported by a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff estimates that this phase can be completed in about seven months. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2010/11 FY 201 1 /12 Amount: $20,000 $186,000 Source of Funds: TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Ad ustment: No N/A GLA No.: 005104 81 101 00000 0000 210 72 81101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: t da.itti. Date: 04/13/11 Attachments: 1) City of Lake Elsinore TUMF Amendment Request — I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange Draft Agreement No. 10-72-016-01 2) Assignment and Assumption Draft Agreement No. 11-31-107-00 3) Draft Professional Services Agreement No. 11-31-107-01 Agenda Item 10 53 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Agreement No. 10-72-016-01 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR THE FUNDING OF TUMF REGIONAL ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FOR THE RAILROAD CANYON ROAD @ 1-15 IMPROVEMENTS 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 10-72-016-00 is made and entered into as of this day of , 201 , by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and the CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ("City"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the City have entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement for the Funding of TUMF Regional Arterial Improvements with the City of Lake Elsinore" dated February 4, 2010 (the "Master Agreement"). The Master Agreement provides the terms and conditions, scope of work, schedule and funding amount for the PA&ED phase related to the Railroad Canyon Road @ 1-15 Improvement Project (hereinafter the "Project"). The Project is more specifically described in Exhibit "6" of the Master Agreement. 2.2 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to increase the Funding Amount set forth in Section 3.2 of the Master Agreement in response to higher than anticipated costs to complete the PA&ED Phase of work for the project. 2.3 The parties further desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to permit the Commission to reimburse itself for all costs associated with development and approval of a Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) for the project. 1 54 3. TERMS 3.1 The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Amendment by this reference, as though fully set forth herein. 3.2 The Funding Amount, as set forth in Section 3.2 of the Master Agreement as amended shall be increased from One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to One Million Two Hundred and Six Thousand Dollars ($1,206,000) to reflect the addition of funding for the PA&ED phase of work for the project. 3.3 Section 3.2 of the Master Agreement, shall be deleted in its entirety and revised to state as follows: 3.2 RCTC Funding Amount shall be increased from One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to One Million Two Hundred and Six Thousand Dollars ($1,206,000). RCTC hereby agrees to distribute to the City, on the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sum not to exceed $948,000, to be used exclusively for reimbursing the City for eligible work expenses and up to $258,000 for RCTC to reimburse itself for eligible Work expenses as described herein ("Funding Amount"). The City acknowledges and agrees that the Funding Amount may be less than the actual cost of the Work, and that RCTC shall not contribute TUMF Regional Funds in excess of the Maximum TUMF share for the phase/project identified in Appcndix F of the most recently approved Nexus Study. In addition, the City agrees that the funding amount shall be reduced by all costs described in Section 3.4 of this Amendment No 1. 3.4 Section 3.2.1 of the Master Agreement shall be amended to include the following additional language. The Total Work Cost shall also include the following items: all of RCTC's costs associated with managing the consultant, SC Engineering, and coordination with Ca!trans, FHWA and other agencies as required, including work done by the consultant as directed by RCTC. 3.5 The Project shall be completed expeditiously, within the term of the Master Agreement. 3.6 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance 2 55 provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on following page] 3 56 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 10-72-016-01 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Anne Mayer Executive Director Amy Bhutta Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP Barbara Liebold General Counsel City Attorney 4 57 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK, FUNDING AND TIMETABLE SCOPE OF WORK: The PA&ED Phase of work (Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Clearance) for the reconstruction of the Railroad Canyon Rd @ I-15 Interchange. FUNDING: PHASE TUMF LOCAL TOTAL PA&ED $1,187,000 $0 $1,187,000 TOTAL $1,187,000 N/A $1,187,000 TIMETABLE: PA&ED Start January, 2009 Complete January, 2012 5 58 ATTACHMENT 2 Agreement No. _11-31-107-00 -Draft- ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT REGARDING THE RAILROAD CANYON ROAD/DIAMOND DRIVE INTERCHANGE 1'. Parties and Date This Assignment and Assumption Agreement of Railroad License Agreement 05-51-934 ("Assignment") is made and entered into this of , 2011, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a public agency existing under the laws of the State of California ("Commission" or "Assignee), and the CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, a municipal corporation ("City" or "Assignor"). The Assignor and Assignee are sometimes referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties". 2. Recitals 2.1 On or about December 1, 2005, Sal Chavez, a sole proprietor dba SC Engineering (`Consultant") and Assignor entered into a certain Professional Services Agreement for the preparation of a Project Report and Draft Environmental Document for the Railroad Canyon Road/Diamond Drive Interchange at the I-15 Freeway (`Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2.2 Assignor desires to assign to Assignee all of Assignor's rights and interests in and to the Agreement and to delegate to Assignee all of Assignor's duties and obligations under the Agreement. Assignee desires to accept the assignment of such rights and interests and assume such obligations under the Agreement, provided that Consultant has executed that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (`Amendment No. I") to be entered into by and between Assignee and Consultant, in the form approved by Assignee. Amendment No. 1 modifies the Agreement to conform to Assignee's minimum requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements and terms and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 3. Terms 3.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. Exhibit "A" and the above Recitals constitute a material part of this Assignment and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 3.2 Assignment. Assignor hereby assigns all of its rights and delegates all of its duties and obligations under the Agreement to Assignee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Assignor shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Assignee from any loss, liability, claim, cause of action, cost or expense (including reasonable attomey's fees) that Assignee may 17336.0210015876913.3 1 59 incur with respect to the Agreement arising from facts or events occurring prior to the date of such assignment. 3.3 Assumption. Provided that Consultant has executed Amendment No. I, in such form as reasonably required by Assignee, Assignee hereby assumes all of the rights and agrees to perform and discharge all of the duties and obligations of Assignor under the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1. Assignee's rights and obligations hereunder shall not be effective unless and until: (i) this Agreement has been executed by the Parties, and (ii) Consultant has executed Amendment No.]. 3.4 Modification. This Assignment may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by the Assignor and Assignee. 3.5 Successors and Assigns. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns. 3.6 Governing Law. This Assignment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 3.7 Entire Agreement. This Assignment and the Exhibit referenced herein constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the amendment, the assignment, and the assumption of the Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect thereto. 3.8 Attorney's Fees. In the event a dispute arises concerning the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Assignment, the Party not prevailing in such dispute shall pay any and all costs and expenses incurred by the other party in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 3.9 Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which together shall constitute one in the same agreement. 3.10 Representations and Warranties. Assignor and Assignee represent and warrant that as of the date first specified above, the execution and delivery of this Assignment is a legal, valid, and binding obligation and enforceable against Assignor and Assignee. 3.11 Force and Effect. Except as set forth herein, all provisions of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, and shall govern the actions of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Assignment on the date first herein written above. 17336 0210015876913,3 [signatures on following page] 2 60 SIGNATURE PAGE TO ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT REGARDING THE RAILROAD CANYON ROAD/DIAMOND DRIVE INTERCHANGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: Its: Its: ATTEST By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM By: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission 17336.02100\5876913.3 3 City Attorney 61 EXHIBIT "A" AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND SC ENGINEERING 17336.0210015876913.3 [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE] Exhibit A 62 ATTACHMENT 3 Agreement No. _11-31-107-01 Draft AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE RAILROAD CANYON/DIAMOND DRIVE INTERCHANGE AT THE 1-15 FREEWAY 1. Parties and Date This Amendment No. 1 is made and entered into this day of 2011 by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and REYES S. CHAVEZ, PE, a sole proprietor, dba SC ENGINEERING ("Consultant"). The Commission and Consultant are sometimes referred to herein individually as "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." 2. Recitals 2.1 The City of Lake Elsinore ("City") and SC Engineering entered into an Agreement For Professional Services, dated December 1, 2005, for the purpose of retaining Consultant to prepare a Project Report and Draft Environmental Document necessary for the Railroad Canyon Road/Diamond Drive Interchange at the 1-15 Freeway (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 The Commission and City entered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement ("Assignment"), Commission Agreement No. , for the purpose of assigning to the Commission all of the City's rights and interests in and to the Master Agreement, except as amended by this Amendment No. 1. A copy of the Assignment is on file at the offices of the Commission. 2.3 SC Engineering is now operated as a sole proprietorship by Reyes S. Chavez. Reyes S. Chavez, a sole proprietor, dba SC Engineering ("Consultant") intends to assume all rights, obligations and liabilities of SC Engineering under the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended and as amended herein. SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 1 17336.02100\5876968.2 63 2.4 The Parties now desire to effectuate the assumption of rights and obligations specified above in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, and to amend the Master Agreement in order to revise certain terms. 3. TERMS 3.1 The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Amendment No. 1 as though fully set forth herein. 3.2 This Amendment No. 1 shall not be effective unless and until the Assignment has been fully executed by City and the Commission. 3.3 Consultant hereby expressly assumes all rights, obligations and liabilities of SC Engineering as set forth under the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1. All references to "Consultant" in the Master Agreement shall be interpreted as referring to Reyes S. Chavez, PE, a sole proprietor, dba SC Engineering. 3.4 The Commission hereby expressly assumes all rights, obligations and liabilities of City as set forth under the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1. All references to "City" in the Master Agreement shall be interpreted as referring to Commission. 3.5 The Indemnity provision set forth in Section 14 of the Master Agreement shall be amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: Consultant shall indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the 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 all consequential damages, 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 the Commission, its directors, SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 2 17336.02100A5876968.2 64 officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. 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. This Section shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.6 The General Liability Coverage as set forth in Section 15(a)(ii) of the Master Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount no less than TWO MILLION Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 3.7 The following Safety terms shall be added to the Master Agreement after the Insurance Requirements provision (Section 15 of the Master Agreement) and before the Notices provision (Section 16 of the Master Agreement): 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, SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 3 17336.02100\5 876968.2 65 rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. 3.8 Compensation, as that term is defined in Section 3 of the Master Agreement, shall be amended to include the following: Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.9 Licensing of Intellectual Property, as that term is defined in Section 7(a) of the Master Agreement, shall be amended to read as follows: 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. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 4 17336.0211)015876968 2 66 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 3.10 The following terms shall be added after the Equal Opportunity Employment provision of the Master Agreement with the appropriate Section number heading: Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified 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 Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. 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. 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. Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 5 17336.0210015876968.2 67 work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub -consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.11 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Master Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on following page] SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 6 17336.02I00\5876968.2 68 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY REYES S. CHAVEZ, PE, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DBA SC ENGINEERING By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title SC Engineering Amendment No. 1 Page 7 17336.02100A5876968.2 69 SC GIN£ERING: TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT April 5, 2011 I-15/Railroad Canyon Road and I-15/Franklin Street IC Reconstruct IC and New IC Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor PO BOX 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attention: Ms. Patti Castillo Capital Projects Manager Subject: Cost to Complete Scope of Work and Fee Proposal Project Approval/Environmental Document (PANED) Phase Dear Ms. Castillo: Per our previous conversation, itemized below is a detailed description of a cost to complete the PANED phase of the project. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Milestone 1-Project Initiation/Data Collection Environmental Project Re -Initiation: Project re -initiation efforts are required for the environmental technical studies, reports, and Environmental Document. Project Management/Administration/Meetings: General Project Management and Coordination efforts related to completion of the PANED phase. It is anticipated that another 4 to 6 months will be required to complete the PANED phase. 2. Milestone 2-Draft Environmental Technical Studies Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR): With approval of the Noise Impact Study on February 9, 2011, the NADR can be finalized and submitted to Caltrans. It is anticipated for one review will be required by Caltrans. Cultural Resource Assessment: The only remaining effort related to the Cultural Resource Assessment is the Area of Potential Effects (APE) Maps. New Connection Report (NCR): The 2nd draft of the NCR was submitted to Caltrans on December 12, 2010. It is anticipated for one final review will be required by Caltrans. Environmental Project Management/Administration/Meetings: General Environmental Project Management and Coordination efforts related to completion of the PANED phase. It is anticipated that another 4 to 6 months will be required to complete the PANED phase. 3. Milestone 3-Draft Geometric Approval Drawings and Engineering Studies Storm Water Data Report-PA/ED: The Storm Water Data Report (SWDR)-PANED was approved by Caltrans on December 7, 2009. Effective July 1, 2010, the project is subject to the new requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-009-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (NPDES No. CAS000002). Thus, Caltrans requested that the SWDR-PANED must be prepared under the July 2010 SWDR template and requirements, prior to the approval of the Final Project Report. Serving the Transportation Needs of the Inland Empire and High Desert Headquarters 14890 Seventh Street, Unit B Victorville, CA 92395 760.955.7712 • 760.955.6130 fax 70 Ms. Patti Castillo Cost to Complete Scope of Work and Fee Proposal Capitals Project Manager April 5, 2011 RCTC Page 2 of 3 4. Milestone 4-Geometric Approval Drawings and Engineering Studies Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for Pavement: The LCCA was prepared and submitted to Caltrans on October 18, 2010. Consequently, Caltrans Headquarters developed new criteria for the LCCA. As part of the new criteria the LCCA must be updated to the new criteria. Decision Document (Highway Design Manual 504.5, Auxiliary Lanes): A Decision Document was requested by Caltrans to document the intermediate design change of a deceleration lane at the southbound Franklin Street ramp and an acceleration lane at the northbound Franklin Street ramp instead of full auxiliary lane from the Franklin Street IC to Main Street IC for the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of the project. 5. Milestone 5-Final Environmental Technical Reports and Engineering Reports 2nd Administrative Draft IS/EA: The Administrative Draft IS/EA has been reviewed by Caltrans on December 7, 2010. The Draft IS/EA was currently being updated based on comments received from the Caltrans and will submit the revised Draft IS/EA to the engineer, the City, RCTC and Caltrans for review (up to 18 copies). 6. Milestone 6-Draft Project Report/Draft Environmental Document Prepare IS/EA for Circulation: The Draft IS/EA will be updated based on the comments received from Caltrans on the 2nd Administrative Draft IS/EA and will prepare the Draft IS/EA for Caltrans signature for approval to circulate the document for public review (up to 18 copies). Draft Project Report: The Draft Project Report has been reviewed by Caltrans. It is anticipated that one final review will be required to address and resolve all comments. 7. Milestone 7-Final Project Report/Environmental Document Public Review/Hearing: We will prepare a draft public distribution list per input from the City, RCTC and Caltrans. The Draft IS/EA will be circulated for public review and submitted to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (up to 50 copies; CDs of the IS/EP, may be used instead of hard copies as appropriate) per the distribution list, once the list has been approved by the City and Caltrans. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and Opportunity for Public Hearing to be prepared and published in a local newspaper. Staff will attend a public information meeting during the public review period or a public hearing to be coordinated and conducted by others, if Caltrans determines that a public hearing is required. Prepare Draft Response to Comments: The Draft Response to Comments will be prepared for submittal to the PDT (RCTC, City, and Caltrans) (up to 18 copies) for review and comment. The Draft Response to Comments will be revised per the PDT's comments and submitted to Caltrans for approval. Prepare Draft MND/FONSI: A Draft MND/FONSI will be prepared, including revisions based on responses to comments received during the public review period, for submittal to RCTC, the City, and Caltrans for review (18 copies). Final Project Report: The Final Project Report will incorporate comments from the circulation of the Environmental Document, from the prior reviews and additional information developed. The Final Project Report will then be submitted to Caltrans for signature and approval. Prepare Final MND/FONSI: A Final MND/FONSI will be prepared for submittal to Caltrans for review and approval. As part of the process for the Final MND/FONSI, a response letter to agencies that submitted comments on the Draft IS/EA and prepare and file a Notice of Determination (NOD). RCTC is responsible for the CDFG NOD filing fee, currently $2,500 but subject to change, and any County filing fees. We will prepare a Notice of Availability of the Final MND/FONSI to be published by RCTC. We will provide up to 20 copies of the approved MND/FONSI. 71 Ms. Patti Castillo Cost to Complete Scope of Work and Fee Proposal Capitals Project Manager April 5, 2011 RCTC Page 3 of 3 Environmental Commitment Record: A draft and a final Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines on the SER Web site for use in ensuring implementation of the mitigation measures for the project. The ECR will be used in the design and construction of the I-15/ Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project for the selected alternative. The ECR will incorporate the mitigation measures from the environmental document. For each mitigation measure, the ECR will include a list of the following items: a description of the mitigation measure, the timing of implementation, the performance objectives, the requirements for verification of compliance, and the party responsible for verifying compliance. The draft ECR will be submitted to the RCTC, the City, and Caltrans for review and comment, and the final ECR will be provided to Caltrans along with the Final IS/EA for approval. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to serve the RCTC and assist in the process of the approval of the necessary documents to provide a safer transportation facility in the City of Lake Elsinore and County of Riverside. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at 760-955-7712. Sincerely, SC ENGINEERING Sal Chavez, PE Principal/Project Manager cc: Project Files-55 SC 72 a R RCTC PR-ED Railroad 04.13.2011 SC ENGINEERING 4/13/2011 COST PROPOSAL WORKSHEET COMPANY: SCOPE OF WORK SC Engineering Project Report/Environmental Document DATE April 5, 2011 REVISION Cost to Complete PROJECT: I-15/Railroad Canyon Rd Interchange 8.1-151Franklin Ave Interchange MILESTONE/PHASE/PROJECT SUMMARY: Milestone Summary 1 to 7 DIRECT LABOR 11.9% 19.9% 19.9% 19.9% 23.0% 0 0% 0.0% 5.3% 100.0% 'r-. � `� 9, {,t�� iz"f .-tiONtllitll' ,,. r •'s I. m; :,ma.5 A. S. Chavez Project Manager 61 $58.00 $3,538 D. Guinn/Staff Senior Civil Engineer 102 $50.00 $5,100 J. Davis/Staff Senior Civil Engineer 102 $44.00 $4,488 Staff Civil Engineer 102 $38.00 $3,876 Staff CADD Operator Technician 118 $29.50 $3,481 Staff Bridge Engineer 0 $0.00 $0 Staff Landscape Architect 0 $0.00 $0 Staff Administrative/Project Control! 27 $25.00 $675 TOTAL HOURS, 512 I $21,158 I 512 OVERHEAD RATE ESCALATION @ (RATE) GENERAUADMINISTRATIVE @ 100% (of Total Direct Labor+ Escalation) $21,158.00 PAYROLL ADDITIVES @ 45% (of Total Direct Labor + Escalation) $9,521.10 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS OTHER DIRECT COST $30,679 M' Ia`a'1'lli i� .;: ; .,l,a),4 Q.'ICE' $4,000.00 $4,000 $2,000.00 $2,000 $1,000 00 $1,000 $500.00 $5D0 REPRODUCTION 1 LS PUBLIC HEARING DISPLAYS 1 LS COURT REPORT (PUBLIC HEARING) 1 LS SPANISH TRANSLATION 1 LS TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES SUBCONSULTANT'S COST $7,500 I LSA ASSOCIATES 794 $110,850 $110,850.00 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS $0 $0.00 ADVANCE DIGITAL MAPPING $0 $0.00 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES FEES $110,850 I 10% (of Total Direct Labor + Total Multipliers) $5,183.71 TOTAL MULTIPLIERS SUBTOTAL STIA (PHASING) COST TO COMPLETE' $5,184 I $175,371 $16,323 $191,694 73 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2011/12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 201 1 /12 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $7,149,700 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance of way, and $1,255,536 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: By virtue of the SCRRA joint powers agreement, the five member agencies that comprise Metrolink must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the Metrolink Board, no later than June 30, 2011. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. FY 2010/11 Metrolink Review The following is a review of Metrolink's FY 2010/1 1 activities: • Reorganized the staffing of the agency and conducted several organizational assessments to improve efficiencies through Chief Executive Officer (CEO), John Fenton; • Continued aggressive safety efforts to follow up on the Peer Safety Review recommendations and with increased efficiency testing; ■ Further developed the Positive Train Control program with the procurement of a vendor integrator contractor; Agenda Item 11 74 • Rolled out the new Guardian Fleet rail cars with the latest crash resistant technology; however, there continue to be delays in delivery from the vendor; • Experienced minimal changes in ridership on the Riverside County lines due to a slow economic recovery and limited job growth; and • Even with the relatively flat ridership, tracked fare revenues at budget levels due to prior year fare increases. FY 2011/12 Looking Forward Looking ahead to FY 2011/12, Metrolink intends to: • Continue safety focus; • Initiate express and late night service on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines; • Expand staffing and marketing initiatives; • Receive further delivery and rollout into service of the new passenger rail cars; and • Continue efforts on positive train control development and implementation. Riverside County Service Impact Proposed for FY 2011/12 Three Metrolink commuter rail lines traverse Riverside County: the Riverside Line, the Inland Empire Orange County Line (IEOC) Line, and the 91 Line. The FY 2011/12 draft Metrolink budget proposes no changes in service levels at this time. The current proposed budget does include weekday service of 35 trains, which is the same as FY 2010/11 and one year round IEOC weekend round trip on Saturdays and Sundays that is complemented with a second round trip during the summer season to accommodate the Beach Train market. Commission's FY 2011/12 Operating Subsidy Obligation The current SCRRA request of the Commission is $7,149,700 for operations and maintenance of way, which represents a $57,500 increase or 0.81 % over the FY 2010/11 Metrolink budget. Staff recommends approval of this amount for operations with the understanding that for any future additional funding requests, Metrolink will come back to the Commission for approval. As with past funding, the operating subsidy will be paid from LTF revenues allocated for rail operations. Operating Cost Overview The overall Metrolink FY 2011/12 operating budget is $179,675,700 or 3.66% greater than the FY 2010/11 budget. The following elements represent the various changes: Agenda Item 11 75 Approving the $7,149,700 operations subsidy with the provison that Metrolink come back for Commission approval of additional requests will assist the Commission in having all of the financial information necessary when making a funding decision. Capital Contribution The Commission's new capital and capital renovation obligation for FY 2011 /12 is projected at $1,255,536. This will be funded using FTA Section 5307 grant funds used for various projects including rehabilitation and renovation of rolling stock and track projects, ticket vending machine parts replacements, and maintenance of way technology improvements. As in past years, these federal funds will be claimed and received directly by SCRRA and will not pass -through the Commission's accounting records. Summary Financial Subsidy Impact to Commission The proposed Commission operating subsidy is $7,149,700, which represents 4% of the $179,675,700 Metrolink operating budget and will be funded with LTF funds. The operating subsidy is included in the proposed FY 201 1 /12 budget that will be presented to the Commission in June 2011 for approval. The total capital rehabilitation project subsidy of $1,255,536 represents 6.9% of the $17,953,994 capital rehabilitation budget and will be funded with FTA Section 5307 funds that will not pass -through the Commission. Systemwide In FY 201 1 /12, Metrolink will celebrate its 19"' year providing Metrolink commuter rail service in Southern California. Opening with three lines and 12 stations in October 1992, the SCRRA today operates over 512 route miles on seven lines, serving 55 stations in six counties. Average weekday ridership is projected to total over 44,000 one-way trips, which is a 9.6% increase over the latest February 2011 totals. This large increase in ridership is anticipated to come from new express train service on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines and enhanced marketing. The resulting farebox revenue is projected at $78.2 million or 7.8% over the current year. Given such a large budgeted increase in ridership and fare revenues in this unstable economy, Commission staff is concerned that revenue may not keep up with expenses and thus require an additional Commission subsidy during the year. If this occurs, any additional funding requests will be brought to the Commission for approval. Fare revenues represent 45.57% of total operating expenses, while member agency contributions of $81.2 million for operations represent approximately Agenda Item 11 77 45.2% of total operating expenses. This results in revenue recovery in the budget of 54.7%, one of the higher revenue recovery ratios among commuter rail properties nationwide. In 2004, the Metrolink Board approved a 10-year fare restructuring program that began July 1, 2005, and changed the method for calculating fares to one based on the driving mileage between stations. The 10-year fare restructuring program included an underlying average annual fare increase of 3.5%. In order to retain ridership in this struggling economy, all fare increases were deferred and will not be implemented as part of the proposed budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $7,149,700 Source of Funds: Operations — LTF Capital - FTA Section 5307 funds Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 254199 86101 103 25 86101 $7,149,700 Fiscal Procedures Approved:1 - Date: 04/18/11 Attachment: SCRRA FY 201 1 /12 Budget Operating Subsidy Allocation by County Agenda Item 11 78 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 BUDGET OPERATING SUBSIDY ALLOCATION BY COUNTY ($000s) Total FY 11-12 LACMTA Share OCTA Share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Expenses Train Operations & Services $112,188.7 $58,757.2 $25,104.8 $8,550.6 $14,621.0 $5,155.2 Maintenance -of -Way 26,536.0 14,819.2 5,874.0 748.9 3,434.5 1,659.4 Administration & Services 23,101.0 11,639.6 4,223.7 2,362.7 2,439.2 2,435.8 Insurance 17,850.0 9,405.0 3,936.1 1,327.3 2,514.8 666.7 Total Expenses IncL MOW $179,675.7 $94,621.0 $39,138.6 $12,989.5 $23,009.5 $9,917.2 Revenues Gross Farebox 81,739.4 44,051.1 17,203.7 5,752.9 12,050.6 2,681.0 Dispatching 2,935.3 1,522.6 938.2 15.8 73.5 385.2 Other Operating 872.0 506.6 167.5 71.0 93.6 33.2 Maintenance -of -Way 12,977.7 8,483.0 2,615.6 0.1 1,224.3 654.7 Total Revenues $98,524.4 $54,563.4 S20,925.1 $5,839.8 $13,442.0 $3,754.1 Total County Allocation $81,151.3 $40,057.6 $18,213.5 $7,149.7 $9,567.5 $6,163.1 FY2010-11 Budget 81,785.4 38,796.4 20,223.2 7,092.2 9,565.8 6,107.8 IncreasedDecrease) (634.1) 1,261.2 (2,009.8) 57.5 1.6 55.3 Percentage Change (0.78%) 3.25% (994"10) 0.81% 0.02% 0.91% INCREASEADECREASE) FROM EY10-11 BUDGET Total Variance LACMTA Share OCTA Share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Expenses Train Operations & Services $4,924.7 $4,972.7 ($992.9) ($6.9) $903.5 $48 2 Maintenance -of -Way (1,185.8) (909.3) (195.1) 63.5 (67.2) (77.8) Administration & Services 3,941.4 1,9792 737.4 407.7 402.5 414.6 Insurance (1,335.0) (436.9) (518.9) (139.5) (148.7) (90.9) Total Expenses Incl. MOW $6,345.3 $5,605.6 ($969.4) $324.9 $1,090.1 $294.2 Revenues Gross Farebox 5,738.4 3,294 4 719.7 322.8 1,067.3 334.2 Dispatching (56.9) 8.7 (I4.8) (15.4) (37.7) 2.4 Other Operating (580.7) (371.5) (1015) (40.1) (49.5) (18.2) Maintenance -of -Way 1,878.7 1,412.9 436.9 0.0 1083 (79.5) Total Revenues $6,979.5 $4,344.4 $1,040.3 $267.4 $1,088.5 $238.9 Total County Allocation ($634.1) $1,261.2 ($2,009.8) $57.5 $1.6 $55.3 NEW SERVICE .ADDED IN Fl I1-12 BUDGET New Service Total FY 11-12 LACMTA Share OCTA Share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Expense SB Express 1,897.5 1,343.6 - - 553.8 AV Uxpress 939.8 939.8 - Total Expense 2,837.3 2,283.5 - - 553.8 - Revenue SB Express 1,873.6 1,274.7 - - 598-9 AV Express 850.3 850.3 Total Revenue 2,723.8 2,125.0 - - 598.9 - New Service Subsidy 113.5 158.5 - - (45.1) - 17 79 Item No. J Attachment v.2- FINAL Mac sum 011 R011 SSS PM IMMO San berww6.. Ls %Amucd+ri.. as oi�w.�,�rdau.w METROLINK —tarts dFNi..P'sy C...M1, 980 IJ1:Wr Sink* 6aM�CaM'Irr � WM&m ertJ W:ir Y�A:n WO O .. FxNn roB.. Ada 1 Systemwide Ridership 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Annual Average Weekday System Ridership -4.1% Jul 3.6% Aug -,T IIIII -4.9% Oct -2.7% Nov -5,3% Dec -2.9% Jan -1.5% -0,1% Feb Mar Apr l May Jun FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 Riverside Line Ridership �.o 111111,111111 11i� 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Annual 4.2% Jul Riverside Line Average Weekday Ridership 8.6% Aug 0.3% Sep -2.1% Oct -1.3% Nov -7.9% Dec -1.3% Jan 0.6% Feb -3.9% Mar Apr May Jun FY oaloY 07108 F FY name DIM 2 IEOC Line Ridership IEOC Line Average Weekday Ridership 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Annua -1.5%i .4.4% Jan Feb FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 91 Line Ridership 2,500 2,000 - 1,500 - 1,000 - 500 - 0 Annual 91 Line Average Weekday Ridership -3.2% Feb FY 07/08 , FY 09/10 FY 08/09 3 2011 Operating Budget si,i1 • Avg. Daily Ridership 44,000 (+8% From Mar) • No Planned Fare Increase • Fare Policy Change (New 7 Day Pass, no 10- Trips) • Operating Budget $179.7 million (Up 4%) • Fare Revenue Budgeted Increase: $5.7 million • Fare Revenues = 45.5% of Operating Costs • Member Agencies' subsidy = 45.2% of total costs Metrolink Update 4 „ 11 • Continuing Agency Reorganization — Contracted staff transition to in-house staff • Safety Focus • Positive Train Control • New Rail Cars • Express Trains (SNB/AVL) a, • Late Night & Baseball Trains 4 Budget Highlights I II • A 4 7 % increase in fuel costs resulting in a budget increase of $7.2 million • Decrease in equipment maintenance to budget of 18.6% or $5.1 million • Increase salary and fringe benefits of $1.67million or 17%, along with a 4% performance based merit increase • Concerns with recent financial audit findings and challenges in reporting and the financial information system • Metrolink combined operating and capital budgets total $227 million ($179.7 M operating + $47.3 M capital) • RCTC operating subsidy of $7.15 million is 4% share, additional funding needs will come back to the Commission • RCTC Rehabilitation capital subsidy of $1.2 million is 4.9% share • Total RCTC subsidy allocation is $8.25 million ($7.15 million of LTF + $1.2 million of Federal funds) 5 6 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Agreement with Amtech Elevator Services to Provide Elevator Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair Services for Commission - Owned Commuter Rail Stations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-24-054-00 to Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) to perform elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services at the Commission -owned commuter rail stations for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, for an amount not to exceed $1 10,362; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns and operates five commuter rail stations in Riverside County. Four of the five stations offer elevator services to station patrons. The Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, West Corona, and North Main Corona stations each have two elevators located near the platform, for a total of eight elevators. The two elevators located in the North Main Corona parking structure were not included as part of this agreement, and are currently being addressed under a separate agreement with ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, due to issues regarding warranty coverage and certain proprietary elevator controls. Elevator maintenance services are essential to provide continued assistance and safety for station patrons and to provide reliable and consistent performance of all elevators, as well as the more general goal of preserving and maintaining Commission property. The Commission requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide both monthly elevator maintenance and inspection services and on -call repair services. Scheduled monthly maintenance and inspection includes examining, adjusting, cleaning, lubricating and testing of the motor, machine, controller, safety devices, Agenda Item 12 80 and other elevator components and equipment. Alternatively, on -call repair services would be requested by Commission staff on an as -needed basis for unanticipated repair and emergency situations that are not covered under maintenance services. Under Commission supervision, monthly maintenance services would be conducted at each station for a fixed price during the term of the agreement. On -call repair services would be requested on an as -needed basis and pricing for that work based on the successful contractor's proposed fixed labor rates and fixed markup on equipment and/or materials. Procurement Process The Commission generally utilizes the low bid methodology for scopes of services that are complete and clearly delineated, where price is the only relevant factor that could distinguish qualified firms. The low bid procurement precludes Commission staff from discussing a vendor's approach to performing the required services with any potential bidder. When the Commission must rely on a vendor to provide safety related services, however, factors other than price should be considered. A negotiated procurement, or request for proposals (RFP), affords staff the opportunity to evaluate and discuss price and other technical factors with proposers. Accordingly, staff issued RFP No. 11-24-054-00 to secure services from a qualified firm to provide elevator maintenance services for four Commission - owned commuter rail stations. The RFP was released by staff and advertised on February 10, 2011. The weighted factor method of source selection was determined by staff to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other technical factors considered. Non -price factors used to evaluate the proposers under this RFP included elements such as experience, qualifications of the firms and personnel, and the firms' relative ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the RFP. Price comprised 40% of the maximum possible points that could be earned by a proposer under the stated evaluation criteria. A pre -proposal conference was held at the Downtown Riverside station on February 17, 2011. Three firms attended. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers. Two firms submitted responsible and responsive proposals prior to the March 10, 2011 deadline date. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Bechtel staff. Amtech earned the highest total evaluation score based on both price and technical non -price factors, including past performance, reference checks, experience, Agenda Item 12 81 qualifications, and technical personnel. Accordingly, the evaluation committee recommends the award of Agreement No. 11-24-054-00 to Amtech for elevator maintenance services at the Commission owned commuter rail stations for a three-year period, and two one-year options, for a total contract value of $1 10,362. Pricing was evaluated based upon each firm's fixed monthly maintenance fee and its proposed fixed labor rates and materials/equipment markup for on -call repair services. Amtech's rates are considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition, and an evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for comparable services. Amtech offered the Commission the most favorable pricing terms, and its proposed pricing for maintenance services for the subject elevators is approximately 40% less per annum than the rate included in the Commission's current contract for elevator maintenance and repair services. The respective evaluation ranking of the proposals submitted by Amtech and ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, based upon the stated criteria, is as follows: Firm Overall Rank Price Rank Amtech Elevator Services 1 1 - $110,362 ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation 2 2 - $138,670 Staff is negotiating non -material contract terms with the recommended firm and expects to present the final contract at the May Commission meeting. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $22,000 N/A FY 2012/13+ $88,362 Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A 244001 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 GL/Project Accounting No.: 244003 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244004 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \4j. Date: 04/13/11 Agenda Item 12 82 AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Agreement for the Operation of the Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-105-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,577,721 in state funding for FY 2010/11; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FSP program has been in operation for over 16 years and provides roving tow truck service on nine beats on State Routes 60 and 91, and Interstates 15 and 215 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the state of California and with a minimum 20% match of local Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) fees. State funds are allocated to participating agencies through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The agreement for FY 2010/11 provides for continued state funding in the amount of $1,577,721 and requires a local match of $394,431. Any state funds not claimed in the current fiscal year may be carried over and claimed in FY 201 1 /12. FSP operations are currently being funded by carry over from the FY 2009/2010 funding agreement. A budget adjustment is not required at this time and upon approval of this agenda item, the Commission will execute this fund transfer agreement with Caltrans. Annually, the FSP program provides approximately 48,000 assists to stranded motorists along Riverside County freeways. The Commission contracts with four Agenda Item 13 83 tow truck operators to provide 22 tow trucks to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (1:00 p.m. on Fridays) to 7:00 p.m. The program's day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 Amount: $200,000 $1,377,721 Source of Funds: State of California Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 415 41508 0000 201 45 41505 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)///z4,44A Date: 04/14/11 Attachment: FSP Funds Transfer Agreement Agenda Item 13 84 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY i a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Local Assistance 1120 N STREET P.O. 80X 942874, MS# 1 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 TTY 711 (916) 654-3151 Fax (916) 653-7621 March 4, 2011 Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P O Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Mr. Brian Cunanan Dear Ms. Mayer. &I EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor p E ©ET" mAir 07 7011 File : 08-RIV-0-RCTC FSP11-6054(064) 2010/2011 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program R;VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTCONMSSION Enclosed are two original agreements covering funding for the fiscal year 2010/2011 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program. Office of Local Programs will again this year handle the processing of agreements. The enclosed agreement and its processing should also streamline the agreement and invoicing process. Please sign both copies of this Agreement and return them to this office, Office of Local Programs - MS1. Alterations should not be made to the agreement language. Attach your local agency's certified authorizing resolution that identifies the official authorized to execute the agreement. A fully executed copy of the agreement will be retumed to you upon ratification by Caltrans. Your invoicing, in accordance with applicable Section II, Article 6, would then be submitted in accordance with Section II, Articles 7 and 8 of the Fund Transfer Agreement, not to this Office. Sincerely, RAY ZHANG, Chief Office of Project Implementation - South Division of Local Assistance Enclosure c: Lisa Davies - HQ Traffic Operations OLP AE Project Files (08) DLAE - Savat Khamphou 85 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SUPPLMENT AND CERTIFICATION FORM PSCF (REV. D1/2010) Paget TO: STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Claims Audits 3301 "C" Street, Rm 404 Sacramento, CA 95816 DATE PREPARED: 2/17/2011 PROJECT NUMBER: 0800020388 REQUISITION NUMBER I CONTRACT NUMBER RQS 080000000492 FROM: Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Encumbrance Document VENDOR/LOCAL AGENCY: Riverside County Transportation Commission CONTRACT AMOUNT: $ 1,577,721.00 PROCUREMENT TYPE: Local Assistance CHAPTER 712 STATUTES 2010 ITEM 2660-102-0042 YEAR 2011 PEC/PECT 2030010600 TASK/SUBTASK 262040 AMOUNT $ 1,577,721.00 ADA NOtil For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information, call (915) 654-6410 of TDD (916) -3889 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N. Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814. 87 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,577,721.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $252,435.36. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use ail state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 2 of 6 88 Non -Fed FSP 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY'S PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Program Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9. COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that 1. Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items and 2. those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub -recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or subcontractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STATE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third -party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller and the Califomia Transportation Commission. Page 3 of 6 Non -Fed FSP 89 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e) and (f)] on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third -party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors and subcontractors and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation, shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to only ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non -represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE on demand. Page 4 of 6 90 Non -Fed FSP 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be JULY 1,2010. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to this Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. Page 5 of 6 91 Non -Fed FSP 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non -expendable PROJECT equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipments fair market value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2012; However, the non -expendable equipment, and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation By: By: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office of Project Implementation,South Title: Division of Local Assistance Date: Date: Page 6 of 6 92 Non -Fed FSP AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Awards for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Service STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-45-053-00 to Tri-City Towing Service for tow truck services on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program for a total contract amount not to exceed $950,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 1 1-45-060-00 to Roy & Dot's Towing for tow truck services on Beat No. 25 of the FSP program for a total contract amount that is not to exceed $1,425,000; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the three-year agreement, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission, acting in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), is the principal agency in Riverside County, in partnership with Ca!trans and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), managing the FSP program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuous roving tow services patrol along designated freeway segments by selected tow services contractors to relieve freeway congestion and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on local freeways. The FSP program operates on designated freeway segments referred to as beats. Each beat has specific turnaround locations and designated drop locations identified by the CHP. Contractor vehicles are exclusively dedicated to FSP service during FSP service hours. Staff sought a competitive solution to award a tow services contract to a qualified firm for Beat Nos. 2 and 25, of the nine total beats administered by FSP. Beat No. 2 operates on the State Route 91 from Lincoln Avenue in the city of Corona to Magnolia Avenue in the city of Riverside and requires the use of two tow trucks Agenda Item 14 93 during normal service hours. Beat No. 25 operates on Interstate 15 from Hidden Valley Parkway in the city of Norco to the 15/60 interchange in the city of Jurupa Valley, which requires the use of three tow trucks during normal service hours. Procurement Process This procurement was conducted in accordance with established Commission procurement policies and procedures. Staff established certain minimum qualifications required of each potential proposer and developed a weighted evaluation criteria to select a qualified tow services contractor for Beat Nos. 2 and 25. Non -price elements of the evaluation criteria included experience, the relative qualifications of the firms, proposed work plan, and the proposer's ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the Request for Proposals (RFP). RFP No. 11-45-053-00 was released and advertised by the Commission on February 7, 2011. A pre -proposal conference was conducted by the Commission on February 22, 2011, and was attended by approximately twelve firms. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the February 22, 2011 proposal deadline date. Four firms — Hadley Tow, Pepe's Towing Service, Roy & Dot's Towing, and Tri-City Towing, Inc. — submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for services on Beat No. 2. Three firms — Hadley Tow, Pepe's Towing Service, and Roy & Dot's Towing — submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for services on Beat No. 25. An Evaluation Committee consisting of representatives from the CHP Inland Division, San Bernardino Associated Governments, and Commission staff evaluated each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The Committee performed site visits, interviewed each proposer, and provided final scoring based on a comprehensive evaluation of each proposer's written proposal and interview. Beat No. 2 The four responsive and responsible proposers submitted hourly rates for tow services that ranged from a low of $50.00 per hour to a high of $65.00 per hour. Roy & Dot's Towing and Tri-City Towing both offered the lowest all-inclusive hourly service rate for the five-year period of performance at $50.00 per hour. This rate includes all direct costs (e.g., fuel, labor, equipment), indirect costs (e.g., fringe benefits, overhead), and profit required to provide the subject services. Proposals submitted in response to Beat No. 2 were scored by the evaluation committee based upon the criteria set forth in the RFP. The proposer rankings, listed from highest to lowest total evaluation score for Beat No. 2 are as follows: Agenda Item 14 94 (1) Roy & Dot's Towing; (2) Tri-City Towing; (3) Pepe's Towing Service; and (4) Hadley Tow. Roy & Dot's Towing earned a marginally higher evaluation score than Tri-City Towing for Beat No. 2; however, in light of its anticipated award of Beat No. 25 and related concerns regarding its workload, capacity, and other business considerations, the firm elected not to provide services for Beat No. 2. As a result, Tri-City Towing is recommended for award of Beat No. 2. Beat No. 25 Three proposers submitted responsive and responsible proposals for Beat No. 25. Proposed hourly rates submitted by the firms ranged from a low of $50.00 per hour to a high of $65.00 per hour. Roy & Dot's Towing offered the lowest all-inclusive hourly service rate for the five year period of performance at $50.00 per hour. The proposals submitted in response to Beat No. 25 were scored by the evaluation committee based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and the rankings, listed from highest to lowest total evaluation score for Beat No. 25 are as follows: (1) Roy & Dot's; (2) Pepe's Towing; and (3) Hadley Towing. Accordingly, Roy & Dot's Towing is recommended for award of Beat No. 25. Conclusion The all-inclusive hourly rates proposed by both Tri-City Towing for Beat No. 2, $50.00 per hour and Roy & Dot's for Beat No. 25 are considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the RFP process, and the historical cost experience of the Commission for comparable services. For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 1 1-45-053-00 to Tri-City Towing Service for a three-year period of performance, and two one-year options, for tow services on Beat No. 2 for a total contract amount not to exceed $950,000; and an award of Agreement No. 1 1-45-060-00 to Roy & Dot's Towing for a three-year period of performance, and two one-year options, for tow truck service on Beat No. 25 for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,425,000. Staff is negotiating non -material contract terms with the recommended awardees and expects to present the final contracts to the May Commission meeting. All obligations incurred by the Commission under the terms of this award are funded 8 0 % from state funds and 2 0 % from local SAFE revenues and are subject to continued funding from the state of California for the Riverside County FSP program. The FY 2011/12 cost of $475,000 has been included in the FY 2011/12 budget to be approved by the Commission in June 2011. Agenda Item 14 95 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2011l12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $475,000 $1,900,000 Source of Funds: State of California — 80% SAFE DMV Fees — 20 /o Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173-81014-00000-0000 201-45-81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \1414,440110 Date: 04/12/11 Agenda Item 14 96 AGENDA ITEM 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 25, 2011 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: List of Pre -Qualified Firms and Agreements for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call goods movement support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, for up to a five-year period of performance, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,250,000; a) Agreement No. 11-67-101-00 with Cambridge Systematics; b) Agreement No. 11-67-098-00 with InfraConsult; c) Agreement No. 11-67-099-00 with Iteris; and d) Agreement No. 11-67-100-00 with MIG, Inc. 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The issue of goods movement continues to be a critical function for the Commission as freight movement in Southern California continues to play a visible role in regional transportation, environmental, and community planning discussions. During the recent economic downturn, Riverside County has experienced significant fallout from the labor market and real estate declines. A small benefit has been the temporary relief to transportation congestion on the area's major road and railroad corridors. Although freight movement declined during the recession, traffic has increased in the past year and, it is projected that the number of shipping containers passing through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach — most of which are shipped to points across the United States — will triple by the year 2035. Given that Riverside County is a critical link in this chain with major freeway and Agenda Item 15 97 railroad corridors and significant warehouse, distribution center, and intermodal facilities, today's congestion levels will continue to place greater burdens on many of the county's communities. Specific impacts include: • Freight rail volumes are projected to increase 53% by 2035, increasing the length and frequency of freight trains through the area, limiting the opportunity for expanding commuter rail; • Rail crossing gates are down for an average of two hours a day and will see more downtime as rail traffic grows, increasing traffic congestion, emissions, and safety hazards; • Truck traffic will grow between 78% and 145% on the major freeway corridors in the county by the year 2030, contributing significantly to growing vehicle congestion; and • Air quality will continue to deteriorate from truck and rail diesel emissions. To assist with the goods movement issues, staff is requesting approval to enter into on -call consultant agreements. The establishment of a bench of qualified goods movement consultants will provide various types of support to staff necessary to meet goods movement planning challenges faced by the Commission. The types of support anticipated through this award include: • Development, technical review, and analysis of goods recommendations and projects; • Support for project prioritization and analysis; • Intra-county agency outreach, research, and education; • Goods movement data for various corridors; • Financial and economic impact analysis of goods movement options; and • Environmental and community impact analysis. movement policy Staff sought a competitive solution to satisfy the foregoing requirements. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposals with price and technical factors considered. Non -price, technical factors include elements such as experience, qualifications, personnel, and a proposer's ability ,to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-67-047-00. RFP No. February 1. proposers. Associates, 10-67-047-00 was released by staff and advertised on Staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential Ten firms — Arellano Associates, Cambridge Systematics, DKS InfraConsult, Iteris, Inc., Jack Faucett Associates, MIG, Inc., Tioga Agenda Item 15 98 Group, Urban Crossroads, and Wilbur Smith Associates — submitted a proposal prior to the stated deadline date. Each of the ten firms submitted a responsive and responsible proposal. An eleventh firm was deemed non -responsive and omitted from the competitive process for submitting a late proposal. The remaining responsive and responsible firms' proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff and a representative from Caltrans, OCTA, and SCAG. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The evaluation committee scored each firm in order to establish a short list of the firms earning the highest total evaluation scores. The evaluation committee conducted interviews with seven short listed firms and conducted a subsequent evaluation of each of those firms, based on both the written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Because the on -call bench was limited to a maximum of four firms under the terms of the RFP, the list of recommended awardees, in descending order, ranked as follows: Cambridge Systematics, InfraConsult, Rens, and MIG, Inc. The recommended awardees' labor rates were competitively established and considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the above referenced procurement process, and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. The recommended awardees offered the most advantageous combination of pricing, experience, and relevant qualifications. Staff is confident that the recommended firms will provide the Commission with quality service at the best possible price. Funding In the FY 201 1 /12 budget to be approved in June 2011, $250,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds is budgeted for on -call consultant services related to goods movement, and a similar budget amount is anticipated for each of the subsequent years included in the period of performance. The multiple award, on -call, task order type contracts do not guarantee work to any of the awardees; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to any consultant. Pre -qualified consultants will be selected for specific tasks based on information contained in their proposal. Services will be provided through the Commission's issuance of contract task orders to the contractors on an as -needed basis. Staff is negotiating non -material contract terms with the recommended awardees and expects to present the final contracts at the May Commission meeting. Agenda Item 15 99 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 + Amount: $250,000 $1,000,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 106 67 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \.1X.e,L,4„,01 Date: 04/12/11 Agenda Item 15 100