Loading...
10 October 11, 2017 CommissionComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMISSIONERS Chair – John F. Tavaglione Vice Chair – Dana Reed Second Vice Chair – Chuck Washington Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District 2 Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District 5 Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning Lloyd White / Nancy Carroll, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe Jim Hyatt / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Randall Bonner / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Shelley Kaplan, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / To Be Appointed, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Michael Perciful, City of Hemet Dana Reed / To Be Appointed, City of Indian Wells Michael Wilson / Glenn Miller, City of Indio Brian Berkson / Verne Lauritzen, City of Jurupa Valley Robert Radi / Kathleen Fitzpatrick, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Neil Winter / John Denver, City of Menifee Victoria Baca / To Be Appointed, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Geoffrey Kors, City of Palm Springs Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Matt Rahn, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar John Bulinski, Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8 COMM-COMM-00072 REVISION TO CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. 13A. Additions are noted by Bold Italics, Deletions are noted by S+r;Lethreu,.14 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS /EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Property Owner(s): See Below Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) or Representative(s) 1 354-030-010 TT Group 2 363-670-013 Bhagat 3 363-670-014 Lavariega 4 470-040-011 497-040-012 470-040-012 Congregation of the Sacred Hearts 5 470-070-002 McElroy 6 470-080-014 Senemar 7 297-100-063 EMWD 8 297-100-062 March Joint Powers Authority 14. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Tara Bve rl From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 11:30 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Anne Mayer; STANDIFO Subject: RCTC: October Commission Agenda - 10.11.2017 Importance: High Good morning Commissioners, The October Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2017 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://rctcdev.info/uploads/media items/october-commission-agenda-october-11-2017.original.pdf Conflict of Conflict of interest Form.pcif Interest Memo.p... Also, attached for your review and information is the conflict of interest memo form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W ( 951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. 1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.orq f 'Y in 0 1 Tara Bve rl From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 11:34 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC: October Commission Agenda - 10.11.2017 Importance: High Good morning Commission Alternates, The October Agenda for the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 11, 2017 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please copy the link: http://rctcdev.info/uploads/media items/october-commission-agenda-october-11-2017.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W 1951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI. 1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.org f"' in 1 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board DATE: October 4, 2017 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest – Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of October 11, 2017 The October 11, 2017 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7H – Amendment to Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger LLP for Legal Services for the Perris Valley Line Project Consultant(s): Best Best & Krieger Steve DeBaun, Partner 3390 University Avenue, 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Agenda Item No. 7I – Agreement for On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services for the Commuter Rail Stations Consultant(s): Braughton Construction, Inc. John Braughton, President 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 810 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Agenda Item No. 8 – Overall Procurement Strategy and Agreement to Complete Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation for the I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Project Consultant(s): Parsons Jason Lemons, Program Director 100 West Walnut Pasadena, CA 91124 RCTC Potential Conflicts of Interest October 4, 2017 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 13A – Closed Session – Conference with Real Property Negotiators Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) or Representative(s) 1 354-030-010 TT Group 2 363-670-013 Bhagat 3 363-670-014 Lavariega 4 470-040-011 407-040-012 Congregation of the Sacred Hearts 5 470-070-002 McElroy 6 470-080-014 Senemar 7 297-100-063 EMWD 8 297-100-062 March Joint Powers Authority RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 11, 2017 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA 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, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three-minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2017 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 AND RCTC/RCA AUGUST 28, 2017 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR – All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1, 2017 (1Q 2017). 7B. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Page 10 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 7C. FUNDING FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS MODEL UPDATE Page 14 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve funding a portion of the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Update in the amount of $200,000 with State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2017 Page 3 7D. IN-LIEU FEE AGREEMENTS WITH RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Page 16 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-056-00 with Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for a deposit for expenses incurred prior to execution and recording of a conservation easement for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) in an amount not to exceed $10,000; 2) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-057-00 with RCRCD for compensatory mitigation for the I-15 ELP in the amount of $2,704,825, plus a contingency amount of $270,482, for a total amount not to exceed $2,985,307; 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director to approve use of contingency pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount. 7E. AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CORONA FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ONTARIO AVENUE INTERCHANGE AT INTERSTATE 15 Page 28 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-050-00 with the city of Corona (City) for the Commission’s fair share of improvements to the Ontario Avenue Interchange at Interstate 15 (I-15) due to impacts from the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project), in the amount of $1,337,072, plus a contingency amount of $133,928, for a total amount not to exceed $1,471,000; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve release of contingency work up to the total authorized amount as may be required for the 91 Project; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2017 Page 4 7F. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE WEST PORPHYRY OVERHEAD Page 40 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-114-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for extended flagging services related to the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of $200,000, and a total amount not to exceed $7,621,234; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7G. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 48 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-023-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 16-31-023-00, with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) for additional restoration and biological monitoring effort associated with compensatory mitigation (Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration) for an additional amount of $114,660, and a total amount not to exceed $1,356,119; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT Page 57 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-33-115-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 12-33-115-00, with Best, Best & Krieger LLP (BB&K) to provide legal services for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project for an additional amount of $775,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1.25 million; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2017 Page 5 7I. AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 61 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 18-24-001-00 to Braughton Construction, Inc. to provide on-call maintenance and repair services for the commuter rail stations for a three-year term, in the amount of $2.6 million, plus a contingency amount of $120,000, for a total amount not to exceed $2.72 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the contractor under the terms of the agreement. 8. OVERALL PROCUREMENT STRATEGY AND AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE I-15/SR-91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT Page 86 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the overall procurement strategy for the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC); 2) Approve Agreement No. 15-31-001-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 15-31-001-00, with Parsons Transportation, Inc. (Parsons) to complete preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the 15/91 ELC, for in the amount of $1,882,000, plus a contingency amount of $188,200, for a total amount not to exceed $2,070,200; 3) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-055-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for project approval and environmental document (PA/ED) work; and 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda October 11, 2017 Page 6 9. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CYCLE 3 AUGMENTATION FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 129 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the two highest scoring active transportation projects for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program, consisting of the Riverside County Department of Public Health’s Cabazon/Banning Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ (CVAG) CV Link project, for funding totaling approximately $4,799,222; 2) Approve the Riverside County ATP contingency list, consisting of the next highest scoring projects, for inclusion in the MPO ATP Augmentation Regional Program; 3) Submit the recommended projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program and subsequent submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final approval in December 2017; 4) Submit the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation regional projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) programming; and 5) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors regarding timely funding allocations, obligations, and project delivery. 10. REVISION TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 139 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Revised Fiscal Year 2017/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended projects as shown in Attachment 1 in the amount of $3,343,187 to include an additional three projects in the cities of Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, and Temecula; 2) Direct staff to prepare and execute memorandums of understanding (MOU) with the three additional project sponsors to outline the project schedule and local funding commitments; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Property Owner(s): See Below Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) or Representative(s) 1 354-030-010 TT Group 2 363-670-013 Bhagat 3 363-670-014 Lavariega 4 470-040-011 470-040-012 Congregation of the Sacred Hearts 5 470-070-002 McElroy 6 470-080-014 Senemar 7 297-100-063 EMWD 8 297-100-062 March Joint Powers Authority 14. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL OCTOBER 11, 2017 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District It County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET OCTOBER 11, 2017 NAME AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS 1) 00 b t ki4,Y1 Ytt );) i3p-nn in/9 24 .6YD 104/ ff Z.,e)tiryikr ,r0,,,..,,r---- t.,,-..,,04.14 '4- 1, #1 ,i-k7-,...), V A II V ie‘htloarkivtotej q.iku- i IL) iu & /1 4, ez 11 sko./1 at • k-scp, ? a_t _ Va//e K z A-7A/ 4/:-/ d h/Z- b/e)dl4 ///- c- PC 6/ ki.J » c.f. 4- ( Jo_ ,://p., v,,,,..1<-;"----- �"'�-i. iPi es4— A ,K..--. N'', AC,.- C( /- TI-----11/*- Ko 3,Er2T- fre-4-t (--At- I' (P1---)4_ PIA _e, i...alti2.-e-------- Z-ttx- mid 4/41 Plit.,;/711,,-, Am. 4,7 Vt'✓iD BRce-KER Faa J0I4- BUL(AiSW cf{e.3-74.4S D-@ .tea LNA(.-,-,L__pan�`r C ,N' RC20�. , ��,'�1V �-i VKi-N WQ.1LS A/ei„,,,A.,/ ITE--).----1.- /27 .<7 - - - ij__ It' Pv 0 i'-'\. 1::-\,S L,-------7' I J r S 5. P ; *f i? , I VirFlele- / ‘37 lia_iLJ(4,e W afreatLa____ NCI L i )4T -'1L-- ' e a Tz- irV\A-t-74N-5 - ----t---(-- I.A-- S 7 p /1,,,...7 i R,f_cp414. A (A-4..64-s. 41---n,fifs. l�u4-- go-4.447 414 ra�z K,ciHhleev{ k)ei1, Pam Desert kke,i) eci "4 mde5erf.', cSE, .,� 1.� e.�4 .cc� DATE: // I 7 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD CHECK IF � SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Py eschj- FrOci�1'� �h f� (7YacP /4hipyQ u�, a 4h)idonc e �coh St,fivsmZAGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) AGENDA ITEM' NAME: ADDRESS: Ar4o M Sam )111:juel PHONE NO.: STREET REPRESENTING: N"""1 Or AGENCY / 0�7A770N / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY PHONE NO.: ZIP CODE CITY ZIP CODE THE EIGHTH ANNUAL The L.A. Hotel Downtown 333 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 THE EIGHTH ANNUAL Southern California Economic Summit 4 i 4< Southern California is no stranger to the housing crisis. While home and rental prices continue to climb, new construction has not kept pace with the region's population and economic growth. In order to remain a national and international economic powerhouse, Southern California must consider the impact of the housing crisis on our economy. SCAG, in partnership with the Southern California Leadership Council, will be hosting the Eighth Annual Southern California Economic Summit at The L.A. Hotel Downtown in the heart of Los Angeles on Thursday, Nov. 9. The summit brings together local civic and business leaders to assess the state of the region's economy. Join us for a discussion on the region's housing needs and learn about the challenges that housing affordability poses to local, regional and statewide economies. Tickets for the event are available for purchase at the early bird price of $75 per person (regular price is $100) until Sept. 15. Registration is complimentary for elected officials. Please visit scag.ca.gov/economicsummit to register and reserve your spot. 41.0 More info: Linda Jones (213) 236-1912 or jonesl@scag.ca.gov SCLC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, September 13, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman John Tavaglione at 9:34 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Michael Naggar Victoria Baca Russell Betts V. Manuel Perez Rusty Bailey Ben Benoit Robert Radi Randall Bonner Brian Berkson Dana Reed Steven Hernandez John Bulinski Rita Rogers Andrew Kotyuk Joseph DeConinck Adam Rush Linda Krupa John Denver Karen Spiegel Lloyd White Ginny Foat John F. Tavaglione Michael Wilson Deborah Franklin Charles Townsend Rick Gibbs Chuck Washington Jan Harnik Ted Hoffman Jim Hyatt Kevin Jeffries Shelley Kaplan Bob Magee 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Kevin Jeffries, led the Commission in a flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anne Mayer, Executive Director presented toll Program Director Michael Blomquist with a 10-year service award. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 2 Chairman Tavaglione congratulated Michael Blomquist, and expressed gratitude for being a true asset to the Commission and for having a tremendous amount of knowledge. Board Member Claudio Padres for the Inland Empire Branch of the American Public Works Association presented Executive Director Anne Mayer and Toll Project Manager David Thomas with a Project of the Year award for the 91 Project. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JULY 12, 2017 M/S/C (Jeffries/Radi) to approve the July 12, 2017 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Kaplan, Rogers, and Townsend 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Radi/Benoit) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. Recuse: Commissioner Spiegel, Agenda Item 7J 7A. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2017. 7B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the fourth quarter ended June 30, 2017. 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2017. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 3 7D. EXTENSION OF THE COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT 1) Ratify the Request for Extension of the Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2014, by and between the Commission and State Street Bank and Trust Company (State Street Bank), relating to the Commission’s Commercial Paper Notes, Series A; and 2) Ratify the draft Fee Agreement No. 14-19-150-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 14-19-150-00, between the Commission and State Street Bank relating to the Commission’s Commercial Paper Notes, Series A in an amount not to exceed $800,000, and the authorization for the Executive Director and/or other authorized representative to approve and execute the final fee agreement amendment. 7E. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds for planning in the amount of $726,000 for Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and $396,000 for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) for efforts identified in each agency’s Fiscal Year 2017/18 LTF Program Objectives/Work Plan (Work Plan) that supports transportation planning programs and functions consistent with regional and subregional plans, programs and requirements. 7G. REQUEST TO DECLARE REAL PROPERTY AS SURPLUS 1) Declare as surplus the real property in the areas of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP), as specifically identified in this report and attached maps; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to notify public agencies pursuant to Government Code 54220 et.seq. the properties are available; and 3) If no response is received, authorize the Executive Director to offer the surplus properties for sale to the public. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 4 7H. STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT CULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-11, Amendment No. 11 to Agreement No. 02-31-043-00, with CH2M to prepare cultural resource mitigation related to the State Route 79 Realignment project (Project) in the amount of $959,204, plus a contingency amount of $96,000, for an additional amount of $1,055,204, for a total amount not to exceed $33,191,560; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may be required for the project. 7I. OVERFLOW PARKING AGREEMENT – RIVERSIDE-DOWNTOWN STATION 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-24-028-00 with the Virginia College, LLC for the parking license agreement of 47 parking spaces adjacent to the Riverside-Downtown Station for an initial one-year term in an amount not to exceed $6,000, with additional option years for FY 2018/19 and beyond upon mutual written agreement by both agencies in an amount not to exceed an annual 5 percent increase; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years on behalf of the Commission. 7J. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL RAIL/TRANSIT OPERATIONS CONSULTING SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call multimodal rail/transit operations services for a three-year term, and one, two-year option to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $5 million; a) Agreement No. 17-25-096-00 to CH2M Hill, Inc. (CH2M); b) Agreement No. 17-25-118-00 to HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR); c) Agreement No. 17-25-119-00 to RailPros; and d) Agreement No. 17-25-120-00 to WSP USA Inc. (WSP). 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the consultants under the terms of the agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 5 7K. AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-009-07, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 14-45-009-00, with Steve’s Towing (Steve’s) to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat Nos. 1 and 2, and State Route 91 Extended Services on Beat Nos. 1 and 2 through June 30, 2018, for an additional amount of $432,000, for a total amount not to exceed $3,284,057; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8. 2018 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FINAL FUND ESTIMATE AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, presented the 2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) final Fund Estimate and project recommendations, highlighting the following areas: • Past STIP cycles; • 2018 STIP Fund Estimate for Riverside County; • Palo Verde Valley and city of Blythe memorandum of understanding (MOU) STIP trade; • 2018 STIP Western Riverside County proposed projects; • A map depicting the 2018 STIP projects Western Riverside County; • 2018 STIP programming; and • Next steps. In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s question for pushing back the State Route 60 Truck Climbing lanes project and CV Link, Shirley Medina replied the Commission is carrying these projects over into the 2018 STIP. In response to Commissioner Michael Naggar’s question on how the 2018 STIP is adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), Shirley Medina replied CTC staff evaluates the Commission’s recommendations to confirm the STIP projects are eligible and assesses the collective submittals from all of the regions. CTC staff then ensures the financially constrained requirement per year is met for the STIP submittals. In response to Commissioner Naggar’s question if the STIP can be altered before the CTC adoption, Shirley Medina replied once the CTC adopts the STIP those funds are guaranteed barring any financial crisis. She explained this is procedural, there is no competition, and there is nothing the Commission needs to do. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 6 Anne Mayer explained that CTC staff may want the Commission to move projects from one year to the next. This is a financially constrained program overall, which is why Riverside County’s target share is $105 million. She explained Riverside County received this target share amount in the 2018 STIP cycle as it is directly related to the passage of SB 1. Anne Mayer stated if an initiative is successful to get a ballot measure on in 2018 to resend SB 1 that is the only potential opportunity for these funds to go away. Jerry Sincich, Vice Chair for the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council, expressed support for the expansion of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project. Mr. Sincich stated he thought the 91 Project would alleviate traffic on I-15 because there is gridlock that backs into the city of Lake Elsinore, which is impacting the residential, commercial, and industrial in the Temescal Valley. Mr. Sincich expressed there is concern from a safety standpoint with several accidents increasing in that area. M/S/C (Naggar/Radi) to: 1) Approve staff project recommendations for the Western Riverside County State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) share as part of the 2018 STIP submittal due to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by December 15, 2017; 2) Include the Coachella Valley Association of Government’s (CVAG) STIP project programming recommendation for the Coachella Valley STIP share and forward to the CTC as part of the 2018 STIP submittal; 3) Forward the recommended 2018 STIP projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to conduct performance analysis as required by the STIP guidelines; 4) Approve Agreement No. 07-71-028-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-71-028-00, with the city of Blythe (Blythe) to trade $608,024 of Palo Verde Valley STIP funds with Measure A Western Riverside County Highway funds to facilitate delivery of local arterial projects; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission upon CTC adoption of the 2018 STIP in March 2018. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 7 9. AGREEMENT FOR FINAL DESIGN AND RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 1 OF THE INTERSTATE 15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager, presented the agreement for final design and right of way (ROW) acquisition for construction of Phase 1 of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project in city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore), highlighting the following: • A project vicinity map depicting the I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange project; • Background – Lake Elsinore is the project sponsor, the Commission began managing in May 2011, and environment document and project report approved on August 25, 2017; • Action 1: Final design contract – 1) Procurement of the design firm followed Commission procedures; 2) Selection of firm based on demonstrated competence and professional qualifications, per Government code 4525; 3) RFQ process; 4) WKE earned highest score and proposed contract: $3,229,337; and 5) Price is about 12 percent of estimated construction amount of $27 million; • Action 2: Utility Relocations – Phase 1 utility agreements with nine different utility owners; • Action 3: Authorization to acquire the ROW needed for Phase 1 of the project; • Action 4 and 5: Caltrans cooperative agreement and Lake Elsinore and Commission design and ROW agreement; and • Funding for design and ROW phases. Commissioner Bob Magee stated over 17 years ago Lake Elsinore submitted its first project study report for I-15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange project. He explained in 2011 he requested the Commission to take this project over as it became too complicated. Commissioner Magee expressed gratitude to Anne Mayer and staff that brought this project forward to a Phase 1 conclusion. Commissioner Adam Rush concurred with Commissioner Magee’s comments and congratulated Lake Elsinore for getting to this stage. He suggested given the complexity of this project if it is appropriate to increase the 10 percent contingency. Anne Mayer explained this is a very complex project and the 10 percent contingency is appropriate. If it appears there needs to be additional funding for the design phase staff would know early enough to come back to the Commission and ask for additional authorization without delay to the project. She stated there is a 12 percent ratio of design costs to construction costs so some of that complexity is built into the actual costs. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 8 M/S/C (Magee/Washington) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 17-31-048-00 to WKE, Inc. (WKE) to perform final engineering services and prepare plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) for the construction of the Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange project (Project) Phase 1 in the amount of $3,229,337, plus a contingency amount of $322,934, for potential changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $3,552,271; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the Project; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the following utility agreements required for the Project utility relocations in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1.5 million; a) Agreement No. 18-31-029-00 with AT&T; b) Agreement No. 18-31-030-00 with Time Warner; c) Agreement No. 18-31-031-00 with Southern California Gas; d) Agreement No. 18-31-032-00 with Southern California Edison; e) Agreement No. 18-31-033-00 with Verizon; f) Agreement No. 18-31-034-00 with Eastern Municipal Water District; g) Agreement No. 18-31-035-00 with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District; h) Agreement No. 18-31-036-00 with Golden State Utility; and i) Agreement No. 18-31-037-00 with city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore); 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to acquire required parcels for the Project in an estimated amount not to exceed $1.5 million in accordance with the Commission’s right of way (ROW) policies and procedures; 5) Approve Agreement No. 18-72-027-00 with Caltrans related to the responsibilities for final design and ROW acquisition of the Project, including use of the federal earmark of $237,500 secured by Lake Elsinore for ROW acquisition; 6) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-06, Amendment No. 6 to Agreement No. 10-72-016-00, with Lake Elsinore to identify the Commission as the implementing agency for acquisition of ROW and final design for the Project and authorize an increase of $980,121 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) regional arterial funds for the PS&E Phase from $2 million to a total amount of $2,980,121; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 9 7) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements and future non-funding agreements and/or amendments on behalf of the Commission. Recuse: Reed At this time, Commissioner Rush left the meeting. 10. DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONGOING VANPOOL SUBSIDY PROGRAM Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the development and implementation of an ongoing vanpool subsidy program, highlighting the following: • What is a vanpool – Larger vehicle platforms for up to 15 passengers and longer distances; • Vanpools = revenue – Low-cost transit mode; longer commute distances; high fare box recovery relative to bus and rail; and efficient services results in additional federal funding; • Market analysis and total vanpools by FY-End; • Program design – Marketing/customer support; $400/month vanpool subsidy; vanpool reports data to RCTC; RCTC reports data to NTD; and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) generates 5307 allocations; • Total program expenses and total 5307 revenue returned; and • Benefits for commuters – Reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in harmful emissions, significant money and time saved, plus, reduced or free tolls, and quality of life. Commissioner Washington expressed appreciation for the program as it is a good use of funding and it potentially has all of the benefits that were outlined. He explained there was mention of southern Riverside County however he did not see the aspects of the program that were proposed actually serve any of that area. Brian Cunanan replied the program serves all of Western Riverside County so southern Riverside County would benefit as well. In response to Commissioner Washington’s clarification about a list of cities that primarily reside along the I-10 and SR-91 corridor, Brian Cunanan replied for those commuters heading into San Diego County would be supported by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) vanpool subsidy program. He stated the residents within Riverside County would get the $400 per month subsidy from SANDAG. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 10 Anne Mayer explained that some of the cross county designations are similar to the way the FTA allocates its funding. The goal is for adjacent counties to offer similar programs so commuters throughout Southern California can participate no matter where they live or work. M/S/C (Radi/Kaplan) to: 1) Approve the development and implementation of a Western Riverside County ongoing vanpool subsidy program; 2) Approve an allocation for FY 2017/18 through FY 2019/20 in the amount of $3 million in 2009 Measure A Western County Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) funds for the vanpool program initial three-year development and implementation; 3) Approve Agreement No. 15-41-038-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 15-41-038-00, with WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for professional services for vanpool program development and implementation, marketing plan development and program outreach/advertising, and program staff support, for an additional amount of $947,647, and a total amount not to exceed $7,382,976, and to extend the agreement for an additional year through June 30, 2020; 4) Approve Agreement No. 14-41-156-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 14-41-156-00, with Media Beef, Inc. (Media Beef) for programming enhancements and a vanpool application, reporting, and database system within the IE Commuter website, for an additional amount of $142,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,274,300, and to extend the agreement for an additional year through June 30, 2020; 5) Approve Agreement No. 08-62-005-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 08-62-005-00, with TransTrack, for the development of a handshake from IE Commuter to TransTrack for reporting purposes for the Commission’s ongoing vanpool subsidy program as well as the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) program, for an additional amount of $31,000, and a total amount not to exceed $557,000; 6) Approve Agreement No. 18-41-038-00 with California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) to provide 3rd party leased vehicles to agricultural/post- secondary educational commuters in exchange for Commission subsidies; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 11 7) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 8) Approve an adjustment to the FY 2017/18 commuter assistance budget in the amount of $786,000, to increase expenditures for the vanpool subsidy program, including SunLine National Transit Database (NTD) reporting. Recuse: Spiegel At this time, Commissioner Rush rejoined the meeting. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 12A. Anne Mayer announced the Mobility 21 Summit – Transforming California will be held on September 29 at the Disneyland Hotel. She requested any Commissioners wanting to attend to contact the Commission. 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (d)(2) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Potential Number of Cases: 1 13B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: East La Cadena/Spruce Street – APNs 210-180-037, 210-108-039, 210-180-042, and 210-180-043 RCTC’s Negotiating Party: Executive Director or Designee Negotiating Party: Mad Atom, LLC Eng Tang, Managing Member Represented by Alexey Zabolotskikh of Lee and Associates There were no announcements from the Closed Session items. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes September 13, 2017 Page 12 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Vice Chair Reed adjourned the meeting at 10:42 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2017, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP MINUTES Monday, August 28, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by WRCRCA Chair Marion Ashley at 10:30 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WRCRCA Board of Director Eugene Montanez, led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL RCTC: Commissioners/Alternates Present RCTC: Commissioners Absent Marion Ashley Karen Spiegel Victoria Baca Rusty Bailey Michael Vargas Ben Benoit Brian Berkson Chuck Washington John Bulinski Randall Bonner Lloyd White Joseph DeConinck Deborah Franklin Ginny Foat Rick Gibbs Steven Hernandez Berwin Hanna Andrew Kotyuk Jan Harnik Scott Matas Jim Hyatt V. Manuel Perez Kevin Jeffries Greg Pettis Linda Krupa Robert Radi Bob Magee John F. Tavaglione Michael Naggar Michael Wilson Dana Reed Ted Weill Adam Rush Neil Winter RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Martin Wachs, Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning at UCLA, explained the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is cited as an example of best practices. It has been documented that advanced mitigations through habitat conservation plans substantially save money. He discussed the importance of the recent passage of SB 1 that establishes funding for an advanced mitigation program, which allocates $30 million annually. Jamie Letterman, Attorney and a PHD Candidate of Urban Planning at UCLA, explained the research she has studied 20 similar HCP from multiple states and found almost unanimous support for HCP for streamlining environmental permitting as a result expediting private and public development. She discussed the potential permitting delay issues without an HCP. Ms. Letterman explained in many areas, including the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County, the HCP’s ability to expedite transportation projects enables significant private economic development. Dan Silver, Chief Executive Officer for Endangered Habitat League, discussed the problematic issues before the MSHCP and its streamlining provisions. He expressed concern for major infrastructure projects going forward absent the framework of the MSHCP as litigation becomes more frequent. Mr. Silver expressed when developers and jurisdictions are collaborative, take constraints into account early, and use creative planning successful solutions easily present themselves. Ed Sauls, The Sauls Company, expressed these are two great organizations on two essential subjects, transportation and conservation. Mr. Saults expressed the clear obvious item is both transportation and conservation are willfully underfunded. 5. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION Tom Mullen, Former County Supervisor, presented the critically important parts to infrastructure, highlighting the following: • In 1970 the population of this County was 300,000 and today is 2,300,000; • In 1988 an injunction protected Stephen’s kangaroo rat in Riverside and San Diego Counties; • Additional protected species came to fruition: 1) in 1986 the Least Bell’s Vireo; 2) in 1993 the California Gnatcatcher, 3) in 1993 the Riverside Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, and the Delhi Sand Flower-Loving Fly; 4) in 1997 the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly; 5) in 1998 the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat; and 6) in 2000 the Santa Ana Sucker; RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 3 • In order to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) the MSHCP was adopted in 2003 and a permit was issued in 2004. The plan protects and sustains endangered and threatened animals, plants, and their habitats in a comprehensive way so local governments can expedite the construction of infrastructure to support growth particularly transportation facilities; and • The MSHCP is the largest HCP in the nation expressly for infrastructure to expedite it. Former County Supervisor Mullen expressed appreciation for all the public comments as the evidence is solid the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) works and the MSHCP does exactly what it is supposed to do. At this time, Charles Landry, WRCRCA Executive Director presented details of the MSHCP, highlighting the following areas: • The MSHCP is a binding contract between RCA, the County, the cities, and the federal and state that administer the ESA; • The MSHCP by the numbers and a map depicting the MSHCP boundaries that covers 1.26 million acres; • Benefits of MSHCP – Since the MSHCP inception 17,000 permits were not affected by the MSHCP; a study by RAND Corporation concluded the MSHCP accelerated transportation projects by one to five years or more; and estimate $390 million savings from early delivery; • What changed with the MSHCP – 32 transportation projects expedited worth more than $5 billion, 70,000 jobs created, since the implementation of the plan there has only been three lawsuits; and the MSCHP provides NEPA and CEQA analysis; and • Life without the MSHCP – National leader in traffic congestion increased by 30 – 40 percent; 80+ hours per driver, per year; stifling economic growth for loss of jobs; infrastructure delays by one to five years per project increase, and increased litigation. Anne Mayer, RCTC Executive Director, presented the Commission’s history and why the Commission has supported the MSHCP, and highlighted the following: • The Commission’s history goes back nearly 20 years as this all had its genesis with the RCIP, and the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) commitment:  In the late 1990’s early 2000’s the Commission’s Measure A Ordinance calls out the MSHCP in Western Riverside County; and requires local jurisdictions participate in the MSHCP to receive their local streets and roads disbursements from Measure A; RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 4  Each year the certification from RCA is taken to the Commission, which is the basis for the disbursement of funding;  The Commission is a planned signatory and it made a commitment to invest $153 million and $146 million has been paid to date to obtain coverage for impacts to endangered species; • How does the Commission benefit from the MSHCP – Allows take of covered plant and wildlife species; reduces schedule/cost uncertainty; streamlines environmental process; advanced mitigation = lower cost/higher quality; and environmental stewardship; • Projects that have advanced thanks to MSHCP – A project value list of Commission projects totaling $4.7 billion; • The other benefit for the Commission is quality of life in Riverside County and ensuring there is a good quality of life and good stewards of its environmental resources; and • A list of the MSHCP expediting infrastructure for the construction of more than 32 transportation improvement projects and just under $5 billion in projects delivered over the past 10 years that benefited from the MSHCP; and • Potential Perils of losing the MSHCP – Project by project mitigation – Schedule and cost uncertainty and mitigation uncertainty, squandered investment benefit, and dilutes Measure A project funding. Juan Perez, Transportation and Land Management Agency Director, County of Riverside, presented how the MSHCP benefited transportation projects, highlighting the following: • The County Transportation works in the unincorporated areas, and with many different cities on delivery of major infrastructure projects on a contract basis; • Provided a list of projects expedited under the MSHCP that directly benefited from the MSHCP totaling $1,183 Billion; • The MSHCP facilitated bridge projects – The River Road Bridge is an example and has been open for a number of years. It was done in a much more expedited process for the actual replacement and there is significant savings in operations and maintenance activities; • County Transportation experience before MSHCP -- the Cantu Galleano interchange on I-15 had a two-year consultation process with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and required habitat acquisition in order to mitigate the impacts of endangered species; • In comparison after the MSHCP was approved, the Scott Road Interchange at the I-215 was a two-month consultation with USFWS; • County Transportation experience before the MSHCP for the San Jacinto River project – Surveys for all species, separate negotiations with state and federal agencies, lengthy negotiation for mitigation, negotiation for land acquisition, Permits 404/401/1602, and operations and maintenance: separate mini consultations; RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 5 • County Transportation after the MSHCP – Surveys for some species, RCA central coordination, greater certainty in mitigation, fees are set, Permits 404/401/1602, and operations and maintenance: exempt outside Cells; • The MSHCP also provided certainty and mitigation unlike the Cantu Galleano interchange where the County Transportation had to acquire over 600 acres to set aside for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly; and • A list of future projects to benefit from the MSHCP that the Transportation Department will work with local agencies to deliver. At this time, Charles Landry presented a summary of the infrastructure improvement projects for Western Riverside County. He concluded where are we today: • The MSHCP has paid for itself in time and money saved while preserving the County’s open space heritage; • 57,000 acres conserved and another 10,000 acres conditioned; and • Trying to increase recreational opportunities. Retired State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth provided details when he was first involved in the process in 1992 as a member of the Steven’s Kangaroo Rat Advisory Board. He expressed the MSHCP provided tremendous benefit for mitigation to transportation infrastructure. He requested clarification on the impact not only to public projects and infrastructure but also on impacts to private individuals and private land owners in trying to be heard by an agency that no longer has elected officials directly responsible for its functions if the MSHCP were not in place. Ed Sauls expressed gratitude for a very important presentation on critically important subjects. He explained one of the things that might offer some clarity is there are a list of projects in the MSHCP that covered activities and are permitted. There may also be different projects the County Transportation wants to achieve over the next 20-75 years that go beyond the covered list of activities. He stated that as much has been accomplished in acquiring 153,000 acres there is another 75,000-90,000 acres that still needs to be acquired, much of it from private sources. The funds are not yet available for that and the private owners need help as they cannot develop the property until it is acquired. Howard Omdahl, a developer in Riverside County since 1984, stated observing this process through the years and it getting more complicated. He expressed the need to keep the MSHCP and thanked Dennis Hollingsworth for his comments as this process needs to be kept available and to work harder to get the USFWS, Regional Quality Water Board, and the Army Core of Engineers on board with this process, which will benefit these agencies. RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 6 WRCRCA Vice Chair Jonathan Ingram expressed appreciation to staff from both agencies for the presentation and for the hard work that has been done to get this accomplished. He explained working diligently as a board member with the RCA to evaluate several of the issues that transpired over last year and a half. He suggested Charles Landry discuss the impacts of regional water authorities and what it has done when a project is brought to the table. Charles Landry replied the MSHCP does not cover wetlands and waters so there are actually different agencies that are a major part, which is the Core of Engineers and the Regional Quality Water Board that are in the MSHCP area. He stated one is the Santa Ana Board and the other is the San Diego Board and these agencies are appointed by the Governor and receive guidance from the state. Charles Landry provided details about working with the Core of Engineers, USFWS, and the Regional Water Quality Board. Former Supervisor Mullen stated this is a critical area and expressed gratitude for all the comments. He explained that the plan area has a hard line, and everybody outside of it has flexibility. He discussed the issues with the outside agencies and used the Santa Margarita Water Board as an example in the 1980’s, which was changed legislatively. He suggested starting with RCIP doing the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and once that realignment can take place this year to bring it under one regional board. Commissioner Kevin Jeffries explained for those that have not had the opportunity to meet with former Supervisor Mullen he suggested to due to his knowledge and experience related to the MSHCP. He expressed gratitude to Dan Silver for doing a great job consulting with the RCA Board on his opinions to new development and the challenges. He expressed concern the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) has absolutely no projects funded although Lake Elsinore gave up 3,000 – 4,000 acres and suggested this issue needs to be corrected. Commissioner Jeffries expressed not a single interchange along the I-15 corridor has been improved in Lake Elsinore however, every other city along the corridor received significant improvements. Commissioner Jeffries expressed keeping Riverside County’s open space and preserving it. He stated one thing that is not being discussed is holding back land for tribal preservation concerns since these lands have historical significance and the agency has no comment in the process. He stated if 75,000 – 90,000 acres needs to be acquired and the RAND study put a price tag that was in the billions, how does it get paid. Charles Landry replied the cost of land overtime for an average acre to purchase has been about $8,000, which is the same as it was in the RAND study. He explained the individual parcels in particularly on the west side on 15/215 corridors there is an average of about $14,000 per acre. In general, the total amount is $1 billion to $1.5 billion to purchase the entire piece. Charles Landry explained there is also a one-third two-thirds strategy, which is important as one-third is supposed to be achieved by state and federal grant funds. There is still a lot to do and the biggest challenge is funding and how to get there. RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 7 Commissioner Bob Magee explained when the need for this meeting was brought to RCTC Chairman John Tavaglione the goal was to ask a fundamental question: does the MSHCP need to be modified to reflect changes and challenges, and how to improve it. He expressed appreciation for the academics from UCLA that came to the meeting. He replied to Ms. Letterman about her comment for economic development and HCPs being invisible and suggested to meet Mr. Sauls and Retired Senator Hollingsworth to get the property owner prospective. He then invited Ms. Letterman to Lake Elsinore to show what has transpired. Commissioner Magee explained the goal of the MSHCP was to streamline the approval process and intended to give quicker processing certainty for the development community while protecting private property owner rights. He stated the resource agencies pledged their cooperation, as well as a financial commitment so all of the affected parties would work together. He discussed how the cities were threatened they would lose Measure A and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenue. Commissioner Magee stated since Lake Elsinore joined as a regional partner about 14 years ago there has been no private development approved along Lake Elsinore’s 14-mile shoreline. He discussed how there is no enforcement by the resource agencies against urban campers or road land owners. Commissioner Magee expressed while other jurisdictions have been asked to give up little or no acreage to the plan there is no end in sight to the ongoing conservation efforts within Lake Elsinore’s boundaries as nearly 4,000 acres has been permanently removed in favor of the MSHCP. He explained having a conversation today for the project study report (PSR) for the I-15 Railroad Canyon Road interchange project, which has been approved after over 17 years after the original PSR was submitted. There are no permits and no funding for permanent improvements along the five interchanges that exist within Lake Elsinore. He expressed not seeing equal treatment with his other partners in fact it is a burden on Lake Elsinore. He is encouraging his collogues to have a discussion about how to make this better, how to make this fairer for Lake Elsinore’s community, and the project by project mitigation discussions with the agencies continue. WRCRCA Vice Chair Ingram stated understanding Commissioner Magee’s frustration and concurred with Commissioner Jeffries’ comments. He stated that habitat issues are not going away and the Steven’s kangaroo rat program was the most successful program in the entire state and still in existence. He explained Commissioner Jeffries noted how we pay for the sins of the rest of the state of California and he suggested if the agencies want to look for resources in funding the plan needs to be modified, there needs to be the ability to negotiate and barter, and there needs to be a regional land bank from this County. He expressed this means the other counties that have benefited over the years needs to provide some of that support and start helping fill these coffers to complete this plan. RCTC/WRCRCA Special Meeting/Workshop Minutes August 28, 2017 Page 8 Chair Ashley referred to the sister plan in the east and that most of the Coachella Valley is going to end up in a habitat plan. The problem there was just one species, the French toad lizard, that made it impossible to build not even an interchange. He explained once the plan was approved six interchanges have been built, which was all part of the RCIP and it has been a huge success there. Charles Landry stated RCA staff will take a look at all of the comments and concerns and come back to their respective boards and see what other ideas that will come out of this. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:57 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A Agenda Item 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1, 2017 (1Q 2017). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement with MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process, the Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2018. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted an audit, which reported findings and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 671 businesses. Through 4Q 2016, the SBOE approved 456 of these accounts for a total sales tax recovery of $7,642,288. Updated amounts for 1Q 2017 will be provided once received from MuniServices. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. After December 31, 2017, the SBOE duties regarding sales and use tax will be transferred to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and the Office of Tax Appeals will hear appeals. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for 1Q 2017. Most of the 1Q 2017 Measure A sales tax revenues were received in the second quarter of calendar year 2017, during April 2017 through June 2017, due to a lag in the sales tax 1 Agenda Item 7A calendar. The summary section of 1Q 2017 report is attached and includes an overview of California’s economic outlook, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, top 25 sales/use tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales tax by business category, five-year economic trend for significant business category (construction), and final results. Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County generated 20.5 percent of taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 1Q 2017 – comparable to the benchmark year ended 1Q 2016. The top 100 tax contributors generated 34 percent taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 1Q 2017, comparable to the 33.9 percent benchmark year ended 1Q 2016. In the Economic Category Analysis below, all six categories experienced new highs in the 1Q 2017 benchmark year compared to the prior seven benchmark years. An analysis of sales tax performance by quarter through 1Q 2017 is attached and illustrates fairly consistent cycles for sales tax performance for most of the economic categories since the economic recession in 2009. For 8 of the top 10 segments (auto sales-new, restaurants, department stores, miscellaneous retail, building materials-wholesale, apparel stores, food markets, and building materials-retail) during the past eight benchmark year quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new high point. The 8 segments represent 61.9 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations and light industry representing 7.4 percent and 4.3 percent respectively, were lower than the 1Q 2016 benchmark year due to lower fuel prices and completion of renewable energy developments in Riverside County, respectively. These top 10 segments represent 73.6 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other 19 segments representing 26.4 percent of the total sales tax receipts, 14 segments representing 22.3 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the benchmark year 1Q 2017. % of Total / % Change RCTC State Wide Riverside County San Bernardino County Inland Empire South Coast S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley North Coast Central Coast General Retail 28.4 / 3.5 28.1 / 0.8 27.9 / 0.6 26.2 / 5.9 27.0 / 3.2 28.8 / -0.2 26.3 / -0.3 27.6 / 1.9 31.4 / 5.7 28.5 / 1.9 31.4 / -5.7 Food Products 18.2 / 4.6 21.0 / 3.9 20.0 / 4.0 15.1 / 3.3 17.4 / 3.7 22.3 / 4.1 22.4 / 3.7 17.2 / 4.6 16.8 / 4.3 18.8 / 3.6 30.0 / -8.3 Transportation 25.4 / 1.1 23.7 / 0.4 26.6 / 0.8 27.8 / 1.8 27.2 / 1.3 23.1 / -1.5 20.9 / 2.5 28.5 / 4.4 25.9 / 1.3 30.0 / 1.0 22.4 / 0.8 Construction 10.9 / 3.4 9.4 / -0.5 12.7 / 0.1 8.8 / -22.6 10.7 / -11.0 8.3 / 1.1 9.5 / 1.4 11.6 / 4.1 11.9 / 1.7 13.5 / 4.6 8.6 / -11.7 Business to Business 15.2 / 4.1 16.5 / 1.3 11.7 / 11.1 20.4 / 3.8 16.2 / 6.2 16.2 / 1.6 19.6 / -0.8 13.9 / 1.3 12.4 / -0.7 8.2 / -2.1 6.6 / 1.5 Miscellaneous 2.3 / 10.8 1.3 / 9.8 1.1 / 3.1 1.8 / 64.1 1.5 / 35.3 1.3 / 11.5 1.3 / 5.6 1.2 / -22.4 1.5 / 8.8 1.0 / 2.3 0.9 / -15.2 Total 100.0 / 3.4 100.0 / 1.4 100.0 / 2.4 100 / 1.3 100.0 / 1.8 100.0 / 1.0 100.0 / 1.3 100.0 / 2.8 100.0 / 3.1 100.0 / 2.0 100.0 / -5.3 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, and Leasing Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS 2 Agenda Item 7A In the Economic Segment Analysis below, auto sales-new, restaurants, and department stores represent the three largest segments for Riverside County, or 32.4 percent of total sales tax receipts. This is the eighteenth consecutive quarter since 4Q 2008, that auto sales-new and department stores have been in the top three economic segments. Growth seen in previous quarters for service stations segment has been declining continuously from the high in the last six years due to lower fuel prices. Restaurants replaced service stations in the top three economic segments beginning in 4Q 2014. During the review of the 1Q 2017 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change in economic segments (two highest gains and two highest losses) from 1Q 2017 to 1Q 2016 was provided and is attached. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustment to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and receipt trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Digest Summary 1Q 2017 2) Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter 3) Quarterly Sales Tax Change Comparison by City for 1Q 2017 to 1Q 2016 RCTC State Wide Riverside County San Bernardino County Inland Empire South Coast S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Auto Sales - New Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Service Stations Restaurants Restaurants Department Stores Auto Sales - New Restaurants % of Total / % Change 11.6 / 5.0 15.0 / 5.0 13.0 / 6.8 10.3 / 5.6 11.6 / 6.3 18.5 / -57.9 16.0 / 4.1 16.5 / 5.3 13.3 / 1.8 12.2 / 9.3 21.7 / -8.8 2nd Largest Segment Restaurants Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Department Stores Auto Sales - New Restaurants Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Restaurants Auto Sales - New % of Total / % Change 11.6 / 6.4 11.4 / 4.2 12.4 / 3.2 10.2 / -0.2 11.2 / 5.0 14.5 / -32.6 11.3 / 5.7 11.4 / 2.5 11.0 / 6.2 10.9 / 4.3 10.6 / 20.6 3rd Largest Segment Department Stores Department Stores Department Stores Auto Sales - New Department Stores Auto Sales - New Department Stores Department Stores Restaurants Department Stores Misc. Retail % of Total / % Change 9.4 / 1.2 9.3 / -0.7 10.4 / 0.6 10.1 / 7.2 10.3 / 0.2 11.8 / 11.8 7.6 / -2.1 9.0 / -1.3 10.9 / 5.6 10.7 / -1.3 10.4 / -8.4 ECONOMIC SEGMENT ANALYSIS 3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through June 2017 Sales through March 2017 (2017Q1) www.MuniServices.com (800) 800‐8181 Page 1 CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK  California sales tax receipts increased by 2.3% over the same quarter from the previous year, with  Northern California reporting a 2.3% increase compared to 2.3% for Southern California. Receipts for the  Riverside County Transportation Commission changed by 3.6% over the same periods.   E‐Commerce transactions are growing as consumers shift to online shopping. During the holiday season of 2016, overall consumer spending growth increased 4.7%. Online retail sales grew by 12%  making up 21.3% of all holiday spending, a substantial increase from 15.4% last year. (First Data)  Will California's unemployment rate continue to drop? The state continued the downward trend in the unemployment rate, landing at 4.8% in April, just 0.4% above the national rate. The forecast for  2017, 2018 and 2019 total employment growth is 1.4%, 1.0% and 0.9%, respectively. (UCLA Anderson)  California's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown consistently faster than the nation's as a whole for five straight years.  GDP is one of the most comprehensive and closely watched economic  statistics; it measures the market value of goods, services, and structures produced by the nation’s  economy within a particular period. In 2016, the California GDP rose 4.5%, while the U.S. GDP increased  3% (unadjusted for inflation). (BEA)  LOCAL RESULTS  Net Cash Receipts Analysis  Local Collections $42,950,611  Share of County Pool 0.0% 0  Share of State Pool 0.0% 0  SBE Net Collections 42,950,611  Less: Amount Due County 0.0% .00  Less: Cost of Administration (507,340)  Net 1Q2017 Receipts 42,443,271  Net 1Q2016 Receipts 40,977,671  Actual Percentage Change 3.6%  Business Activity Performance Analysis  Local Collections $42,950,611  Less: Payments for Prior Periods (1,977,076)  Preliminary 1Q2017 Collections 40,973,535  Projected 1Q2017 Late Payments 1,663,875  Projected 1Q2017 Final Results 42,637,410   Actual 1Q2016 Results 41,284,078  Projected Percentage Change 3.3%  ATTACHMENT 1 4 Riverside County Transportation Commission www.MuniServices.com (800) 800‐8181 Page 2 HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER  TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS  The following list identifies RCTC’s Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order  and represents sales from April 2016 to March 2017. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate  20.4% of Riverside County Transportation Commission’s total sales and use tax revenue.    ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS LOWE'S HOME CENTERS  AMAZON.COM MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE  BEST BUY STORES RALPH'S GROCERY  CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE ROSS STORES  CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS SAM'S CLUB  CIRCLE K FOOD STORES STATER BROS MARKETS  COSTCO WHOLESALE TARGET STORES  DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES USA SERVICE STATIONS  FERGUSON WATERWORKS VERIZON WIRELESS  FOOD 4 LESS WAL MART STORES  HOME DEPOT WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES  JOHNSON MACHINERY COMPANY WHIRLPOOL  KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES   5 Riverside County Transportation Commission www.MuniServices.com (800) 800‐8181 Page 3 HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS  The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through March 2017, the highs, and the lows for  each segment over the last two years.  ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY      6 Riverside County Transportation Commission www.MuniServices.com (800) 800‐8181 Page 4 FIVE‐YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: Construction      FINAL RESULTS: April 2016 ‐ March 2017 Sales  Local Net Cash Collections $46,147,211 Less: Pool Amounts ($‐507,340) Less: Prior Quarter Payments ($2,109,695) Add: Late Payments $1,537,811 Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments $46,082,667 Percent Change from April 2015 – March 2016 Sales UP BY 3.5%   MUNISERVICES’ ON‐GOING AUDIT RESULTS  This Quarter $292,096 Total to Date $7,788,622   7 RCTC 1/2%:  Sales Tax Performance Analysis by QuarterTOTALConfidentialEconomicTOTAL2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$42,636,447 3.3% $1,352,933 3.3% $5,527,756GENERAL RETAIL2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$11,644,582 1.6% $189,016 3.5% $1,652,47427.3%FOOD PRODUCTS2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$8,327,884 3.4% $276,304 4.6% $1,377,037% of Total: 19.5%TRANSPORTATION2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$10,971,259 5.9% $610,572 1.1% $460,173% of Total: 25.7%CONSTRUCTION2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$4,496,699 2.7% $119,635 3.4% $615,715% of Total: 10.5%BUSINESS TO BUSINESS2017Q1 QoQ %∆QoQ $∆YoY %∆YoY $∆$6,214,031 0.4% $21,910 4.1% $1,035,188% of Total: 14.6%Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1TOTALCATEGORYQoQ = 17Q1 / 16Q1 YoY = YE 17Q1 / YE 16Q1% of 2017Q1 Total:$0$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000$16,000,000$0$5,000,000$10,000,000$15,000,000$20,000,000$25,000,000$30,000,000$35,000,000$40,000,000$45,000,000$50,000,0002012Q12012Q22012Q32012Q42013Q12013Q22013Q32013Q42014Q12014Q22014Q32014Q42015Q12015Q22015Q32015Q42016Q12016Q22016Q32016Q42017Q1ATTACHMENT 28 INLAND EMPIRE: Quarterly Comparison of 2016Q1 and 2017Q1 ( January thru March Sales )General RetailFood ProductsTransportationConstructionB2BMisc.Jan ‐ Mar2017(2017Q1)Jan ‐ Mar2016(2016Q1)% Chg GainGainDeclineDeclineBANNING53.8%‐0.2% 8.9%‐8.1% 6.0%‐18.1%501,596454,98410.2%Auto Sales ‐ New Apparel Stores Auto Sales ‐ Used Bldg.Matls‐WhsleBEAUMONT‐3.8% 0.0% 8.0%‐74.8% 6.8%‐16.5%898,516982,009‐8.5%Light Industry RestaurantsBldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsBLYTHE‐9.7% 4.4%‐3.3%‐7.6%‐18.1%‐41.2%377,570395,114‐4.4%Restaurants Energy Sales Light Industry Department StoresCALIMESA62.5%‐12.5% 15.7% 6.3%‐20.5% 50.5%159,985151,8905.3%Service Stations Miscellaneous Retail RestaurantsLight IndustryCANYON LAKE‐23.6% 2.1% 2.7%‐25.1%‐16.8%‐10.5%44,82747,276‐5.2%Misc. Vehicle Sales Service Stations Miscellaneous Retail Auto Sales ‐ UsedCATHEDRAL CITY‐6.6%‐6.6% 1.5% 1.7%‐0.5%‐30.8%1,993,3682,015,930‐1.1%Energy SalesLeasingFood Markets Heavy IndustryCOACHELLA‐3.2%‐1.1% 3.8%‐19.2% 64.4%‐11.4%803,111778,7173.1%Energy SalesService Stations Food Processing Eqp Auto Sales ‐ UsedCORONA‐2.3%‐2.1% 5.3%‐11.1% 6.6% 51.4%7,671,9907,803,214‐1.7%Service Stations Office Equipment Bldg.Matls‐Retail Electronic EquipmentDESERT HOT SPRINGS‐1.5% 2.1%‐0.1% 3.5% 16.2% 40.7%329,550324,8601.4%RestaurantsBusiness Services Department Stores Auto Sales ‐ UsedEASTVALE‐4.2%‐25.7%‐3.2%‐49.9% 158.4% 28.6%1,419,8751,337,3396.2%Electronic Equipment Heavy Industry Bldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsHEMET3.6% 0.8%‐2.6%‐49.9% 4.8%‐51.3%2,363,8572,486,228‐4.9%Service Stations Apparel Stores Bldg.Matls‐Retail Auto Sales ‐ NewINDIAN WELLS6.8%‐6.2%‐100.0%‐100.0%‐80.8%‐72.1%468,719502,944‐6.8%Miscellaneous Retail RestaurantsFood Markets Light IndustryINDIO‐6.9%‐15.5% 5.4%‐28.2% 23.5% 25.5%2,361,1512,471,851‐4.5%Auto Sales ‐ New Service Stations Bldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsJURUPA VALLEY10.4% 5.2% 5.7% 4.4%‐12.3%‐29.9%2,135,4372,127,9440.4%Service Stations Bldg.Matls‐Whsle LeasingLight IndustryLA QUINTA3.5%‐0.2%‐0.4%‐54.6%‐15.0% 2.3%2,054,3562,150,560‐4.5%Department Stores Apparel Stores Bldg.Matls‐Retail Recreation ProductsLAKE ELSINORE‐0.4%‐1.0% 8.4%‐38.6% 7.0% 115.3%1,862,4571,907,590‐2.4%Service Stations Department Stores Bldg.Matls‐Retail Bldg.Matls‐WhsleMENIFEE 8.9% 7.8% 13.5% 0.1% 6.6%‐32.6%1,541,5401,428,4927.9%RestaurantsService Stations Food Markets Bldg.Matls‐WhsleMORENO VALLEY‐1.4%‐12.1% 5.7%‐43.5% 3.3% 9.9%3,574,1013,812,588‐6.3%Service Stations RestaurantsBldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsMURRIETA5.5%‐4.9% 34.0%‐35.7% 3.7%‐27.7%3,269,9113,090,0995.8%Auto Sales ‐ Used RestaurantsBldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsNORCO1.4% 0.7% 16.8%‐57.0% 3.1% 1.4%1,383,4831,315,5175.2%Auto Sales ‐ New Auto Sales ‐ Used Bldg.Matls‐Whsle Food MarketsPALM DESERT‐3.0% 3.6% 13.2% 8.7% 70.4%‐84.5%4,675,4794,684,322‐0.2%Leasing Restaurants Miscellaneous Other Furniture/AppliancePALM SPRINGS4.8% 3.9% 14.8% 3.9% 1.6% 4.9%3,203,7413,041,8625.3%Auto Sales ‐ New RestaurantsLight Industry Office EquipmentPERRIS4.9%‐0.2% 0.1%‐66.1% 8.7%‐15.5%1,798,4902,096,055‐14.2%Light Industry Service Stations Bldg.Matls‐Retail Auto Sales ‐ NewRANCHO MIRAGE‐2.8% 2.9% 13.0%‐77.5% 47.3% 19.0%1,255,6181,271,137‐1.2%Restaurants Auto Sales ‐ New Bldg.Matls‐Retail Food MarketsRIVERSIDE‐2.6%‐6.1%‐0.3%‐11.0%‐3.3% 32.0%12,618,20313,000,189‐2.9%Misc. Vehicle Sales RestaurantsFood Markets Bldg.Matls‐RetailSAN JACINTO‐3.7%‐2.0% 6.6% 0.1%‐55.6% 80.0%579,748593,206‐2.3%Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Light Industry Food MarketsTEMECULA‐39.0%‐2.1% 9.8%‐23.7% 113.1% 10.3%7,321,4807,703,814‐5.0%Light Industry Auto Sales ‐ New Miscellaneous Retail Bldg.Matls‐RetailWILDOMAR 4.2%‐0.4% 9.1% 44.2%‐19.9%‐22.8%354,127344,2572.9%Service Stations Bldg.Matls‐Retail Light Industry Food MarketsRIVERSIDE COUNTY‐4.7%‐3.4% 4.1%‐12.6% 3.3%‐2.1%5,611,7595,836,365‐3.8%Service Stations Light Industry Bldg.Matls‐Whsle Food MarketsNon‐ConfidentialMuniServicesATTACHMENT 39 AGENDA ITEM 7B Agenda Item 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jillian Guizado, Legislative Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. DISCUSSION: State Update AB 1189 (E. Garcia) The Commission’s sponsored legislation is on Governor’s Brown’s desk for consideration. Staff, the Commission’s state advocate in Sacramento, and the coalition backing AB 1189 are communicating support of the bill and encouraging Governor Brown to sign the bill into law. AB 135 (Assembly Budget Committee) In accordance with the Commission-adopted 2017 State and Federal Legislative Platform, staff communicated the Commission’s support of AB 135, a budget trailer bill authored by the Assembly Budget Committee. AB 135, if approved, would make three important changes: 1) Caltrans would be authorized to perform National Environmental Policy Act assignment on all rail, transit, and multimodal projects in California; 2) Local and regional agencies could request approval of a letter of no prejudice to use local funding to advance SB 1 projects; and 3) Cities and counties would be given more time and flexibility for adopting Local Streets and Roads project lists for submittal to the California Transportation Commission. For self-help counties like the Commission, having the ability to advance local road funding enables us to get projects to construction sooner. Attachment: October 2017 Legislative Matrix 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – October 2017 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1189 (Garcia) Clarifying legislation that allows the Commission to implement a second self- help sales tax, subject to approval of two-thirds of the electorate in a future election. Enrolled and presented to the Governor. (September 13, 2017) SPONSOR 1/26/217 AB 91 (Cervantes) Requires Caltrans to convert existing HOV lanes in Riverside County to operate only during hours of heavy commuter traffic; during all other times the lanes would be open to all vehicles, including those with a single occupant. Ordered to third reading. (September 13, 2017) OPPOSE Opposition removed 5/30/17 as a result of amendments 3/8/17 AB 351 (Melendez) Proposes to bring truck weight fees back to transportation accounts. Referred to Committee on Transportation. May be heard in committee after March 10. (February 21, 2017) SUPPORT 3/8/17 AB 179 (Cervantes) Changes the membership of the California Transportation Commission. Enrolled and presented to the Governor. (September 12, 2017) OPPOSE 4/12/2017 AB 408 (Chen) Final offer of compensation in eminent domain cases. Died prior to going to committee pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a). (March 20, 2017) OPPOSE 4/12/2017 AB 697 (Fong) Exempts private ambulances from paying tolls when responding to emergency and urgent calls. Read second time; ordered to third reading. (July 11, 2017) OPPOSE Opposition removed 6/14/2017 as a result of amendments 4/12/2017 SB 132 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee) Amendment to the Budget Act of 2016. Creates the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. (April 28, 2017) SUPPORT 4/12/2017 11 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 268 (Mendoza) Changes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors governance structure. Re-referred to Assembly Local Government Committee. (September 5, 2017) OPPOSE 5/9/2017 Staff action based on platform AB 1523 (Obernolte) Authorizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to use design-build for local agencies to reconstruct the Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct project in San Bernardino. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. (July 31, 2017) SUPPORT 5/10/2017 SB 150 (Allen) Requires the state board to update and revise greenhouse gas emission reduction targets while considering vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions. Requires the state board to assess current and historic VMT. Requires the state to prepare a report every four years that assesses metropolitan planning organization progress toward meeting metrics. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. (September 11, 2017) OPPOSE 5/10/2017 SB 264 (Nguyen) Requires net excess toll revenue from the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Interstate 405 Improvement Project to be allocated to OCTA and project corridor jurisdictions and requires the moneys to be spent on specified transportation improvement projects. Hearing in Transportation and Housing Committee scheduled for April 25; author cancelled hearing. (April 25, 2017) OPPOSE 5/10/2017 SB 477 (Cannella) Allows for the extension of an existing rail corridor to provide intercity rail service beyond the defined boundaries of the corridor, subject to approval by the joint powers authority board and Secretary of Transportation. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee. (September 1, 2017) SUPPORT 5/10/2017 AB 686 (Santiago) Requires agencies to “affirmatively further fair housing” opportunity with all governmental actions. Amended and re-referred to Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. (July 17, 2017) OPPOSE 6/14/2017 SB 768 (Allen, Wiener) Extends authority to Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to enter into public private partnership agreements for transportation projects. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee. (May 25, 2017) SUPPORT 6/14/2017 H.R. 100 (Brownley) Increases the sub-allocation for local communities under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). Referred to House T&I subcommittee on Highways and Transit. (January 3, 2017) SUPPORT 6/14/2017 12 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 115 (Ting); SB 99 (Budget) Trailer bill containing elements that will streamline transportation project delivery. Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. (June 27, 2017) SUPPORT 6/14/2017 Staff action based on platform AB 805 (Gonzalez Fletcher) Changes the San Diego Association of Governments board of directors governance and voting structure. Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. (September 11, 2017) OPPOSE 6/15/2017 Staff action based on platform AB 1069 (Low) Requires ten countywide transportation agencies, including the Commission, to regulate taxicabs. Ordered to the Assembly for concurrence. (September 13, 2017) OPPOSE 6/28/2017 Staff action based on platform AB 1282 (Mullin) Requires the California State Transportation Agency Secretary to establish a Transportation Permitting Task Force. Enrolled and presented to the Governor. (September 7, 2017) SUPPORT 7/12/2017 AB 135 (Budget) Trailer bill containing elements that allow agencies to request approval for letters of no prejudice to advance spending on SB 1 projects using local funding sources; authorizes the California State Transportation Agency to perform NEPA Assignment on transit, rail, and multimodal projects; and provides flexibility to cities and counties for adopting Local Streets and Roads project lists. Referred to Senate floor. (September 13, 2017) SUPPORT 9/13/2017 Staff action based on platform 13 AGENDA ITEM 7C Agenda Item 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Funding for the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve funding a portion of the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Update in the amount of $200,000 with State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2009, the county of Riverside, in partnership with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Commission, funded the development of a countywide travel demand model referred to as RIVTAM. RIVTAM was based on the SCAG regional model with greater network detail in Riverside County yet remaining consistent with the SCAG regional model. RIVTAM has been used by the Commission and local agencies as a tool to evaluate plans, programs, and projects to forecast and analyze traffic impacts and land use outcomes. RIVTAM is also specifically used for traffic studies and analyses required for environmental impact reports under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Protection Act, in addition to supporting the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Nexus studies administered by WRCOG and CVAG. Local agencies also utilize the forecasts provided by RIVTAM in the development of general plans and specific plans. RIVTAM is in need of an update to incorporate changes to the network and modeling assumptions to be a reliable tool for transportation modeling and forecasting. The update will require consistency with the SCAG Regional Model used for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategies. WRCOG has taken the lead in preparing a scope of work and to be responsible for the development and maintenance of the model given its staffing capabilities. WRCOG committed $500,000 to fund the RIVTAM update and the county of Riverside, and CVAG have committed $50,000 and $25,000, respectively. The Commission has been requested to participate in funding the RIVTAM update in the amount of $200,000. 14 Agenda Item 7C Given the Commission’s reliance on transportation modeling for its Measure A program of projects and other regional planning and project implementation efforts, staff recommends the approval of $200,000 over a two-year period (Fiscal Year 2018/19 and FY 2019/20) for participation in the model update. STIP PPM funds are available to fund the Commission’s cost share. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 Amount: $100,000 $100,000 Source of Funds: STIP PPM Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 106 65 81501 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/14/2017 15 AGENDA ITEM 7D Agenda Item 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: In-Lieu Fee Agreements with Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District for Compensatory Mitigation for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-056-00 with Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for a deposit for expenses incurred prior to execution and recording of a conservation easement for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) in an amount not to exceed $10,000; 2) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-057-00 with RCRCD for compensatory mitigation for the I-15 ELP in the amount of $2,704,825, plus a contingency amount of $270,482, for a total amount not to exceed $2,985,307; 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director to approve use of contingency pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Approval to proceed with the I-15 ELP (see Figure 1) was granted when the initial study with mitigated negative declaration /environmental assessment with finding of no significant impact was approved on May 4, 2016, by the California Department of Transportation, the lead agency under both the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The approved initial study /environmental assessment (IS/EA) includes a number of mitigation measures for project impacts, including compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to riverine riparian habitat and Santa Ana sucker habitat as described in measures BIO-16, BIO-24, and BIO-25. 16 Agenda Item 7D Figure 1: I-15 Express Lanes Project Vicinity Map These compensatory mitigation measures are also conditions in project permits, including a Nationwide Permit 14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Section 401 Clean Water Certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as well as the consistency determination under the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Program (January 2016), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biological opinion approved April 20, 2016. Currently, final permits and subsequent compensatory mitigation requirements are being negotiated with the resources agencies. It is anticipated that all permits will be secured by November 2017. Compensatory Mitigation Commitment Compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by USACE, RWQCB, CDFW permits, and the Biological Opinion are governed by regulations issued by the regulatory agencies. These regulations establish performance standards and criteria for the use of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee programs. The RCRCD manages a USACE approved In-Lieu Fee (ILF) program for impacts within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Under the ILF program, RCRCD is authorized to sell mitigation credits for specific impacts resulting from USACE permitted projects. During the development of the final environmental document, Commission staff evaluated mitigation options and identified RCRCD as the most suitable resource for providing the necessary mitigation. Due to the types of 17 Agenda Item 7D resource mitigation required, including riverine riparian habitat and Santa Ana sucker habitat, and the location of an available mitigation site within the Santa Ana River, Commission staff narrowed its options for compensatory mitigation to the RCRCD Altfillisch project site, which provides the necessary mitigation required by the resource agencies. The Commission is required to mitigate for permanent impacts to riverine riparian habitat and jurisdictional waters of the state of California and the United States for the I-15 ELP. The mitigation requirements are outlined in the approved IS/EA with the mitigation commitment satisfied by the purchase of 10.25 acres of mitigation credits through the RCRCD ILF program. Additionally, project impacts Santa Ana sucker and Arroyo chub habitat can be satisfied through the purchase of 0.21 acre non-ILF restoration acreage at the RCRCD-owned Altfillisch project site located in the Santa Ana River south of Hamner Avenue bridge. Mitigation totals identified are subject to change pending the final permit approvals. Participation in the RCRCD ILF program satisfies the project’s compensatory mitigation requirement. Formal payment to RCRCD relieves the Commission of any further obligations regarding these resources. RCRCD will assume all responsibility to implement, manage, monitor, and report mitigation progress to the regulatory agencies. RCRCD Fee Structure 1) Deposit: RCRCD requires payment of a $10,000 deposit prior to negotiations with the party requesting mitigation services. This deposit covers administrative and staff time, material, and legal review costs associated with preparation of a conservation agreement. 2) Mitigation credit purchase based on impacts and mitigation ratios identified in the IS/EA: RCRCD will restore 0.21 acre of Santa Ana sucker habitat at a cost of $250,000, and rehabilitate 6.33 acres of riparian habitat, 0.51 acre of ephemeral drainage, and 3.81 acres of jurisdictional waters at a cost of $230,500 per acre ($230,500 x 10.65 acres = $2,454,825). The total cost is $250,000 (Santa Ana sucker habitat) + $2,454,825 = $2,704,825 (mitigation credit purchase). In addition to a 10 percent contingency amount of $270,482, for a total not to exceed amount is $2,975,307. The table below shows a concise breakdown of these costs. Habitat Type Amount (acres) Cost Total Cost Santa Ana Sucker .021 $250,000 $ 250,000 Riparian 6.33 $230,500/acre 1,459,065 Ephemeral Drainage 0.51 $230,500/acre 117,555 Jurisdictional Waters 3.81 $230,500/acre 878,205 Total 2,704,825 Contingency (10%) 270,482 TOTAL not to exceed $ 2,975,307 18 Agenda Item 7D Staff recommends mitigating for I-15 ELP permanent impacts to riverine riparian habitat, jurisdictional waters, and Santa Ana sucker habitat by entering into the deposit agreement in the amount of $10,000 and ILF agreement for purchase of credits with RCRCD in the amount of $2,704,825, plus a contingency amount of $270,482, for a total amount not to exceed $2,985,307. Under the deposit agreement, the Commission is responsible for all RCRCD costs incurred by RCRCD related to the preparation of a conservation agreement. Staff anticipates any excess of actual costs above the deposit amount would be minimal; therefore, staff recommends the contingency amount of $270,482 be available for any minimal increase in the costs related to the preparation of the conservation agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2017/18 Amount: $2,985,307 Source of Funds: 2017 Sales Tax Bond Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 003027 81020 00000 0000 262 31 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/14/2017 Attachments: 1) Draft Deposit Agreement with the RCRCD 2) Sample agreement with the RCRCD for In-Lieu Fee Program 19 24632.00005\1548635.5 DEPOSIT AGREEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED This Deposit Agreement for Expenses Incurred during negotiation ("Deposit Agreement"), processing, preparation, and review of certain activities, described more fully below, is entered into between the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District, a California resource conservation district, 4500 Glenwood Drive, Building A, Riverside, CA 92501 (“RCRCD”), and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), a California Regional Transportation Planning Agency, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 (“Developer”) as of the date set forth below. RCRCD and Developer are sometimes referred to in this Deposit Agreement individually as a “Party,” or collectively as the “Parties.” 1.RCRCD. RCRCD is a Resource Conservation District formed for the control of runoff, the prevention or control of soil erosion, the development and distribution of water, and the improvement of land capabilities pursuant to Public Resources Code section 9151 et seq. RCRCD may accept grants of money, land, and conservation easements to carry out its purposes, and may establish and charge fees for services provided upon request pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 9401 et seq. RCRCD commonly performs habitat restoration, conservation, creation and/or similar activities (“conservation”) for project proponents seeking permits from regulatory agencies. 2. Developer. RCTC is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency created by the California State legislature in 1970 to provide local agencies in Riverside County more control and input on transportation matters. RCTC plans and implements transportation and transit improvements, assists local governments with money for local streets and roads, finds solutions for commuters and goods movement and develops strategies to ensure everyone has access to transportation. The Interstate 15 (I-15) Express Lanes Project (Project) will construct one to two tolled express lanes between Cajalco Road and State Route 60 in the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley and portions of unincorporated Riverside County. Improvements will include, but are not limited to, addition of toll lanes, reconstruction of interchanges and retaining walls, construction of new sound walls, utility relocations, paving and roadway modifications, and installation of tolling equipment. The project is anticipated to begin construction in 2018. 3. Purpose A proposed development project may adversely impact a species, habitat, riparian areas, or other sensitive environmental resources. As a condition to issuing a permit required for such project, a regulatory agency may require mitigation in the form of land setaside, restoration or other activity. Regulatory agencies may approve the project proponent’s retention of RCRCD to perform habitat conservation, acceptance of ATTACHMENT 1 20 24632.00005\1548635.5 a conservation easement, or other activity as mitigation of project impacts. Any such conservation to be performed by RCRCD would be completed under the terms of a separate conservation agreement with RCRCD. The RCRCD will be required to process, prepare and review various mitigation-related contracts, agreements, and other documents between the Developer and RCRCD (“Transaction”). To facilitate this, the RCRCD will need to conduct meetings, review permits and other background materials, evaluate habitat assessments, review and draft the mitigation-related contracts, agreements or other documents, perform due diligence (e.g. title review, site inspection and other related activities), as well as perform other tasks, which may include preparing other miscellaneous documents related to the Transaction. In negotiating the Transaction between the RCRCD and the Developer, RCRCD will incur expenses including, but not limited to, legal expenses, administrative and staff expenses, materials, labor, etc. (“Expenses”). If the proposed Transaction goes forward, or if it is cancelled, abandoned, modified, disapproved or otherwise does not proceed, then RCRCD will have expended monies, resources and/or materials to pay for the Expenses. By this Deposit Agreement, the RCRCD requests, and Developer agrees to provide, a deposit to RCRCD to cover and defray the above-listed Expenses. 4. Deposit. (a) Based on RCRCD’s prior experience, the Parties agree that TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) is a reasonable amount calculated to cover the anticipated Expenses incurred prior to execution and recording of a conservation easement and/or other agreements with respect to the Transaction (“Deposit”). If RCRCD determines that its incurred costs will exceed the Deposit amount, RCRCD shall notify Developer in writing, and may request additional Deposit monies before proceeding further with the potential Transaction. (b) In the event that the Parties successfully complete the Transaction, RCRCD shall deduct from the Deposit all Expenses related to the Transaction; any remaining portion of the Deposit shall be returned to Developer or applied to the mitigation project costs. (c) In the event that the Parties do not successfully complete the Transaction, the RCRCD shall deduct the Expenses from the Deposit and return any remaining portion to Developer as in Paragraph 4(b), above. Developer may cancel this Deposit Agreement and receive a refund of the remaining Deposit and an accounting of Expenses at any time. To obtain this refund and accounting, Developer must send to RCRCD, by certified mail, a written notice of cancellation, requesting an accounting and a refund of any remaining Deposit monies. RCRCD shall perform such accounting and refund any remaining Deposit monies within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the cancellation notice and request. 5. Anticipated Mitigation 21 24632.00005\1548635.5 The Parties expect any anticipated mitigation to be the normal and ordinary conservation that RCRCD commonly performs; however, it is not yet known what the regulatory agencies will actually require. RCRCD makes no warranties or representations and cannot guarantee that RCRCD will be able to provide the mitigation required by the regulatory agencies; RCRCD only represents that it will make a good faith effort to perform its normal and ordinary conservation within its statutory authority, pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement to be executed by the Parties. 6. Nature of Rights Granted Developer hereby acknowledges and agrees this Deposit Agreement only provides a deposit to cover or defray Expenses RCRCD will incur in the Transaction. This Deposit Agreement is not a conservation easement, a donation agreement or a conservation services agreement, nor does this Deposit Agreement guarantee that the Parties will eventually consummate or successfully complete the Transaction. 7. Mitigation Responsibility The Parties explicitly agree that this Deposit Agreement does not commit RCRCD to actually performing any mitigation, mitigation-related conservation, or related activity. No responsibility or liability therefor shall accrue to the RCRCD. If the RCRCD ever conducts any mitigation on the Property at Developer’s request, the RCRCD will make no warranties or representations and cannot guarantee that the RCRCD will be able to provide any particular mitigation that may be required of the Developer by any regulatory agency, including but not limited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, or the State or Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Developer agrees that any requests for RCRCD to perform any mitigation, mitigation-related conservation, or related activity, including associated reporting for such activities, may cost extra and is not covered by this Deposit Agreement. Developer remains responsible for obtaining final approval from the Regulatory Agencies for satisfaction of any of its permit conditions. 8. Miscellaneous (a) Neither Party may assign its rights or obligations under this Deposit Agreement without the express written consent of the other, which consent may be withheld in such Party’s sole and absolute discretion. In the event of an authorized assignment, this Deposit Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of those permitted assigns. (b) The rights and obligations set forth herein are intended exclusively for the benefit of the Parties and shall not be construed to convey any rights or remedies to any third party. (c) This Deposit Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to its subject matter, and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, and all prior or contemporaneous discussions or negotiations between the Parties. This Deposit Agreement cannot be amended except in writing signed by both Parties. 22 24632.00005\1548635.5 (d) This Deposit Agreement and all documents executed and delivered in connection herewith shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Any action to interpret or enforce this Deposit Agreement shall be brought and maintained exclusively in the courts of and for Riverside County, California. (e) If any provision of this Deposit Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to either Party, the remainder of this Deposit Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Deposit Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. (f) If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Deposit Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Deposit Agreement as of the last date set forth below. RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a California resource conservation district RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a California Regional Transportation Planning Agency By: ____________________________ By: ____________________________ Name: ____________________________ Name: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: Date: 23 ATTACHMENT 2 24 25 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 7E Agenda Item 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with the City of Corona for Improvements to the Ontario Avenue Interchange at Interstate 15 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-050-00 with the city of Corona (City) for the Commission’s fair share of improvements to the Ontario Avenue Interchange at Interstate 15 (I-15) due to impacts from the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project), in the amount of $1,337,072, plus a contingency amount of $133,928, for a total amount not to exceed $1,471,000; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve release of contingency work up to the total authorized amount as may be required for the 91 Project; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission’s 91 Project (shown in Figure 1) Final Traffic Study Report (Report), completed in 2010, analyzed the impacts of the 91 Project on various intersections throughout the City. The Final Environmental Document (FED) completed in 2012 identified the 91 Project’s fair share for specific traffic improvements within the City. 28 Agenda Item 7E Figure 1: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Vicinity Map The Ontario Avenue Interchange is the closest access location to the Riverside 91 Express Lanes from I-15 and will continue to be after the I-15 Express Lane Project (I-15 ELP) is constructed and operational. The Report identified 91 Project impacts to the operations of the Ontario Avenue Interchange. Staff and the City developed a plan to mitigate these impacts. The plan includes the addition of one lane in each direction to Ontario Avenue between Compton Avenue and the I-15 northbound ramps and necessary modifications to connecting roadways between these limits. Commission staff performed an independent cost estimate for the Ontario Avenue Interchange improvements (Project) estimated at $6,077,600, which includes all phases of project development including support costs. The Commission’s fair share as identified in the FED is 22 percent of the Project costs. The Commission’s fair share contribution is currently estimated to be $1,337,072, which will be used to reimburse the City for actual costs of the Project, and for no other purpose. The City is planning to complete the Project by 2020. Because the Project will potentially impact the I-15 ELP, coordination between the Commission and the City prior to and during construction of the Project is crucial to mitigate potential impacts that Project construction may have on the I-15 ELP. 29 Agenda Item 7E Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 18-31-050-00 with the City for the Commission’s fair share of improvements to the Ontario Avenue Interchange at I-15 due to impacts from the 91 Project, for $1,337,072 plus a contingency of $133,928, for a total amount not to exceed $1,471,000. Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19+ Amount: $ 100,000 $1,371,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Sales Tax Equity Contributions, 2017 Sales Tax Bonds Proceeds, Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No Yes GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81301 262 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/12/2017 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 18-31-050-00 30 17336.02100\29360193. 3 1 Agreement No.: ________________ COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CORONA FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ONTARIO AVENUE AT I-15 This Cooperative Agreement (“Cooperative Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of _________, 2017 by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“RCTC”) and the City of Corona (the “City”). RCTC and the City are sometimes referred to herein individually as (“Party”), and collectively as (“Parties”). RECITALS WHEREAS, one additional lane in each direction will be added to Ontario Avenue between Compton Avenue and the Interstate 15 (“I-15”) northbound ramps in the City of Corona and necessary modifications will be made to connecting roadways between these limits, as depicted in the attached Exhibit “A” (“Project”). WHEREAS, the Project has a total estimated cost of $6,077,600 (“Total Project Cost”), as more particularly described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. WHEREAS, as part of RCTC’s State Route 91 Express Lanes and Corridor Improvement Project (“91 CIP”), RCTC completed a Final Traffic Study Report (“Report”) which analyzes the impacts of the 91 CIP on various intersections, and provides for mitigation by RCTC through payment of a fair share contribution for specified traffic improvements. The fair share methodology used in the Report is based on the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Project is identified in the Report, and is subject to a fair share contribution from RCTC, as further set forth herein. WHEREAS, RCTC is implementing the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project, which involves the construction of tolled express lanes in each direction between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/State Route 60 interchange (“I-15 ELP”). WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties to enter into this Cooperative Agreement to establish and coordinate the responsibilities of the Parties with respect to the Project, all as further set forth herein. WHEREAS, because the Project, if constructed, will potentially impact the I-15 ELP, coordination between the Parties prior to and during construction of the Project is crucial to 31 17336.02100\29360193. 3 2 mitigate potential impacts that Project construction may have on the I-15 ELP. WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of this Cooperative Agreement, the City shall engage the services of a contractor (“Contractor”) to complete the Project. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the City’s full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and all other applicable laws are a precondition to any construction of the Project. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Cooperative Agreement commits RCTC to approving or constructing the Project. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is mutually understood and agreed by RCTC and the City as follows: TERMS 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Cooperative Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. Term. This Cooperative Agreement shall be effective as of the date first set forth above, and shall continue in effect until the Project is complete, as evidenced by both the City’s recording of a notice of completion for the Project and RCTC’s payment of all outstanding reimbursements. 3. General Agreement to Cooperate. The Parties agree to mutually cooperate in order to help ensure that the Project is successfully completed with minimum impact to both Parties, and the public. 4. Obligations of RCTC. 4.1 RCTC shall pay its fair share to the City for the cost of the Project. The Parties agree that RCTC’s fair share shall be 22% of the Project costs. RCTC’s fair share contribution is currently estimated to be $1,471,000 (“Fair Share Contribution”), which amount shall be used to reimburse the City for actual costs of the Project, and for no other purpose. The City shall notify RCTC in advance of any change in the Project costs that may impact the Fair Share Contribution. If RCTC agrees with the basis for the changed costs, the Parties shall execute an amendment to this Cooperative Agreement to reflect the revised Fair Share Contribution amount. 4.2 RCTC shall make periodic payments to City no more frequently than monthly. Payments of undisputed Project costs shall be made within thirty (30) days following RCTC’s approval of an invoice from the City. 32 17336.02100\29360193. 3 3 5. Obligations of the City 5.1 The City shall be responsible for procuring all design and construction management services necessary, or providing staff resources necessary, to complete the Project. The City shall be responsible for the process of selecting and contracting with a design firm and construction management firm, if necessary, and with a Contractor to complete the Project in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws including, without limitation, the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code. The City shall be responsible for complying with CEQA and obtaining all applicable environmental clearances and permits necessary to complete the Project. 5.2 The City shall regularly invoice RCTC, not more frequently than once per month, for Project costs described in Exhibit “B” not to exceed the Fair Share Contribution amount specified in Section 4.1 above. Invoices shall be in a form approved by RCTC, and shall include such documentation as required by RCTC. 5.3 Upon completion of Project construction, the City shall record a notice of completion for the Project. 5.4 The City shall be responsible for all design and construction contract management costs related to the Project, and for purchasing the equipment to be used and installed for the Project. 5.5 The City shall provide RCTC an opportunity to review and approve all design documents generated for the Project, which the City anticipates will be relied upon by the Contractor to construct the Project. 5.6 The City shall obtain or shall require the Contractor to obtain all required permits and approvals for all Project work. 5.7 The City shall complete the design and construction of the Project in a timely manner so as to avoid adverse effects to the public. The City agrees the Project shall not interfere with the I-15 ELP. To this end, the City shall coordinate and cooperate with RCTC and its consultants and contractors to ensure such interference does not occur and the I-15 ELP is allowed to progress as scheduled. Such coordination and cooperation shall include, but not be limited to, coordination of traffic control and detours. In the event interference of the I-15 ELP occurs or is reasonably anticipated, the I-15 ELP shall take priority over the Project and the City shall immediately comply with any and all directions given by RCTC to address, prevent, mitigate, or eliminate such interference. 5.8 The City shall install, maintain, operate, and repair its facilities in a manner which avoids or minimizes, to the extent possible and reasonable, any impact to the I-15 ELP. 5.9 The City shall include, in its contract with the Contractor, a requirement that the Contractor include RCTC, its members, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds and 33 17336.02100\29360193. 3 4 as indemnified parties under said contract. Insurance shall be in the same amounts and with the same provisions as provided for the benefit of the City. 5.10 As between RCTC and the City, the City and its consultants shall be responsible for performing design reviews and construction inspection of the Project work to ensure conformance with City standards and the construction contract including, but not limited to, the technical provisions of said contract. The City shall allow RCTC staff access to the Project site, at all times, to perform observation of any Project improvements. Such observation, if completed, shall be for RCTC’s benefit only and shall not relieve the City of any responsibility hereunder. 5.11 The City, as the owner of the improvements to be made pursuant to this Cooperative Agreement, shall be solely responsible for all future maintenance thereof. 6. Time is of the Essence. Each Party warrants that it shall make its best efforts to perform all obligations assigned to it related to the Project in such a manner as to allow the Project to progress as scheduled. 7. Dispute Resolution. Unless otherwise specified herein, the Parties shall submit any unresolved dispute to RCTC’s Executive Director and the City Manager for negotiation. The Executive Director and the City Manager agree to undertake good faith attempts to resolve said dispute, claim, or controversy within ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of written notice from the Party alleging that a dispute, claim or controversy exists. The Parties additionally agree to cooperate with the other Party in scheduling negotiation sessions. However, if said matter is not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days after conducting the first negotiating session, either Party may, but is not required to, request that the matter be submitted to further dispute resolution procedures, as may be agreed upon by the Parties. 8. Legal Action. If a matter is not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days after the first negotiating session between the Executive Director and the City Manager, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Parties, either Party may proceed with any other remedy available in law or in equity. 9. Indemnification. 9.1 RCTC shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors 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 any negligent acts, omissions or breach of law, or willful misconduct of RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants or contractors in the performance of RCTC’s obligations under this Cooperative Agreement, including the payment of all reasonable attorneys fees. 9.2 The City shall indemnify, defend and hold RCTC, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors 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 34 17336.02100\29360193. 3 5 to any negligent acts, omissions or breach of law, or willful misconduct of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants or contractors in the performance of the City’s obligations under this Cooperative Agreement, including the payment of all reasonable attorneys fees. 9.3 The indemnification provisions set forth in this Section 9 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Cooperative Agreement. 10. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Cooperative Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be delivered in writing by certified or registered first class mail, postage prepaid, deposited in the United States mail, and properly addressed to the Party at its address set forth below, or at any other address that such Party may designate by written notice to the other Party: RCTC: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Michael Blomquist CITY: City of Corona 400 S. Vicentia Avenue Corona, CA 92882 Attn: Nelson D. Nelson 11. Force majeure. The failure of performance by either Party (except for payment obligations) hereunder shall not be deemed to be a default where delays or defaults are due to war; insurrection; strikes; lock-outs; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restrictions; unusually severe weather; inability to secure necessary labor, materials or tools; delays of any contractor, subcontractor, railroad, or suppliers; acts of the other Party; acts or failure to act of any other public or governmental agency or entity (other than that acts or failure to act of the Parties); or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform or relief from default. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause. Times of performance under this Cooperative Agreement may also be extended in writing by mutual agreement between the Parties. 12. Amendments. This Cooperative Agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the Parties by an instrument in writing. 13. Assignment of Cooperative Agreement. Neither Party may assign or transfer its respective rights or obligations under this Cooperative Agreement without the express written consent of the 35 17336.02100\29360193. 3 6 other Party. Any purported assignment or transfer by one Party without the express written consent of the other Party shall be null and void and of no force or effect. 14. Waiver. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy of a non-defaulting Party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. No consent or approval of either Party shall be deemed to waive or render unnecessary such Party’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act of the other Party. Any waiver by either Party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Cooperative Agreement. 15. Severability. In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections contained in this Cooperative Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this Cooperative Agreement, which shall be interpreted to carry out the intent of the parties hereunder. 16. Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Cooperative Agreement, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 17. Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Cooperative Agreement. 18. Entire Agreement. This Cooperative Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 36 17336.02100\29360193. 3 7 SIGNATURE PAGE TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF CORONA FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ONTARIO AVENUE AT I-15 AGREEMENT NO. _____________________ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Cooperative Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY CITY OF CORONA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: By: _____________________________ John Tavaglione, Chairman Signature _____________________________ Name _____________________________ Title ATTEST: By: ____________________________ City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: By: ____________________________ By: ______________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Dean Derleth General Counsel City Attorney 37 17336.02100\29360193. 3 Exhibit A EXHIBIT “A” DEPICTION OF PROJECT [attached behind this page] 38 17336.02100\29360193. 3 Exhibit B EXHIBIT “B” PROJECT COSTS [attached behind this page] 39 AGENDA ITEM 7F Agenda Item 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with BNSF Railway for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project at the West Porphyry Overhead WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-114-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for extended flagging services related to the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of $200,000, and a total amount not to exceed $7,621,234; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 91 Project (shown in Figure 1) crosses over BNSF property in four locations. 40 Agenda Item 7F Figure 1: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Vicinity Map At its May 14, 2014 meeting, the Commission approved the following four construction and maintenance (C&M) agreements with BNSF for a total not to exceed amount of $8,053,475: a) Agreement No. 14-31-112-00, East Porphyry Overhead, located just south of the 15/91 interchange; b) Agreement No. 14-31-113-00, East Prado Overhead, located just east of the 71/91 interchange; c) Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, West Porphyry Overhead located just west of the 15/91 interchange; and d) Agreement No. 14-31-115-00, West Prado Overhead located adjacent to the SR-91/Green River Road interchange. At the end of 2015, it became apparent to staff the originally estimated budget for flagging services would not be adequate to complete the work involved. Staff determined it was in the Commission’s best interest to include flagging services for all of the C&M agreements under Agreement No. 14-31-114-00. In April 2016, the Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to all four BNSF agreements for the 91 Project that included a decrease to Agreement Nos. 14-31-112-00, 14-31-113-00, and 14-31-115-00, and an increase to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00 for a total amount not to exceed $9,053,475. This resulted in a revised total amount not to exceed $6,921,234 for Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with a remaining contingency of $276,240. In June 2017, the Commission approved Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00 to allocate the remaining contingency and an additional $223,760, for extended flagging services related to the 91 Project for a total amount not to exceed $7,421,234. During the close out phase of the 91 Project, several unforeseen conditions have occurred that have caused the remaining work adjacent to the railroad to extend beyond the planned schedule. 41 Agenda Item 7F Therefore, additional BNSF flagging will be required to complete this remaining work. The additional BNSF flagging, estimated at $200,000, is required to support the 91 Project through final acceptance scheduled for November 15, 2017. Since the BNSF C&M agreements are between BNSF, the Commission, and Caltrans, the Commission is invoiced and directly pays for the BNSF flagging services. However, per the design-build contract, the design-builder is responsible for the costs associated with all BNSF provided flagging services and is invoiced by the Commission for those costs. Such reimbursements effectively reduce the expenditures recorded. Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 14-31-114-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 14-31-114-00, with BNSF for extended flagging services in the amount of $200,000, for a total amount not to exceed $7,621,234. Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2017/18 Amount: $200,000 Source of Funds: Design-Builder reimbursements Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81304 00104 0000 262 31 81301 (Flagging) $200,000 003028 81304 00104 0000 262 31 81301 (Flagging reimbursement) ($200,000) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/12/2017 Attachment: Draft Amendment to Supplemental Agreement 42 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead - Amendment to Supplemental Agreement, May 15, 2017 1 AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 08-RIV-91 PM 6.93 BNSF Agreement No. BF-10006322 STATE Contract No. 08R191 RCTC Agreement No. 14-31-114-03 W. Porphyry (Temescal Bridge and Overhead) STATE Br. No. 56-0446 DOT No. 026522X San Bernardino Subdivision LS 7602 MP 23.43 This AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, is executed to be effective as of this ______ day of _____________, 2017 (“Effective Date”), by and between BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY , a Delaware corporation ("BNSF"), the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as ("STATE"), and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION hereinafter referred to as (“RCTC”), a public entity of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as (“Parties”). RECITALS: BNSF, STATE, and RCTC are parties to a Construction and Maintenance Agreement, dated July 11, 2014, identified in BNSF’s records as BNSF Contract No. BF-10006322, (“West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement”) which covers any and all work related to the construction involving the modification of the West Porphyry Overhead “(OVERHEAD)” providing for its partial demolition, widening, construction of express lanes, and new ramp connections to Interstate Highway I-15 to accommodate the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (the “Project”); WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Supplemental Agreement, dated _______, 2016, in order to extend the term of the Temporary Construction License for the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement an additional Three (3) months, and to provide funding for additional flagging services required for cost of railroad work. WHEREAS, RCTC now desires to amend the Supplemental Agreement to acknowledge extension of the term of the Temporary Construction License for the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement, at no cost to RCTC, and to provide for additional compensation for additional flagging and other railroad work required for completion of the Project. The parties hereto are in agreement to amending the Supplemental Agreement related to the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement as follows: AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, it is mutually agreed that the Supplemental Agreement to the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement is hereby further supplemented and amended as follows: 1. The term of the Temporary Construction License under the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement, as amended by the Supplemental Agreement, is further extended, at no cost, through __________, unless further extended by mutual agreement of BNSF and RCTC. 2. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) is hereby allocated by RCTC for the additional BNSF railroad flagging and any related railroad work made necessary due to the extension of the term of the Temporary Construction License for West Porphyry and the additional work required for completion of the Project. 43 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead - Amendment to Supplemental Agreement, May 15, 2017 2 3. Article V, Section 21 is amended to read as follows: [any changes needed to notice provisions? If not, this can be deleted.] 21. Any notice provided for herein or concerning this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed sufficiently given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Parties at the following addresses: BNSF: Manager Public Projects Jason Sanchez 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: Jason.Sanchez@bnsf.com Director Bridge Engineering Ron Berry 4515 Kansas Avenue Kansas City, KS 66106 Email: ronald.berry@bnsf.com Project Engineer Greg Rousseau 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: Greg.Rousseau@bnsf.com Division Engineer Jimmy Capps 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Email: jimmy.capps@bnsf.com RCTC: Michael Blomquist Toll Program Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Office: (951) 778-1098 Fax (951) 787-7920 Email: mblomquist@rctc.org STATE: Department of Transportation Ben Martin Office Chief for Railroads and Utilities Relocation Division of Right of Way & Land Surveys 1120 N. Street, MS 37 Sacramento, CA 95814-5690 Office: (916) 654-5413 Email: ben.martin@dot.ca.gov 4. Except as herein specifically supplemented and amended, the West Porphyry Overhead Construction and Maintenance Agreement, as amended by the Supplemental Agreement, remains in full force and affect. Signature Pages to follow: 44 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead - Amendment to Supplemental Agreement, May 15, 2017 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY By: Printed Name: Steve Anderson Title: Vice President Engineering RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION signature page to follow. 45 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead - Amendment to Supplemental Agreement, May 15, 2017 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: _____________________________________________ Name and Title REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By:__________________________________________ Name and Title REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: __________________________________________ Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:__________________________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA signature page to follow. 46 West Porphyry (Temescal) Overhead - Amendment to Supplemental Agreement, May 15, 2017 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: __________________________________________ Name: Ben Martin Title: Office Chief for Railroads and Utilities Relocation Division of Right of Way & Land Surveys APPROVED AS TO FORMS AND PROCEDURES: By:__________________________________________ ROGER FORMANEK, Attorney Department of Transportation APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: By:__________________________________________ Denny Fong, P.E. Railroad Agreements Engineer 47 AGENDA ITEM 7G Agenda Item 7G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District for Compensatory Mitigation for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-023-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 16-31-023-00, with Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) for additional restoration and biological monitoring effort associated with compensatory mitigation (Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration) for an additional amount of $114,660, and a total amount not to exceed $1,356,119; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In October 2015, the Commission approved Agreement No. 16-31-023-00 with the IERCD for Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration in an amount not to exceed $1,241,459. The Commission contracted with the IERCD for implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan required by the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) shown in the figure below. 48 Agenda Item 7G Figure 1: SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project Vicinity Map IERCD is responsible to fulfill all requirements of the compensatory mitigation plan. This includes site preparation, fencing, planting, irrigation, and five years of maintenance. IERCD assumes all responsibility to implement, manage, monitor, and report mitigation progress to the Commission and the agencies involved. In November 2015, IERCD signed a contract with Habitat Restoration Services and started mobilization activities. Below is a summary of the activities that were completed from November 2015 to September 2016: • Right of entry issued May 2016 to IERCD by California Department of Parks and Recreation; • California gnatcatcher (CaGN) and nesting bird surveys; • Insect monitoring; • Placement of flagging for work areas; • Weed abatement; • Early clearing and grubbing for placement of water tank; and • Design of temporary irrigation system. Caltrans is the lead agency for coordination of the 91 Project’s Biological Opinion and Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In September 2016, Caltrans, through discussions with USFWS, indicated that the restoration work may have an effect on the CaGN, a federally endangered species, which is known to occur at the restoration site. As a result of this potential effect to the CaGN, Caltrans requested a stop work of the restoration activities until 49 Agenda Item 7G Caltrans completes an amendment to the 91 Project Biological Opinion to cover the restoration work (OR/WRIV-08B0733/11F0547 dated November 30, 2011). The Biological Opinion amendment took eight months to coordinate and was received by the Commission on April 28. This is considered reasonable for this unforeseen involvement of a federally endangered species. As a result of the approximate 8-month delay and additional biological monitoring requirements, IERCD indicated that additional funding in the amount of $114,660, would be required to reinitiate the effort and complete the restoration work. The table below provides a summary of the IERCD costs for additional funding required. Additional Costs for IERCD Mitigation Work (due to Biological Opinion delay) Additional Scope Performed by Additional Cost Restore and Maintain Habitat Restoration Services $ 37,253 Plantings Mocking Bird Nursery 8,793 Biological Monitoring IERCD or Habitat Restoration Services 52,800 Implementation & Management IERCD 15,814 Additional funding required $ 114,660 Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 16-31-023-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 16-31-023-00, with IERCD for additional restoration and biological monitoring effort associated with Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration for an additional amount of $114,660, and a total amount not to exceed $1,356,119. Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2017/18 Amount: $114,660 Source of Funds: Measure A Sales Tax Equity Contributions, 2017 Sales Tax Bonds Proceeds, Commercial Paper Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81020 262 31 81020 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/12/2017 Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 16-31-023-01 50 1 AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS This Amendment to the Agreement to Facilitate Compensatory Mitigation Efforts (“Amendment”) is entered into this ___ day of _____, 2017 (“Execution Date”) by and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a government transportation agency (“RCTC”) and the INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a governmental special district (“IERCD”). RCTC and IERCD are sometimes referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” RECITALS A. Grantor and Grantee previously entered into an Agreement to Facilitate Compensatory Mitigation Efforts on October 27, 2015 (“Agreement”). B. Pursuant to Section 1.F of the Agreement, IERCD secured a right of entry permit to access the Chino Hills State Park from the California State Department of Parks (the “Department”) in February 2016. C. As a part of the Services performed under the Agreement, IERCD conducted baseline surveys, mapped native vegetation, delineated areas for restoration, obtained approval of a fire plan, completed a CEQA process to satisfy Department requirements, and began site preparation, including the installation of fencing and non-native species removal. D. In September 2016, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) temporarily halted activities at the Site after learning that RCTC had not completed informal consultation with FWS as outlined in the BO regarding potential impacts to the California Gnatcatcher (“CAGN”) associated with the performance of the Services. E. RCTC completed the informal consultation with FWS as detailed in a letter from FWS addressed to Scott Quinnell dated April 28, 2017 attached as Exhibit A to this Amendment and incorporated herein by this reference (“FWS Letter”) outlining additional biological monitoring requirements and plans to avoid potential negative impacts on CAGN as IERCD continues to perform the Services. F. IERCD requires additional funding from RCTC to offset the additional costs that will be incurred due to the delays described above and the additional requirements by the FWS Letter (“Additional Services”). H. RCTC agrees to pay for the Additional Services and IERCD agrees to restart the Services, along with the Additional Services, upon receipt from RCTC of the Additional Fee, as further defined herein. 51 2 TERMS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which Recitals are incorporated herein by this reference, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and based on the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties do hereby modify the Agreement as follows: 1. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not separately defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 2. Additional Fee. RCTC agrees to pay IERCD ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY AND NO/100’S DOLLARS ($114,660.00), reflecting IERCD’s reasonable additional costs to perform the Additional Services, as described in the Recitals above (“Additional Fee”). This amount is in addition to the Fee paid by RCTC to IERCD under the Agreement. 3. When Payment Due. The Parties agree that the Additional Fee is due and payable in full on the Execution Date of this Agreement. IERCD agrees to provide RCTC with a written letter of receipt no later than 7 days after receipt of the Additional Fee. 4. Remainder Unchanged. Subject to the modifications described above, the Agreement remains in effect and binding upon the Parties. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 52 3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION EFFORTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date as indicated beside each Party’s signature. Dated: , 2017 GRANTOR: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a government transportation agency By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Dated: , 2017 GRANTEE: INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a governmental special district By: Paul Williams, President 53 4 Exhibit A (April 28, 2017 Letter from FWS to Mr. Scott Quinnell) 54 5 55 6 56 AGENDA ITEM 7H Agenda Item 7H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement with Best, Best & Krieger LLP for Legal Services for the Perris Valley Line Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 12-33-115-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 12-33-115-00, with Best, Best & Krieger LLP (BB&K) to provide legal services for the Perris Valley Line (PVL) project for an additional amount of $775,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1.25 million; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its September 12, 2012 meeting following a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 12-33-115-00 to BB&K to provide legal services for the PVL project for the total amount not to exceed $475,000. At that time, it was anticipated the project would be closed out in December 2015. Due to the extension of the environmental process as a result of California Environmental Quality Act litigation, the extended construction period, and the current negotiations with the construction contractor, the actual completion of construction has not occurred. General legal services for the Commission and its projects and programs have been provided by BB&K primarily through the annual recurring contract process. These legal services have been funded with local funds in the past. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Small Starts grant program utilized to partially fund the PVL project required all contracts to be competitively procured in accordance with federal requirements. In October 16, 2012, the Commission entered into an agreement with BB&K; the new separate agreement contained the required federal clauses. 57 Agenda Item 7H DISCUSSION: At this time, additional funding is needed to continue the close out process of the project and to defend claims submitted by the construction contractor. BB&K continues its legal services by responding to requests for information and providing legal support to the Commission. BB&K has hired a firm to assist on the technical matters of the claim and those additional expert costs are included in this amendment. These additional services are required and were not envisioned; however, they are consistent with the original scope. Accordingly, staff requests approval of the amendment. The amendment is necessary since the duration of construction and project close out will be longer than originally anticipated. The cost for the proposed services is $775,000, and staff requests approval for these additional services. Accordingly, the total authorized not to exceed amount for the agreement will be $1.25 million. These additional costs are eligible for and will be funded with Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds, which are already programmed on this project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2017/18 Amount: $775,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ (federal), STIP (state) Budget Adjustment: Yes GL/Project Accounting Nos.: 003823 414 41403 221 33 41401 $686,100 (federal revenues) 003823 415 41502 221 33 41501 $88,900 (state revenues) 003823 65101 221 33 65101 $775,000 (expenditures) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/18/2017 Attachment: Draft BBK Agreement No. 12-33-115-01 58 Agreement No. 12-33-115-01 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL COUNSEL SERVICES FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE RAIL PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Legal Services for the Perris Valley Line Project is made and entered into as of this ___ day of _______, 2017, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and BEST, BEST & KRIEGER ("Consultant"), a Limited Liability Partnership. 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement dated October 16, 2012 for the purpose of providing legal services for the Perris Valley Line Rail Project (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term and to provide additional compensation for continued legal services. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement, as set forth in Section 3.3 of the Master Agreement, is hereby extended through December 31, 2018. 3.2 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment shall be Seven Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($775,000). 3.3 The total not-to-exceed amount of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, shall be increased from Four Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($475,000) to One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000). 3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Master Agreement including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. 59 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY BEST, BEST & KRIEGER TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ___________________________ Signature By: _____________________________ ___________________________ John F. Tavaglione, Chair Name ___________________________ Title 60 AGENDA ITEM 7I Agenda Item 7I RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Gary Ratliff, Facilities Administrator Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement for On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services for the Commuter Rail Stations WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 18-24-001-00 to Braughton Construction, Inc. to provide on-call maintenance and repair services for the commuter rail stations for a three-year term, in the amount of $2.6 million, plus a contingency amount of $120,000, for a total amount not to exceed $2.72 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the contractor under the terms of the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns and operates nine commuter rail stations (Riverside Downtown, La Sierra, North Main Corona, Jurupa Valley/Pedley, West Corona, Riverside-Hunter Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Perris Downtown, and Perris South). Station maintenance and repair services are essential to preserve and maintain the Commission’s property investments. On-call station maintenance and repair services efficiently and effectively respond to hazards and provide safety measures generally related to minor construction repairs for pavement, gates and fencing, signs, safety rails, pathways, shelters, and plumbing. In September 2012, the Commission awarded an agreement to provide on-call station repair and maintenance services for a three-year term, and two one-year options, for a total amount of $1.25 million. At that time the Commission owned and operated five stations. With the inauguration of the Perris Valley Line on June 6, 2016, four new commuter rail stations were added for a total of nine stations. In June 2016 the Commission approved an additional amount of $850,000 to the existing agreement for an aggregate contract value of $2.1 million. 61 Agenda Item 7I The station repair and maintenance services are necessary to support the needs of the Commission’s nine commuter rail stations. Accordingly, staff initiated a procurement for these services. 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 proposal with price and other factors considered. Non-price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm, personnel, and the ability to respond to the Commission’s needs for on-call maintenance and repair services for the commuter rail stations as set forth under the terms of the Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 18-24-001-00. RFP No. 18-24-001-00 for on-call maintenance and repair services for the commuter rail stations was released by staff on July 13. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission’s PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission’s website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 271 firms, 66 of which are located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 17 firms downloaded the RFP; 5 of these firms are located in Riverside County. One firm – Braughton Construction, Inc. (Rancho Cucamonga) – submitted a proposal. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the proposal was evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Bechtel staff. Since staff received one proposal, it reviewed the solicitation specifications for undue restrictiveness and surveyed potential sources that chose not to submit a proposal. Reasons for not submitting a proposal included other contractors having limited staff and enough projects on-hand. Staff concluded the requirements listed in the scope of work and other terms and conditions were not unnecessarily or excessively restrictive, an adequate opportunity to compete was provided, and factors other than the solicitation were responsible for the receipt of one proposal for this RFP. Accordingly, the evaluation committee provided final scoring based on a comprehensive evaluation of the written proposal. Based on the evaluation committee’s assessment, the evaluation committee determined Braughton Construction, Inc. to be qualified to perform the work outlined in the scope of services. As a result of the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposal, the evaluation committee recommends Braughton Construction, Inc. for award of on-call maintenance and repair services for the commuter rail stations for a three-year term in the aggregate amount of $2.72 million, including a $120,000 contingency amount. Initially, this RFP contemplated an award for an additional two, two-year options; however, since only one qualified proposal was submitted, staff determined that the agreement term should be for a shorter period in order to conduct a new procurement that may yield additional proposals. 62 Agenda Item 7I The Commission’s model on-call maintenance and repair services agreement will be entered into with Braughton Construction, Inc., subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. The work is to be issued on an as-needed task order basis. Staff oversight of the contract will work to maximize the effectiveness of the consultants and minimize costs to the Commission. Staff projections for the maintenance and repair services and related funding under the new agreement are based on the following assumptions: • $400,000 in annual maintenance and repair expenditures for all nine commuter rail stations to be funded primarily using 2009 Measure A Western County rail funds; • $1.4 million for rehabilitation and efficiency projects (pavement rehabilitation and seals, concrete, fence, gates, Americans with Disabilities Act improvements, pedestrian pathways and shelters) for which grant funds are available or are expected in the future; and • $120,000 in contingency. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19+ Amount: $1,400,000 $1,320,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, Local Transportation Funds, Proposition 1B, Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee, Federal Transit Administration Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 244001 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244002 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244003 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244004 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244010 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244020 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244021 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244022 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 004011 90701 00000 0000 265 33 90501 004011 90601 00000 0000 265 33 90101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/12/2017 Attachment: Draft On-Call Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement No. 18-24-001-00 63 APPENDIX B - 1 17336.00600\29957195.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON-CALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this [***INSERT DAY***] day of [***INSERT MONTH***], [***INSERT YEAR***] by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) and [***INSERT NAME***], a [***[INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY - CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY]***] with its principal place of business at [***INSERT ADDRESS***] (“Contractor”). Commission and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Commission is the Transportation Commission for the County of Riverside and organized under the laws of the State of California with the power to contract for services necessary to achieve its purpose. 2.2 Commission owns and operates nine (9) commuter rail stations and one transit center serving Riverside County, the addresses and descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Commuter Rail Stations”). 2.3 On or about July 13, 2017, Commission issued a Request for Proposals No. 18-24-001-00 (“RFP”), pursuant to which Commission sought proposals from contractors to provide on-call maintenance and repair services for the Commuter Rail Stations. 2.4 Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of on-call maintenance and repair services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and Contractor ("Task Order"). 2.5 The work generally includes the maintenance and repair of the Commuter Rail Stations. Contractor represents that it is a professional Contractor, experienced in providing on-call maintenance and repair services to public clients, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.6 Commission desires to engage Contractor to render on-call maintenance and repair services for the Commuter Rail Stations. On-call maintenance and repair services shall be generally as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. On-call maintenance and repair services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein. The services set forth in 64 APPENDIX B - 2 17336.00600\29957195.1 Exhibit “A” and each individual project ordered under a Task Order shall be referred to, herein, collectively, as the “Project”. 3. TERMS. 3.1 Scope of Services and Term. 3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Contractor promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work, as necessary, to fully and adequately provide the any on-call maintenance and repair services for the Commuter Rail Stations required by Commission, as shall be generally described in Exhibit “A” and as more specifically described in each Task Order, collectively referred to herein as the "Services". On-call Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Orders issued by the Commission’s Executive Director or designee. No on-call Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C". All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with this Agreement, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from [***INSERT START DATE***] to [***INSERT ENDING DATE***], unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Contractor shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services. 3.2 Responsibilities of Contractor. 3.2.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Contractor or under its supervision. Contractor will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Contractor on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. Contractor retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Contractor shall also not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Contractor’s exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance. 3.2.2 Schedule of Services. Contractor shall perform the maintenance and repair Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any schedule set forth in each Task Order (collectively, "Schedule of Services"). Contractor shall be required to commence work on a Task Order within five (5) days of receiving a fully executed Task Order. Contractor represents that it has the professional and technical personnel 65 APPENDIX B - 3 17336.00600\29957195.1 required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Contractor’s conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Contractor’s submittals in a timely manner. Upon the Commission’s request, Contractor shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 3.2.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Contractor shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.2.4 Commission’s Representative. The Commission hereby designates [***INSERT NAME OR TITLE***], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“Commission’s Representative”). Commission’s Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission’s Representative or his or her designee. 3.2.5 Contractor’s Representative. Contractor hereby designates [***INSERT NAME OR TITLE***], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“Contractor’s Representative”). Contractor’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor for all purposes under this Agreement. The Contractor’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement. 3.2.6 Coordination of Services. Contractor agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission’s staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.2.7 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Contractor shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Contractor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Contractor’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Contractor or its sub-contractors who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Contractor and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 66 APPENDIX B - 4 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.2.8 Period of Performance. Contractor shall perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in each Task Order. Contractor agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned performance time and/or pursuant to any such completion schedule or Project milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement and included in any Task Order, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the Commission will suffer damage. 3.2.9 Disputes. Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work done, of any work omitted, or of any extra work which Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to Contractor during the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall continue to perform the Work while said dispute is decided by the Commission. If Contractor disputes the Commission’s decision, Contractor shall have such remedies as may be provided by law. 3.2.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Contractor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Commission is a public entity of the State of California subject to, among other rules and regulations, the Public Utilities Code, Public Contract Code, and Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of the law applicable to the public contracts of a county transportation commissions are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with. These include but are not limited to the payment of prevailing wages, the stipulation that eight (8) hours' labor shall constitute a legal day's work and that no worker shall be permitted to work in excess of eight (8) hours during any one calendar day except as permitted by law. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.2.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Contractor. By executing this Agreement, Contractor verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of the Contractor. Contractor also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Contractor shall maintain records 67 APPENDIX B - 5 17336.00600\29957195.1 of each such verification, and shall make them available to the Commission or its representatives for inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The Commission shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses related to Contractor’s compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 3.2.10 or any of its sub-sections. 3.2.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, Sub- subcontractors and consultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as Contractor, Contractor shall require all of its subcontractors, sub-subcontractors and consultants performing any work relating to the Project or this Agreement to make the same verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for in Section 3.2.10.1. 3.2.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor verifies that they are a duly authorized officer of Contractor, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the Commission to terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Contractor or its subcontractors, sub- subcontractors or consultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections 3.2.10.1 or 3.2.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Contractor under Section 3.2.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from the Project any person found not to be in compliance with such requirements. 3.2.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor 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. 3.2.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Contractor shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.2.10.6 Air Quality. Contractor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Contractor shall specifically be aware of the CARB limits and requirements’ application to "portable equipment", which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel-powered engine. Contractor shall indemnify Commission against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Contractor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Contractor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement. 68 APPENDIX B - 6 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.2.10.7 Water Quality. (A) Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable, Contractor’s Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws, rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board; the Commission’s rules regarding discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State. (B) Liability for Non-Compliance. Failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject Contractor or Commission to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result of Contractor’s non-compliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section, unless such non-compliance is the result of the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the Commission, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers. (C) Training. In addition to any other standard of care requirements set forth in this Agreement, Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section. Contractor further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by Commission, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this Agreement. Upon request, Commission will provide Contractor with a list of training programs that meet the requirements of this paragraph. 3.2.11 Insurance. 3.2.11.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.2.11.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance 69 APPENDIX B - 7 17336.00600\29957195.1 for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $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; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Contractor has an employees, Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.2.11.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. (i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent contractors coverage. (ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement. (iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (iv) The additional insured coverage under the policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the Commission’s 70 APPENDIX B - 8 17336.00600\29957195.1 insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor or for which the Contractor is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. (i) Contractor certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. (ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Contractor. (D) All Coverages. (i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits set forth hereunder. (ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. (iii) The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or 71 APPENDIX B - 9 17336.00600\29957195.1 excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the Commission’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a “following form” basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies). (iv) Contractor shall provide the Commission at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Contractor shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Contractor shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. (v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Contractor shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Contractor, and any approval of said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. (vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor or Commission will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, Commission may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Contractor to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: 72 APPENDIX B - 10 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.2.11.4 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented, Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.2.11.5 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.2.11.6 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.2.11.7 Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall not allow any subcontractors or subcontractors to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subcontractors shall be endorsed to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Contractor, the Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subcontractors. 3.2.12 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.2.13 Accounting Records. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Contractor shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any 73 APPENDIX B - 11 17336.00600\29957195.1 other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.3 Fees and Payments; Labor Code Requirements; Bonds 3.3.1 Compensation. Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without the written approval of the Commissioner’s Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. 3.3.2 Payment of Compensation. Contractor shall submit to Commission a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Contractor. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Contractor shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Contractor perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission’s Representative. 3.3.5 Prevailing Wages. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 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 “public works” and “maintenance” projects. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $15,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Commission shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Contractor 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 Contractor’s principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 74 APPENDIX B - 12 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.3.6 Payroll Records. In accordance with the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1776, Contractor shall keep accurate payroll records which are either on forms provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or which contain the same information required by such forms. Responsibility for compliance with California Labor Code Section 1776 shall rest solely with Contractor, and Contractor shall make all such records available for inspection at all reasonable hours. 3.3.7 Registration. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Contractor and all subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subcontractor. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Contractor’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. 3.3.8 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Contractor and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Contractor or any sub-contractor for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Contractor and any sub-contractor shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Contractor. 3.3.9 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight 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 Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Contractor 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-contractor 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 Contractor or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. 75 APPENDIX B - 13 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.3.10 Bonds. 3.3.10.1 Payment Bond. [**NOTE: Payment Bond may be required for some task orders of $25,000 or more**]If requested by the Commission as part of a Task Order proposal request, Contractor shall execute and provide to the Commission concurrently with the executed Task Order a payment bond in an amount required by the Commission and in a form provided or approved by the Commission. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until the bond has been received and approved by the Commission. 3.3.10.2 Bond Provisions. Should, in the Commission’s sole opinion, any bond become insufficient or any surety be found to be unsatisfactory, Contractor shall renew or replace the affected bond within (ten) 10 days of receiving notice from Commission. In the event the surety or Contractor intends to reduce or cancel any required bond, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to the Commission, and Contractor shall post an acceptable replacement bond at least ten (10) days prior to expiration of the original bond. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under the relevant Task Order until any replacement bond required by this section are accepted by the Commission. To the extent, if any, that the total price under a Task Order requiring a bond is increased in accordance with this Agreement, the Contractor shall, upon request of the Commission, cause the amount of the bond to be increased accordingly and shall promptly deliver satisfactory evidence of such increase to the Commission. 3.3.10.3 Surety Qualifications. Only bonds executed by an admitted surety insurer, as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, shall be accepted. The surety must be a California-admitted surety and satisfactory to the Commission. If a California-admitted surety insurer issuing bonds does not meet these requirements, the insurer will be considered qualified if it is in conformance with Section 995.660 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and proof of such is provided to the Commission. 3.4 Termination of Agreement. 3.4.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Contractor, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Contractor shall be compensated only for those services which have been adequately rendered to Commission, and Contractor shall be entitled to no further compensation. Contractor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.4.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other information of any kind prepared by Contractor in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 76 APPENDIX B - 14 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.4.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.5 General Provisions. 3.5.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: ______________________ Riverside County ______________________ Transportation Commission ______________________ 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor _____________________ Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: ________________ Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.5.2 Indemnification. 3.5.2.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, contractors or agents in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project, this Agreement or any Task Order, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses. The only limitations on this provision shall be those imposed by Civil Code Section 2782. 3.5.2.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Contractor shall defend, with Counsel of Commission's choosing and at Contractor’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all claims, suits, actions or other proceedings of every kind covered by Section 3.5.2.1 that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Contractor shall also reimburse Commission for the cost of any settlement paid by Commission or its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for Commission’s attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Contractor shall reimburse Commission and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and/or 77 APPENDIX B - 15 17336.00600\29957195.1 volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Contractor’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission, its officials officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 3.5.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the Commission. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the Commission. 3.5.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.5.5 Commission’s Right to Employ Other Contractors. Commission reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this Project. 3.5.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties. 3.5.7 Assignment or Transfer. Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.5.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Contractor include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Contractor, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to Commission include its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Agreement. 78 APPENDIX B - 16 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.5.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.5.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel or otherwise. 3.5.11 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for in Section 3.5.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.5.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.5.13 Prohibited Interests. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Contractor further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the Commission’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.5.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.5.15 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party. 3.5.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.5.17 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 79 APPENDIX B - 17 17336.00600\29957195.1 3.5.18 Federal Provisions. Funding for Services under a Task Order may be provided, in whole or in part, by the Federal Transportation Administration (“FTA”) or by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Contractor shall also fully and adequately comply with the Caltrans or FTA provisions included in Exhibit “D” (State and Federal Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“State/Federal Requirements”), as applicable based on the funding source for the relevant Task Order. With respect to any conflict between such State/Federal Requirements and the terms of this Agreement and/or the provisions of state law, the more stringent requirement shall control. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 80 APPENDIX B - 18 17336.00600\29957195.1 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR ON-CALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND [***INSERT NAME***] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [INSERT NAME] [INSERT TITLE] Approved as to form: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel CONTRACTOR Signature Name Title ATTEST: Signature Name Title A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above referenced persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to RCTC. 81 APPENDIX B - 19 17336.00600\29957195.1 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES [***SCOPE FROM RFP TO BE INCLUDED***] 82 APPENDIX B - 20 17336.00600\29957195.1 EXHIBIT “B” COMPENSATION [***RATES & AUTHORIZED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES TO BE INCLUDED***] 83 APPENDIX B - 21 17336.00600\29957195.1 EXHIBIT “C” SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. _____________ Agreement No. ______________ Funding Source ___________________ Contractor: _________________________ The Contractor is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Agreement identified above: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $_____,_____.00 Completion Date: _____________, 201__ The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Contractor Dated: _________________ Dated: _________________ By: ________________________ By: ____________________ Title: ________________________ Title: ____________________ 84 APPENDIX B - 22 17336.00600\29957195.1 EXHIBIT “D” STATE & FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS [***TO BE INSERTED FROM RFP***] 85 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Overall Procurement Strategy and Agreement to Complete Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation for the I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the overall procurement strategy for the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC); 2) Approve Agreement No. 15-31-001-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 15-31-001-00, with Parsons Transportation, Inc. (Parsons) to complete preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the 15/91 ELC, for in the amount of $1,882,000, plus a contingency amount of $188,200, for a total amount not to exceed $2,070,200; 3) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-055-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for project approval and environmental document (PA/ED) work; and 4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On April 28, 2017, Governor Brown signed SB 132, which provides $427 million for a program known as the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor (RCTEC). The program comprises five needed projects in northwest Riverside County, including: new tolled express lanes connectors from the 91 Express Lanes to the northern portion of I-15; railroad grade separations at Jurupa Road and McKinley Street; an expanded freeway interchange at I-15 and Limonite Avenue; and the replacement of the Hamner Bridge over the Santa Ana River. The $427 million is a direct appropriation in the Fiscal Year 2016/17 State budget which made the funds available for these projects immediately. After the signing of SB 132, Commission staff began work planning the delivery of what is now known as the 15/91 ELC. The 15/91 ELC was considered and analyzed as part of the previously 86 Agenda Item 8 approved SR-91 Capital Improvement Project (now called the 91 Project) and will provide tolled express lanes connectors between the existing 91 Express Lanes and the future I-15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91 (Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Attachment 3 Schematic). SB 132 allocated $180 million for the 15/91 ELC for all project development costs. To incentivize timely delivery of the RCTEC program of projects, SB 132 requires all funds be spent by June 30, 2023. Further, subject to and contingent on all environmental approvals, the Commission-led 15/91 ELC intends to consider the award a construction contract by June 2020, to meet its commitment to the RCTEC program. Figure 1 I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Project Vicinity Map SB 132 also statutorily created a task force to develop recommendations to accelerate project delivery of the RCTEC projects. On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed budget trailer bill AB 115 through which the Commission received additional project delivery authority to ensure cost- effective and timely delivery of the 15/91 ELC. Specifically, additional project delivery authority included the following methods to deliver a capital project: design-build, construction manager/general contractor, amendment to any existing I-15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) or 91 Express Lanes Project contract, and other delivery methods authorized by law. 87 Agenda Item 8 Overall Procurement Strategy In order to meet the Commission commitments and legislative mandates, staff analyzed those methods authorized by AB 115 and other methods to procure the needed 15/91 ELC services including: legal advisory, financial advisory, traffic and revenue studies, preliminary engineering, environmental documentation, project and construction management, civil design, construction, toll planning/design/installation, and toll operations and maintenance. Staff recommends delivering the 15/91 ELC through a series of contract amendments to existing contracts with engineering companies, contractors, toll vendors, legal and financial advisors. The table below provides a summary of the work elements, contracts, and approximate timing for Commission approval, with the award of any construction contracts being subject to completion of required environmental review. Project Work Element Procurement Strategy Existing Contract Approximate Timing RCTC staff augmentation - Deputy Project Manager Amendment to Existing Contract WSP USA, Inc. (06-66-027-00) November 2017 Toll Planning Amendment to Existing Contract Parsons (15-31-001-00) December 2017 Legal Advisory Utilize Existing Contract Nossaman LLP (06-66-028-00) n/a Legal Services Amendment to Existing Contract Best Best & Krieger (16-19-099-00) to be determined Financial Advisory Amendment to Existing Contract Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, Inc. (04-19-029-00) to be determined Traffic and Revenue Studies Amendments to Existing 91 Project and/or I-15 ELP Contracts Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (10-31-099-00 and/or 15-31-048-00) January 2018 *Preliminary Engineering and Environ. Documentation *Amendment to Existing Contract *Parsons (15-31-001-00) *October 2017 Project and Construction Management Amendment to Existing Contract Parsons (15-31-001-00) December 2017 Final Civil Design and Construction Amendment to Existing Contract Skanska-Ames, Joint Venture (SAJV) (16-31-057-00) to be determined Toll System Design and Installation Amendments to Existing I-15 ELP and/or 91 Project Contracts Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation NA, Inc. (Kapsch) (16-31-043-00) and/or Cofiroute USA, to be determined 88 Agenda Item 8 LLC (Cofiroute) (13-31-105-00) Toll Operations and Maintenance Amendments to Existing I-15 ELP and/or 91 Project Contracts Kapsch (16-31-043-00) and/or Cofiroute (13-31-105-00) to be determined * = Commission approval of an amendment to this contract is proposed as part of this agenda report Significant factors influencing staff’s recommendation to amend existing contracts include: • Time savings due to eliminating numerous competitive procurements allowing the Commission to meet the statutory deadlines and Commission commitments pertaining to the funding; • Potential cost economies of scale achieved by combining work scope (e.g. construction) allowing the Commission to complete the 15/91 ELC within the $180 million funding limit; • Long-term relationship, work history, and familiarity with Commission’s prior financing and design-build work for the 91 Project and I-15 ELP allowing staff to build upon past project delivery successes thereby lowering the project delivery risk for the 15/91 ELC; and • Ability to minimize impacts to the travelling public, 91 Express Lanes customers, and ongoing I-15 ELP construction by utilizing the same design-build contractor to perform final civil design and construction as the I-15 ELP. Final civil design and construction represents the largest contract amendment amount anticipated. Staff and its consultants considered several procurement options for final civil design and construction. Other options included competitive procurements using progressive design-build, low-bid design-build, and more traditional design-bid-build procurements. Staff considered many factors such as procurement cost, design cost, construction cost, risk transfer to contractor, time to procure or negotiate change, schedule to open lanes, federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan impact, impact to existing I-15 ELP work, and others. At its April 2017 meeting, the Commission awarded a $243.9 million design-build contract to SAJV for the I-15 ELP final civil design and construction now underway. Staff concluded amending this existing SAJV design-build contract is the option that offers the Commission the best chance of meeting the 15/91 ELC goals of schedule, budget, and impact reduction. Further, staff believes this contract amendment to add the 15/91 ELC can be accomplished without delay of the opening of the I-15 ELP and would be a key element of future negotiations. Award of a contract amendment authorizing construction is contingent on and will not be made prior to completion of all required environmental review. 89 Agenda Item 8 In addition to amending the contract, staff would implement the following actions to ensure that a fair and reasonable cost, schedule and risk transfer is negotiated with SAJV for the 15/91 ELC work: • Perform an independent construction estimate by a suitable contractor/estimator to allow for a separate comparison of costs and to support direct negotiations with SAJV; and • Propose and adhere to a strict negotiation schedule with SAJV allowing for an alternative procurement strategy (plan B) to be timely implemented should staff feel it warranted due to the outcome of negotiations with SAJV. Staff recommends a low-bid, design-build as the alternative procurement strategy meeting the same 15/91 ELC goals should it be warranted. Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Work Phase The 15/91 ELC was originally part of the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (now called the 91 Project), which opened earlier this year. That project’s preliminary engineering and environmental document work phase started in 2007. Due to the recession and budget constraints, the 15/91 ELC and other project elements were not environmentally cleared with the 91 Project and were deferred to 2035. With the passage of SB 132, it is now possible to advance the 15/91 ELC earlier and closer to the original schedule. Consistent with the overall procurement strategy discussed previously, staff is recommending that a contract amendment to the Parsons agreement be approved to complete the preliminary engineering and environmental document work phase for the 15/91 ELC. Based on prior environmental work performed as part of the 91 Project and recent discussions with Caltrans management, staff believes an environmental revalidation of the original 91 Project environmental impact report/environmental impact statement is the appropriate level of environmental effort. Based on this key assumption, staff negotiated the scope and fee as shown in Attachment 1 with Parsons as an amendment to its existing project and construction management contract for the I-15 ELP, which was originally approved in April 2015 following a competitive procurement. Parsons worked with staff earlier this year to obtain approval of two other significant environmental revalidations associated with the I-15 ELP. Therefore, it has the needed staff, very recent experience, and project-specific knowledge making it the best option to perform this work. Staff and Parsons estimated an 18-month period to complete this preliminary engineering and environmental documentation work phase. Staff and Caltrans negotiated an agreement for the PA/ED work phase. This agreement reflects typical provisions between the Commission and Caltrans for this work phase including the respective responsibilities by both agencies for project costs, permits, quality control, schedule, standards, consultant selection, and other provisions. 90 Agenda Item 8 Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the overall procurement strategy for the 15/91 ELC, which essentially consists of a series of contract amendments to existing contracts for the 91 Project and I-15 ELP. Staff will return for Commission approval for other individual contract amendments and budget adjustments through the course of the 15/91 ELC’s development as necessary to meet project delivery goals. Additional actions which are currently needed are approval of Agreement No. 15-31-001-02 with Parsons to complete preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the 15/91 ELC, in the amount of $1,882,000, plus a contingency of $188,200, for a total amount not to exceed $2,070,200. Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment. Staff also recommends immediate approval of Agreement No. 18-31-055-00 with Caltrans for PA/ED work. Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the final agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No N/A Year: FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19+ Amount: $ 900,000 $1,170,200 Source of Funds: SB 132 Funds Budget Adjustment: Yes N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003039 81601 605 31 81601 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/13/2017 Attachments: 1) Draft Agreement No. 15-31-001-02 2) Draft Cooperative Agreement No. 18-31-055-00 3) 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Schematic 91 17336.02101\29119713.2 Agreement No. 15-31-001-02 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE I-15 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for project and construction management services is made and entered into as of this _____ day of ___________, 2017, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant entered into an agreement, dated April 8, 2015, for the purpose of providing project and construction management services for the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (the "Master Agreement") for a maximum not to exceed (“NTE”) amount of $50,625,807. 2.2 Senate Bill 132 was enacted on April 28, 2017 and provides $427 million for the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor. The program comprises five needed projects in northwest Riverside County, including new tolled express lanes connectors from the 91 Express Lanes to the northern portion of the I-15 (15/91 ELC). SB132 requires that all construction be completed and funds spent by July 2023. 2.3 Further AB 115 was enacted on June 27, 2017 and provides additional project delivery authority to ensure cost-effective and timely delivery of the 15/91 ELC. Additional project delivery includes the following methods design-build, construction manager/general contractor, amendment to any existing I-15 Express Lanes Project or 91 Express Lanes Project contract, and other delivery methods authorized by law. 2.4 The Commission and the Consultant now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide additional engineering and environmental services to complete the Caltrans supplemental Project Report and Environmental Document revalidation for the 15/91 ELC. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, shall be amended to include engineering and environmental services required to complete the Caltrans supplemental Project Report and Environmental DRAFTATTACHMENT 1 92 17336.02101\29119713.2 2 Document revalidation for the 15/91 ELC, as set forth in detail in Exhibit “A” attached to this Amendment No. 2 and incorporated herein by reference. 3.2 The maximum compensation to be provided under this Amendment No. 2 for the Services set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall not exceed One Million Eight Hundred Eighty-Two Thousand Dollars ($1,882,000), as further detailed in Exhibit “B” attached to this Amendment No. 2 and incorporated herein by reference, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Executive Director. 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2, all provisions of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 2. [Signatures on following page] DRAFT93 17336.02101\29119713.2 3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 15-31-001-02 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GROUP, INC. By:_____________________________ __________________________ Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature __________________________ Name __________________________ Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _____________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel DRAFT94 “EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES [Attached behind this page] DRAFT95 15/91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR Supplemental Project Report and Environmental Revalidation SCOPE OF WORK This scope of work (SOW) includes Engineering & Environmental services to complete a Caltrans supplemental Project Report and Environmental Document revalidation for the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC). The 15/91 ELC will provide a direct express lanes connection between SB 15 & WB SR-91 and EB SR-91 & NB 15. Express Lane Connectors were included in the ultimate configuration of the preferred alternative in the approved Project Report (Signed 8/10/12) for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 CIP). The Initial phase of construction of the 91 CIP is nearing project closeout as of the date of this SOW. The design of the Express Lane Connectors as shown in the approved Project Report was revised during the Design Build process for the 91 CIP and a Geometric Approval Drawing was approved by Caltrans District 8 on 2/27/14 for the revised design. Additionally, this project will include the extension of the express lanes to the east; eastbound lanes to just west of Promenade Avenue and the westbound lanes will begin just east of the 15/91 separation structure. Key assumptions that this scope is based on:  Notice to proceed in October 2017   Completion by April 2019   The work will be based upon a single build alternative that is depicted in the drawing titled “Express Lane Connector 91 Option 4” dated August 2017   Caltrans will accept the design exception approvals completed to date on this project   The WB SR-91 Temescal Wash /BNSF OH structure will be a widening   Toll and Revenue studies will be prepared by others   Toll concept of operations will be developed by others   There will be no update to FHWA modified access report   Additional assumptions defined throughout this document      A. Project Management - TASK 100     A.1 Coordination and Meetings Consultant shall direct & coordinate the work of its staff and subconsultants throughout the course of the Project. Consultant shall serve as the primary contact for the consultant team in communication with RCTC, Caltrans, railroad authorities, and other agencies. Consultant shall coordinate and attend (18) monthly PDT meetings and up to 15 additional focus meetings. Agendas, meeting minutes, & an action item list shall be prepared by the Consultant and distributed to the PDT at each meeting. Consultant shall conduct weekly teleconference with RCTC staff to provide status updates and shall act DRAFT96 as an extension of staff as part of the project management duties and timely delivery of construction documents. Consultant will manage, prepare for, and attend an informational public outreach meeting.   A.2 Project Control & Administration Consultant shall provide a detailed project schedule, indicating milestones, major activities and deliverables. Consultant shall update and submit the schedule on a monthly basis, to coincide with the PDT meetings or as required. Consultant will perform project administration services consisting of: monthly invoicing (with associated back up), monitoring progress against budget, and preparing progress reports. A.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Consultant shall have a quality control plan in effect during the entire course of the project. Consultant shall develop a plan establishing a process to ensure design calculations are independently checked. Reports, exhibits, and plans shall also be checked, corrected and back-checked for accuracy and completeness. Consultant shall review environmental and engineering sub- consultant report submittals to ensure that appropriate background information, study methodology, interpretation of data, format and content are completed in accordance with current standards. A.4 BNSF Coordination Consultant will coordinate proposed design with BNSF to obtain conceptual approval and update the railroad information sheet. Deliverables: Project Management Plan, Project Meetings, Project Schedule, BNSF Conceptual Approval. A.5 Project Management Plan Consultant will develop a Project Management plan which includes a list of deliverables, milestones submittal schedule, summary of organization responsibilities and contacts, specific scope of work, task budgets, reporting and invoicing procedures, QA/QC plan, and project filing system. Deliverables: Project Management Plan, Project Meetings, Project Schedule, BNSF Conceptual Approval. B. Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Report - TASK 200 DRAFT97 Consultant will utilize information in the following reports prepared for 91 CIP and I-15 ELP.  91 CIP Traffic Study Report, January 2010  I-15 ELP Traffic Operations Analysis Report, May 2014  I-15 ELP Managed Lanes Engineering Study Report, October 2014  The 91 CIP report analyzed the following years: Existing 2007, Opening 2015, & Horizon 2035. The I-15 ELP Reports analyzed: Existing 2013, Opening 2020, & Horizon 2040. The 15/91 ELC was included in the Horizon year analysis in all reports. The opening year for I-15 ELC is assumed to be 2022. Consultant will utilize the I-15 ELP and 91 CIP studies to obtain 2022 volumes for the study area. The study area is assumed to be from the I-15/6th Street Interchange to the SR-91/SR- 241 freeway-to-freeway interchange. The limits are one interchange beyond the ingress/egress points impacted by the addition of the I-15 ELC. B.1 Existing Traffic Counts Consultant will conduct existing morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour counts for up to 34 locations as determined by the Project team. B.2 Traffic Forecasting Methodology Memo Consultant will prepare a Traffic Forecasting Methodology Memo documenting the key input assumptions and methodology to be used to produce existing and future traffic volumes and discuss with RCTC and Caltrans staff for concurrence. The memo will identify the basic geometry of the Build Alternative and the changes to the existing condition that will constitute the No-Build Alternative. After concurrent review by the RCTC & Caltrans staff, a Final Technical Memo will be prepared. The memo will be submitted to the RCTC and Caltrans for approval prior to undertaking the forecasting work. Deliverables: Draft & Final Traffic Forecasting Methodology Memo B.3 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology Memo Consultant shall develop a Traffic Operations Analysis Method Memo summarizing the procedures and assumptions to be used in the traffic operations analysis. The memo will be submitted to RCTC and Caltrans for concurrence prior to undertaking traffic operations analysis work. After concurrent review by the RCTC & Caltrans staff, a Final Traffic Operations Analysis Method Memo will be prepared. The memo will be submitted to the RCTC and Caltrans for approval prior to undertaking the traffic operations analysis. DRAFT98 Deliverables: Draft & Final Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology Memo B.4 Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Report Consultant will prepare a supplemental TOA Report containing traffic operations analysis for the opening year (2022) for the no-build and build alternative. The supplemental TOA will include procedures and assumptions used in the traffic operations analysis. Available data, reports, and relevant studies will be reviewed in preparation of the supplemental TIA Report. Existing and future deficiencies in the arterial system will be identified. In addition, Project related impacts and mitigation measures shall be identified. The study will meet the requirements for the level of NEPA and CEQA documentation required for the project. The results of the 15/91 ELC Revenue Study will be incorporated into the Report. The supplemental TOA Report will be submitted to RCTC and Caltrans for review and approval. The following analysis of the Build & No Build scenarios for the opening year 2022 AM & PM peak hours:  Mainline Segment Analysis  Weaving Segment Analysis  Ramp Merge/Diverge Analysis  Tolled Express Lane (TEL) Segment Analysis  Arterial Analysis Deliverables: Draft & Final Supplemental Traffic Operations Analysis Report B.5 Traffic Safety Analysis Report Consultant will prepare a Traffic Safety Analysis Report in accordance with Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive (TOPD) 11-02 for this project. This analysis will meet the Caltrans requirement and objective to identify, evaluate and thereby mitigate any adverse impacts of the proposed changes to the express lanes. The purpose of the traffic safety analysis is to ensure that safety needs and impacts are adequately considered during the scoping stage of express lanes projects. The following are the elements of this report:  Introduction – Project introduction, primarily taken from the Project Report  Purpose – brief outline of the purpose for this report  Traffic Safety Analysis o Study Area Description DRAFT99 o Approach – outline of the study approach o Existing Condition Characteristics o Future facility Characteristics o Traffic Volume reporting o Traffic Operational and access opening analysis o Weaving analysis o Ingress/Egress Microsimulation – perform microsimulations to determine hotspot locations for ingress/egress to the express lanes for the current condition and post project condition opening day and design horizon year. The microsimulation effort will be based upon the simulations prepared by Stantec. o Overhead safety lighting analysis o Traffic Headlight glare evaluation o Accident Analysis o Recommendations and Conclusion Deliverables: Draft & Final Supplemental Traffic Safety Analysis Report C. Supplemental Project Report - Task 300 C.1 Preliminary Engineering Consultant will provide preliminary engineering services to clearly define the project limits, scope of traffic studies, and scope of environmental revalidation and gain consensus from all project stakeholders. This scope includes: preparing exhibits, focused design analysis, focused traffic analysis, stakeholder meetings, and cost estimates. a. Updated Geometric Approval Drawing (i) Updated Design Exception Fact sheets b. Managed Lane ingress/egress design refinements c. Preliminary toll system design coordination C.2 Supplemental Project Report Consultant will only update the following Project Report sections that have changed or require discussion due to the 15/91 ELC: C.2.1 Introduction C.2.2 Recommendation C.2.3 Background A. Project History DRAFT100 C.2.4 Purpose & Need A. Problems Deficiencies, Justification B. Traffic C. Accident data and analysis C.2.5 Alternatives A. Viable Alternatives B. Rejected Alternative C.2.6 Considerations Requiring Discussion A. Hazardous Waste B. Right of Way Issues C. Environmental Issues D. Air Quality Conformity E. Title VI Considerations C.2.7 Other Considerations as Appropriate A. Permits B. Cooperative Agreements C. Other Agreements D. TMP E. Stage Construction F. Toll Operations C.2.8 Programming C.2.9 Reviews C.2.10 Project Personnel C.3 Supplemental Project Report Attachments Consultant will only update the following Project Report attachments that have changed or require discussion due to the 15/91 ELC: C.3.1 Project Location Map C.3.2 Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) C.3.3 Non-Standard Design Features for the Preferred Alternative C.3.4 Utility Relocation for the Preferred Alternative C.3.5 Right of Way Data Sheets for the Preferred Alternative C.3.6 Cost Estimates for the Preferred Alternative C.3.7 Details of Initial Phase and Ultimate Project for the Preferred Alternative DRAFT101 C.3.8 Initial Site Assessment C.3.9 Title VI Policy Statement C.3.10 TMP Data Sheets C.3.11 Ramp & Connector Closures C.3.12 SR-91 CIP Express Lanes: Toll System Description Report C.3.13 Project Development Category Letter C.3.14 EIR & EIS C.3.15 Modified Access Report-Acceptability C.3.16 Railroad Conceptual Approval C.3.17 Existing Year 2007 Traffic Volumes C.3.18 Year 2015 Traffic Volumes C.3.19 Horizon Year 2035 Traffic Volumes C.3.20 Structure Advanced Planning Studies for the Preferred Alternative Structures included:  15/91 Express Lanes Connector  WB 91 Temescal Wash/BNSF OH Widen  EB 91 Express Lanes ramp to connector  15/91 Separation Tie-back walls C.3.21 Geometric Plans for the Preferred Alternative Deliverables: Draft & Final Supplemental Project Report D. Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report – TASK 600 Consultant will prepare a Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report in support of the Advanced Planning Studies. Deliverables: Draft & Final Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report/SFR E. Environmental Services – TASK 800  DRAFT102 Consultant shall provide environmental services to satisfy environmental documentation requirements under CEQA and NEPA for the 15/91 ELC project. The environmental document is defined as a CEQA/NEPA revalidation. The type of environmental document will be determined by the Commission before the start of environmental activities. In support of the environmental document for the project, the Consultant shall prepare technical memor anda and/or standalone technical studies to update previous environmental findings and/or analyze potential impacts of the express lane connectors to various environmental resources. Based on our review of the preliminary layout of the 15/91 ELC Project, there are no effects or impacts to the following environmental resources: land use, farmlands, Section 4(f)/6(f), cultural/historical and energy. A technical study or technical memoranda will not be prepared for these resources. E.1 Environmental Updates and Technical Memoranda It is anticipated that some minor change in environmental effects or environmental setting are anticipated since the approval of the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS, (2012) for the following environmental resources and would be documented either in the environmental document or technical memoranda: growth, right of way, aerially deposit lead updated tolerance evaluation, utilities/emergency services, visual/aesthetics, hydrology, geology, paleontology, hazardous waste/materials, and cumulative impacts. It is assumed that most of the previously prepared analyses and reports for these environmental resources could be used to document potential impacts associated with the 15/91 ELC project (no additional surveys or research of empirical data would not be conducted). Impact findings are anticipated to be similar to the previous findings in the Final EIR/EIS and would require minimal effort. A short discussion in the environmental document or a technical memo will be prepared addressing minimal changes to the project and justification on the validity of the previous environmental analyses and findings stated in the Final EIR/EIS. Consultant shall provide a discussion in the environmental document or prepare technical memoranda for the following environmental resources:    Growth  Community Impacts  Utilities/Emergency Service  Visual/Aesthetics  Hydrology/Floodplain  Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff  Geology  Hazardous Waste/ Materials DRAFT103  Noise and Vibration  Cumulative Impacts  Deliverables: Discussion in the Revalidation document for the above mentioned environmental resources. Due to changes in environmental setting and/or potential impacts associated with the additional project feature to Phase 1 of the SR-91 CIP, there are potential changes to environmental effects resulting from the 15/91 ELC Project. Environmental resources that require additional analyses and/or supplemental documentation include the following resources: biology and air quality. The following standalone environmental technical studies will be prepared for the project:     E.2 Supplemental Natural Environment Study   Consultant shall prepare a Supplemental Natural Environmental Study (SNES) to include an updated IPAC and CNDBB species list. The SNES will include an update to vegetation impacts, habitat impacts and jurisdictional resources resulting from the 15/91 ELC project. Up to three reviews are anticipated. Deliverables: Supplemental Natural Environmental Study E.3 Air Quality Consultant shall prepare a Supplemental Air Quality Study to update emissions analysis resulting from the 15/91 ELC project. This report will provide an emissions estimate to the additional project feature at opening year conditions. It is assumed that horizon year 2035 conditions analysis will not be required. Up to three reviews are anticipated. Deliverables: Supplemental Air Quality Technical Study E.4 Environmental Documentation Depending on the results of the technical studies, it is anticipated that the environmental documentation would be Revalidation, if the results of the technical studies indicate that there are no significant or substantial impacts beyond those identified in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS, dated August 2012. If additional substantial impacts are identified, a Supplemental EIS would be required, which would require an amendment to this scope. The following environmental documentation activities will be completed for this scope:   E.5 Revalidation DRAFT104 Consultant shall prepare a CEQA/NEPA Revalidation/Re-evaluation Form summarizing the results of the supplemental technical studies. For environmental resources resulting in no change since the previous environmental approval and/or minor change in environmental setting and/or effects, a short discussion justifying the validity of the Final EIR/EIS will be prepared in the Revalidation Form. Up to three reviews are anticipated for the approval of the Revalidation Form. Deliverables: CEQA/NEPA Revalidation E.6 Record of Decision (ROD) Consultant shall prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) discussing potential effects of the ELC project. Since the revalidation will not be circulated for public review, response to comments will not be included in the ROD. The following activities will be conducted by the Consultant for this effort:  Prepare ROD summarizing the results of the supplemental environmental studies  Draft Statute of Limitations on Claims and submit to Caltrans for review and approval.   Deliverables: Record of Decision; Statute of Limitation on Claims DRAFT105 “EXHIBIT “B” COMPENSATION DRAFT106 Parsons Date Rev Sht of 9/6/2017 3 1 4 Item Cat Code Rate Hours 1 PM Project Manager $85.00 571 2 RDL Roadway Design Lead $70.00 1,063 3 SPE Senior Project Engineer $65.00 1,248 4 EII Engineer II $50.00 1,340 5 EI Engineer I $45.00 550 6 AE Associate Engineer $40.00 300 7 RCAD $30.00 100 8 STM $85.00 420 9 STL $75.00 600 10 STD $50.00 240 11 STC $45.00 600 12 TRM $75.00 500 13 TRL $55.00 880 14 TRE $45.00 840 15 TMD $40.00 500 Subtotals 9,752 OH 125.72% Fee 10.00% Errata Comments $1,500,000 $69,175 Hours / Document #DIV/0! subtotal (Vendor Cost) TOTAL COST ODC Rate $0.52 Doc Count 0 Other Direct Cost (ODC) Composite Rate $58.88 subtotal (Labor Cost) $0 $5,095 Communications and Shipping CAD Equipment/Computers/Software Project Office / Supplies $2,700 $0 $0 $775Reproduction Other ( see Form C ) subtotal (ODC Cost) $1,425,730 $1,620Travel and Living Structures CADD $27,000 $721,903 $129,612 Traffic Engineer $37,800 Traffic Modeler $20,000 Traffic Manager $37,500 Traffic Lead $48,400 $574,215 $24,750 $67,000 Structures Lead $45,000 Structures Designer $12,000 $12,000 Roadway CADD $3,000 Structures Manager $35,700 Engineering Estimate Summary Form Parsons Company J. Lemons Estimated By Discipline $74,410 $81,120 Hours and Labor Charges $48,535 Personnel Category Civil15/91 Express Lanes Connector Engineering Support Task Description Salary Labor File: ExB1 ...Form ADRAFT107 Parsons Date Rev Sht of 9/12/2017 2 1 4 Item Cat Code Rate Hours 1 PM Project Manager $75.00 93 2 EL Environmental Lead $65.00 360 3 PRP Project Planner $70.00 170 4 PP Principal Planner $50.00 260 5 SP Senior Planner $45.00 344 6 EP Environmental Planner $40.00 853 7 AP $32.00 845 8 EI $20.00 70 9 PS $55.00 94 10 PTS $75.00 25 11 STS $45.00 25 12 TS $30.00 70 13 ST $35.00 35 14 TE $50.00 100 15 PE $72.00 0 Subtotals 3,344 OH 125.72% Fee 10.00% Errata Comments Discipline $23,400 $11,900 Hours and Labor Charges $6,975 Personnel Category EnvironmentalEnvironmental Documentation Task Description Salary Labor Consulting Estimate Summary Form Parsons Company James Santos Estimated By $15,480 $13,000 Principal Scientist $5,170 Principal Technical Specialist $1,875 $34,120 Associate Planner $27,040 Environmental Intern $1,400 Senior Technical Specialist $1,125 $188,341 $33,815 Technical Editor $5,000 Project Engineer $0 Technical Specialist $2,100 Senior Technician $1,225 $149,810 subtotal (Labor Cost) $1,749 $10,034 Communications and Shipping CAD Equipment/Computers/Software Project Office / Supplies $4,950 $0 $0 $2,800Reproduction Other ( see Form C ) subtotal (ODC Cost) $371,966 $535Travel and Living ODC Rate $3.00 Doc Count 4 Other Direct Cost (ODC) Composite Rate $44.80 $382,000 $0 Hours / Document 836 subtotal (Vendor Cost) TOTAL COST File: 15-91_ELC-Price_Environmental_170912-r2 ...Form ADRAFT108 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 EA 0F543 08-RIV-91-6.1/7.6 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017)1 of 19 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, effective on _______________________________, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and: Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public corporation/entity, referred to hereinafter as RCTC. RECITALS 1. PARTIES are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements to the State Highway System per the California Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and 130. 2. For the purpose of this AGREEMENT, 91 toll connector to Interstate 15 will be referred to hereinafter as PROJECT. The PROJECT scope of work is defined in the project initiation and approval documents (e.g. Project Study Report, Permit Engineering Evaluation Report, or Project Report). 3.All obligations and responsibilities assigned in this AGREEMENT to complete the following PROJECT COMPONENT will be referred to hereinafter as WORK: •PROJECT APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA&ED) Each PROJECT COMPONENT is defined in the CALTRANS Workplan Standards Guide as a distinct group of activities/products in the project planning and development process. ATTACHMENT 2 109 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 2 of 19 4. CALTRANS and RCTC entered into Master Agreement 08-1659 to document CALTRANS contribution of State Highway Account (SHA) funds up to $427,172,000 to RCTC pursuant to the Senate Bill 132 and SB 107, towards three (3) “On-System Projects” and two (2) “Off- System Projects”. The PROJECT is one of the On-System Projects. 5. The PARTIES will define the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be constructed. 6. The term AGREEMENT is made an express part of, and subject to, Master Agreement 08- 1659. This AGREEMENT is separate from and does not modify or replace any other cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding between the PARTIES regarding the PROJECT. If any provisions in this AGREEMENT are found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, or are in fact, illegal, inoperative, or unenforceable, those provisions do not render any or all other AGREEMENT provisions invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable, and those provisions will be automatically severed from this AGREEMENT. Except as otherwise provided in the AGREEMENT, PARTIES will execute a written amendment if there are any changes to the terms of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES agree that this AGREEMENT will terminate on July 1, 2023. However, all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, final accounting and close out, legal challenge, maintenance and ownership articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement or expire by the statute of limitations. 7. No PROJECT deliverables have been completed prior to this AGREEMENT. 8. In this AGREEMENT capitalized words represent defined terms, initialisms, or acronyms. 9. PARTIES hereby set forth the terms, covenants, and conditions of this AGREEMENT. 110 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 3 of 19 RESPONSIBILITIES Sponsorship 10. A SPONSOR is responsible for establishing the scope of the PROJECT and securing the financial resources to fund the WORK. A SPONSOR is responsible for securing additional funds when necessary or implementing PROJECT changes to ensure the WORK can be completed with the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. PROJECT changes, as described in the CALTRANS Project Development Procedures Manual, will be approved by CALTRANS as the owner/operator of the State Highway System. 11. RCTC is the SPONSOR for the WORK in this AGREEMENT. Implementing Agency 12. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is the PARTY responsible for managing the scope, cost, schedule, and quality of the work activities and products of a PROJECT COMPONENT. • RCTC is the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY. PA&ED includes the completion of the Final Environmental Document and the Project Report (documenting the project alternative selection). 13. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will provide a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the WORK in that component. The Quality Management Plan describes the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY’s quality policy and how it will be used. The Quality Management Plan will include a process for resolving disputes between the PARTIES at the team level. The Quality Management Plan is subject to CALTRANS review and approval. 14. Any PARTY responsible for completing WORK will make its personnel and consultants that prepare WORK available to help resolve WORK-related problems and changes for the entire duration of the PROJECT including PROJECT work that may occur under separate agreements. 111 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 4 of 19 Funding 15. Per the Master Agreement 08-1659, CALTRANS shall pay SHA funds allocated under SB 132 up to $180,000,000 (SB132 FUNDS) to RCTC towards PROJECT, under the Master Agreement 08-1659. All funding commitment, invoicing and payment of SB 132 FUNDS shall occur under the Master Agreement 08-1659. Any other funding commitments involving “NON SB 132 FUNDS” may be documented herein under a “NON SB 132 FUNDING and SPENDING TABLE”, if necessary. 16. WORK costs are to be primarily paid from the funds obligated in the Master Agreement 08- 1659. Costs that are specifically excluded from the funds obligated in the Master Agreement 08-1659 are to be paid by the PARTY incurring the costs from funds that are independent of this AGREEMENT and the Master Agreement 08-1659. CALTRANS’ Quality Management 17. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System, will perform quality management work including independent quality assurance (IQA), environmental document quality control, and owner/operator approvals for the portions of WORK within the existing and proposed State Highway System right-of-way. 18. CALTRANS’ independent quality assurance (IQA) efforts are to ensure that RCTC's quality assurance results in WORK that is in accordance with the applicable standards and the PROJECT’s quality management plan (QMP). An IQA does not include any efforts necessary to develop or deliver WORK or any validation by verifying or rechecking WORK. When CALTRANS performs IQA it does so for its own benefit. No one can assign liability to CALTRANS due to its IQA. 19. CALTRANS, as the owner/operator of the State Highway System, will approve WORK products in accordance with CALTRANS policies and guidance and as indicated in this AGREEMENT. 20. Per National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assignment and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes, CALTRANS will perform environmental document quality control and NEPA assignment review procedures for environmental documentation. CALTRANS quality control and quality assurance procedures for all environmental documents are described in the Jay Norvell Memos dated October 1, 2012 (available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/memos.htm#LinkTarget_705). This also includes the independent judgment analysis and determination under CEQA that the environmental documentation meets CEQA requirements. 112 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 5 of 19 21. RCTC will provide WORK-related products and supporting documentation upon CALTRANS’ request for the purpose of CALTRANS’ quality management work. CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency 22. CALTRANS is the CEQA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. 23. CALTRANS is the NEPA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. Environmental Permits, Approvals and Agreements 24. PARTIES will comply with the commitments and conditions set forth in the environmental documentation, environmental permits, approvals, and applicable agreements as those commitments and conditions apply to each PARTIES responsibilities in this AGREEMENT. 25. Unless otherwise assigned in this AGREEMENT, the IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT is responsible for all PROJECT COMPONENT WORK associated with coordinating, obtaining, implementing, renewing, and amending the PROJECT permits, agreements, and approvals whether they are identified in the planned project scope of work or become necessary in the course of completing the PROJECT. 26. It is expected that the PROJECT requires the following environmental permits/approvals: ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS/REQUIREMENTS 404, US Army Corps Of Engineers 401, Regional Water Quality Control Board 1602 California Department of Fish and Wildlife National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), State Water Resources Control Board State Waste Discharge Requirements (Porter Cologne), Regional Water Quality Control Board Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) 27. As the PA&ED IMPLEMENTING AGENCY, RCTC is responsible for all PA&ED WORK except those activities and responsibilities that are assigned to another PARTY and those activities that are excluded under this AGREEMENT. 113 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 6 of 19 28. CALTRANS will be responsible for completing the following PA&ED activities: CALTRANS Work Breakdown Structure Identifier (If Applicable) AGREEMENT Funded Cost 100.10.10.xx Quality Management No 165.15.15.xx Essential Fish Habitat Consultation No 165.15.15.xx Section 7 Consultation No 165.25.25 Approval to Circulate Resolution No 175.20 Project Preferred Alternative No 180.10.05.05.xx CEQA Lead Final Env. Doc QA/QC and Approval No 180.10.05.45 Section 7 Consultation No 180.15.05 Record of Decision (NEPA) No 180.15.10 Notice of Determination (CEQA) No 29. Any PARTY preparing environmental documentation, including studies and reports, will ensure that qualified personnel remain available to help resolve environmental issues and perform any necessary work to ensure that the PROJECT remains in environmental compliance. 30. RCTC will provide written notice of the initiation of environmental studies to the CEQA and NEPA Lead Agencies NEPA Lead Agency prior to completing any other PA&ED phase work. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 31. Environmental documentation will be prepared in compliance with the California Public Resources Code §§ 21080.3.1(d)(e). CALTRANS will provide, and RCTC will use, a letter template and a list of California Native American tribes requesting notification. RCTC will prepare consultation documentation for CALTRANS’ signature and transmittal in compliance with the statutorily required time frames. 32. The CEQA Lead Agency will determine the type of CEQA documentation and will cause that documentation to be prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements. 33. Any PARTY involved in the preparation of CEQA documentation will prepare the documentation to meet CEQA requirements and follow the CEQA Lead Agency’s standards that apply to the CEQA process. 114 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 7 of 19 34. Any PARTY preparing any portion of the CEQA documentation, including any studies and reports, will submit that portion of the documentation to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at appropriate stages of development prior to public availability. 35. RCTC will submit CEQA-related public notices to CALTRANS for review, comment, and approval prior to publication and circulation. 36. RCTC will submit all CEQA-related public meeting materials to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to the public meeting date. If the CEQA Lead Agency makes any changes to the materials, then the CEQA Lead Agency will allow RCTC to review, comment, and concur on those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. 37. The CEQA Lead Agency will attend all CEQA-related public meetings. 38. If a PARTY who is not the CEQA Lead Agency holds a public meeting about the PROJECT, that PARTY must clearly state its role in the PROJECT and the identity of the CEQA Lead Agency on all meeting publications. All meeting publications must also inform the attendees that public comments collected at the meetings are not part of the CEQA public review process. That PARTY will submit all meeting advertisements, agendas, exhibits, handouts, and materials to the CEQA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to publication or use. If that PARTY makes any changes to the materials, it will allow the CEQA Lead Agency to review, comment on, and approve those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. The CEQA Lead Agency maintains final editorial control with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over CEQA-related roles and responsibilities. 115 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 8 of 19 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 39. Pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C. 326) and 23 U.S.C. 327, CALTRANS is the NEPA Lead Agency for the PROJECT. CALTRANS is responsible for NEPA compliance, will determine the type of NEPA documentation, and will cause that documentation to be prepared in accordance with NEPA requirements. CALTRANS, as the NEPA Lead Agency for PROJECT, will review, comment, and approve all environmental documentation (including, but not limited to, studies, reports, public notices, and public meeting materials, determinations, administrative drafts, and final environmental documents) at appropriate stages of development prior to approval and public availability. When required as NEPA Lead Agency, CALTRANS will conduct consultation and coordination and obtain, renew, or amend approvals pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, and Essential Fish Habitat. When required as NEPA Lead Agency, CALTRANS will conduct consultation and coordination approvals pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 40. Any PARTY involved in the preparation of NEPA documentation will follow FHWA and CALTRANS standards that apply to the NEPA process including, but not limited to, the guidance provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook (available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm) and the CALTRANS Standard Environmental Reference. 41. Any PARTY preparing any portion of the NEPA documentation (including, but not limited to, studies, reports, public notices, and public meeting materials, determinations, administrative drafts, and final environmental documents) will submit that portion of the documentation to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval prior to public availability. 42. RCTC will prepare, publicize, and circulate all NEPA-related public notices, except Federal Register notices. RCTC will submit all notices to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval prior to publication and circulation. CALTRANS will work with the appropriate federal agency to publish notices in the Federal Register. 43. The NEPA Lead Agency will attend all NEPA-related public meetings. 44. RCTC will submit all NEPA-related public meeting materials to CALTRANS for CALTRANS’ review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to the public meeting date. 116 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 9 of 19 45. If a PARTY who is not the NEPA Lead Agency holds a public meeting about the PROJECT, that PARTY must clearly state its role in the PROJECT and the identity of the NEPA Lead Agency on all meeting publications. All meeting publications must also inform the attendees that public comments collected at the meetings are not part of the NEPA public review process. That PARTY will submit all meeting advertisements, agendas, exhibits, handouts, and materials to the NEPA Lead Agency for review, comment, and approval at least ten (10) working days prior to publication or use. If that PARTY makes any changes to the materials, it will allow the NEPA Lead Agency to review, comment on, and approve those changes at least three (3) working days prior to the public meeting date. The NEPA Lead Agency has final approval authority with respect to text or graphics that could lead to public confusion over NEPA-related roles and responsibilities. 46. RCTC will ensure that the PROJECT is included in the approved Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) prior to the NEPA Lead Agency’s approval of the environmental document. Schedule 47. PARTIES will manage the WORK schedule to ensure the timely use of obligated funds and to ensure compliance with any environmental permits, right-of-way agreements, construction contracts, and any other commitments. PARTIES will communicate schedule risks or changes as soon as they are identified and will actively manage and mitigate schedule risks. 48. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for each PROJECT COMPONENT will furnish PARTIES with written quarterly progress reports during the completion of the WORK. 117 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 10 of 19 Additional Provisions Standards 49. PARTIES will perform all WORK in accordance with federal and California laws, regulations, and standards; FHWA standards; and CALTRANS standards. CALTRANS standards include, but are not limited to, the guidance provided in the: • CALTRANS policies and directives • Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) • Workplan Standards Guide • Standard Environmental Reference • Highway Design Manual Noncompliant Work 50. CALTRANS retains the right to reject noncompliant WORK. RCTC agrees to suspend WORK upon request by CALTRANS for the purpose of protecting public safety, preserving property rights, and ensuring that all WORK is in the best interest of the State Highway System. Qualifications 51. Each PARTY will ensure that personnel participating in WORK are appropriately qualified or licensed to perform the tasks assigned to them. Consultant Selection 52. RCTC will invite CALTRANS to participate in the selection of any consultants that participate in the WORK. Encroachment Permits 53. CALTRANS will issue, upon proper application, the encroachment permits required for WORK within State Highway System right-of-way. Contractors and/or agents, and utility owners will not work within the State Highway System right-of-way without an encroachment permit issued in their name. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to PARTIES, their contractors, consultants and agents at no cost. If the encroachment permit and this AGREEMENT conflict, the requirements of this AGREEMENT will prevail. 118 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 11 of 19 54. The IMPLEMENTING AGENCY for a PROJECT COMPONENT will coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend any encroachment permits needed to complete the WORK. Protected Resources 55. If any PARTY discovers unanticipated cultural, archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources during WORK, all WORK in that area will stop and that PARTY will notify all PARTIES within 24 hours of discovery. WORK may only resume after a qualified professional has evaluated the nature and significance of the discovery and CALTRANS approves a plan for its removal or protection. Disclosures 56. PARTIES will hold all administrative drafts and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created, or utilized for the WORK in confidence to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e) will protect the confidentiality of such documents in the event that said documents are shared between PARTIES. PARTIES will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the WORK without the written consent of the PARTY authorized to release them, unless required or authorized to do so by law. 57. If a PARTY receives a public records request pertaining to the WORK, that PARTY will notify PARTIES within five (5) working days of receipt and make PARTIES aware of any disclosed public documents. PARTIES will consult with each other prior to the release of any public documents related to the WORK. Hazardous Materials 58. HM-1 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, irrespective of whether it is disturbed by the PROJECT or not. HM-2 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to, hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by the PROJECT. The management activities related to HM-1 and HM-2, including and without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations are referred to herein as HM-1 MANAGEMENT and HM-2 MANAGEMENT respectively. 119 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 12 of 19 59. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found the discovering PARTY will immediately notify all other PARTIES. 60. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of-way. CALTRANS will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule. CALTRANS will pay, or cause to be paid, the cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT for HM-1 found within the existing State Highway System right-of-way with funds that are independent of the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT. 61. If HM-1 is found within the PROJECT limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way, responsibility for such HM-1 rests with the owner(s) of the parcel(s) on which the HM-1 is found. RCTC, in concert with the local agency having land use jurisdiction, will ensure that HM-1 MANAGEMENT is undertaken with minimum impact to Project schedule. The cost of HM-1 MANAGEMENT for HM-1 found within the PROJECT limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way will be paid from funds that are independent of the funds obligated in this AGREEMENT and will be the responsibility of the owner(s) of the parcel(s) where the HM-1 is located. 62. The CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTING AGENCY is responsible for HM-2 MANAGEMENT within the PROJECT limits. 63. CALTRANS’ acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS’ policy on such acquisition. Claims 64. Any PARTY that is responsible for completing WORK may accept, reject, compromise, settle, or litigate claims arising from the WORK without concurrence from the other PARTY. 65. PARTIES will confer on any claim that may affect the WORK or PARTIES’ liability or responsibility under this AGREEMENT in order to retain resolution possibilities for potential future claims. No PARTY will prejudice the rights of another PARTY until after PARTIES confer on the claim. 66. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply with the federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards of 2 CFR, Part 200. PARTIES will ensure that any for-profit consultant hired to participate in the WORK will comply with the requirements in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31. When state or federal funds are expended on the WORK these principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT and Master Agreement 08-1659. 120 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 13 of 19 Accounting and Audits 67. PARTIES will maintain, and will ensure that any consultant hired by PARTIES to participate in WORK will maintain, a financial management system that conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that can properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs and billings. 68. PARTIES will maintain and make available to each other all WORK-related documents, including financial data, during the term of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will retain all WORK-related records for three (3) years after the final voucher. PARTIES will require that any consultants hired to participate in the WORK will comply with this Article. 69. PARTIES have the right to audit each other in accordance with generally accepted governmental audit standards. CALTRANS, the state auditor, FHWA (if the PROJECT utilizes federal funds), and RCTC will have access to all WORK -related records of each PARTY, and any consultant hired by a PARTY to participate in WORK, for audit, examination, excerpt, or transcription. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. The auditing PARTY will be permitted to make copies of any WORK-related records needed for the audit. The audited PARTY will review the draft audit, findings, and recommendations, and provide written comments within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. Upon completion of the final audit, PARTIES have forty-five (45) calendar days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. Any audit dispute not resolved by PARTIES is subject to mediation. Mediation will follow the process described in the General Conditions section of this AGREEMENT. 70. If the WORK expends state or federal funds, each PARTY will undergo an annual audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act in the federal Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards as defined in 2 CFR, Part 200. 71. When a PARTY reimburses a consultant for WORK with state or federal funds, the procurement of the consultant and the consultant overhead costs will be in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. 121 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 14 of 19 Interruption of Work 72. If WORK stops for any reason, each PARTY will continue to implement the obligations of this AGREEMENT, including the commitments and conditions included in the environmental documentation, permits, agreements, or approvals that are in effect at the time that WORK stops, and will keep the PROJECT in environmental compliance until WORK resumes. Penalties, Judgements and Settlements 73. The cost of awards, judgments, or settlements generated by the WORK are to be paid from the funds obligated in Master Agreement 08-1659. 74. The cost of legal challenges to the environmental process or documentation may be paid from the funds obligated in Master Agreement 08-1659. 75. Any PARTY who action or lack of action causes the levy of fines, interest, or penalties will indemnify and hold all other PARTIES harmless per the terms of this AGREEMENT. GENERAL CONDITIONS Venue 76. PARTIES understand that this AGREEMENT is in accordance with and governed by the Constitution and laws of the State of California. This AGREEMENT will be enforceable in the State of California. Any PARTY initiating legal action arising from this AGREEMENT will file and maintain that legal action in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office that is signatory to this AGREEMENT resides, or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. Exemptions 77. SB 132 FUNDS are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the State Budget Act authority. In addition, state or federally administered “NON SB 132 FUNDS” are subject to the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. All CALTRANS’ obligations under this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority and allocations of funds by the California Transportation Commission. 122 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 15 of 19 Indemnification 78. Neither CALTRANS nor any of their officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon RCTC under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that RCTC, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RCTC, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 79. Neither RCTC nor any of their officers and employees, are responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless RCTC and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. Non-parties 80. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to create a third party beneficiary or define duties, obligations, or rights for entities not signatory to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES do not intend this AGREEMENT to affect their legal liability by imposing any standard of care for fulfilling the WORK different from the standards imposed by law. 81. PARTIES will not assign or attempt to assign obligations to PARTIES not signatory to this AGREEMENT without an amendment to this AGREEMENT. Ambiguity and Performance 82. RCTC will not interpret any ambiguity contained in this AGREEMENT against CALTRANS. RCTC waives the provisions of California Civil Code section 1654. A waiver of a PARTY’s performance under this AGREEMENT will not constitute a continuous waiver of any other provision. 123 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 16 of 19 83. A delay or omission to exercise a right or power due to a default does not negate the use of that right or power in the future when deemed necessary. Defaults 84. If any PARTY defaults in its performance of the WORK, a non-defaulting PARTY will request in writing that the default be remedied within thirty (30) calendar days. If the defaulting PARTY fails to do so, the non-defaulting PARTY may initiate dispute resolution. Dispute Resolution 85. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level as described in the Quality Management Plan. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS district director and the executive officer of RCTC will attempt to negotiate a resolution. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, PARTIES’ legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of the WORK in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. However, if any PARTY stops fulfilling its obligations, any other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that the WORK continues. Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or forty-five (45) calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. 86. PARTIES maintain the ability to pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. Prevailing Wage 87. When WORK falls within the Labor Code § 1720(a)(1) definition of "public works" in that it is construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair; or maintenance work under Labor Code § 1771, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of Labor Code §§ 1720-1815, and all applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations found in Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. PARTIES will include prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public work and require contractors to include the same prevailing wage requirements in all subcontracts. 124 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 17 of 19 Work performed by a PARTY’s own employees is exempt from the Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements. If WORK is paid for, in whole or part, with federal funds and is of the type of work subject to federal prevailing wage requirements, PARTIES will conform to the provisions of the Davis- Bacon and Related Acts, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3148. When applicable, PARTIES will include federal prevailing wage requirements in contracts for public works. WORK performed by a PARTY’s employees is exempt from federal prevailing wage requirements. 125 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 18 of 19 DEFINITIONS PARTY – Any individual signatory party to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES – The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this AGREEMENT. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) – A WBS is a standardized hierarchical listing of project work activities/products in increasing levels of detail. The CALTRANS WBS defines each PROJECT COMPONENT as a group of work activities/products. The CALTRANS Work Breakdown Structure is defined in the CALTRANS Workplan Standards Guide. 126 Agreement 08-1661 Project No. 0817000239 Project Development Agreement 2017-02-17 (Created July 17, 2017) 19 of 19 SIGNATURES PARTIES are empowered by California Streets and Highways Code to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. Signatories may execute this AGREEMENT through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This AGREEMENT is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION John Bulinski ___________________________________ District Director Anne Mayer Executive Director VERIFICATION OF FUNDS & AUTHORITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM & PROCEDURE: Mary Risaliti _____________________________________ District Budget Manager Best, Best and Krieger Legal Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM & PROCEDURE: Meera Danday Deputy Attorney 127 15/91 Express Lane Connector Project ATTACHMENT 3 128 Michael Blomquist Toll Program Director Riverside County Transportation Commission October 11, 2017 I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Overall Procurement Strategy and Agreements Unprecedented Legislation •Governor Brown signed SB 132 on April 28, 2017 •Provides $427 million for five transportation projects •Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor (RCTEC) •Direct appropriation, funds available immediately •Created task force to accelerate project delivery •One of five projects: I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector •$180 million allocation Unprecedented Legislation –Part 2 •AB 115 signed June 27, 2017 –Budget trailer bill –Commission received additional project delivery authority •Extends Design-Build opportunities •Authorizes Construction Manager/General Contractor •Allows Amendment to any existing contract –I-15 Express Lanes Project –91 Project or 91 Express Lanes •Allows any other delivery method authorized by law •Originally studied as part of the 91 Project that opened earlier this year •Tolled express lane connectors between I-15 and SR-91 •SB 132: all funds must be spent by June 30, 2023 •RCTC commitment: award construction by June 2020 I-15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector Project Important Priorities •Deliver project while meeting legislative mandates •Ensure smart use of taxpayer dollars •Continue successful 91 Express Lanes operations •Maintain I-15 Express Lanes construction schedules Evaluation of Procurement Options •Staff, consultants, and legal advisors convened –Experienced in alternative delivery methods •Identified all services needed –Environmental, toll planning, final design, construction, etc. •Compared project delivery alternatives –Impact to cost, completion schedule, risk transfer –Impact to traveling public and customers Recommended Direction •Amend existing contracts –Staff augmentation –Toll: planning, system design/installation, O&M –Legal, financial advisory, traffic and revenue studies –Environmental documentation –Preliminary engineering, final (engineering) design –Construction, construction management Rationale •Time savings due to eliminating numerous procurements •Cost economies of scale due to combined work •Leverage past successes on 91 and 15 with existing partners •Minimize impact to public and customers Staff Recommendation No. 1: Approve overall procurement strategy for the 15/91 ELC Project Final Civil Design & Construction •Existing contract for I-15 Express Lanes Project –Design-build contractor: Skanska-Ames Joint Venture –Amendment offers best chance of meeting goals –No anticipated delay to opening I-15 Express Lanes Project •Seeking fair cost and timely completion for tax and toll payers –Independent Construction Estimate –Competitive procurement should negotiations fail Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation •Amend Parsons existing contract –Consistent with overall procurement strategy –Update and reconfirm prior 91 environmental work –Amendment: $2,070,200 amount not to exceed –Estimated 18 months to complete work •Execute a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans Staff Recommendation No. 2 and No. 3: Approve Parsons contract amendment. Approve cooperative agreement with Caltrans. Recommendations Request the Commission approve the following for the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project: •Overall procurement strategy; •Approve preliminary engineering and environmental documentation agreements with the following: o Parsons for a total amount not to exceed $2,070,200; o Caltrans •Authorize the Chair or Executive Director to execute agreements •Forward to the Commission for final action. Questions? THANK YOU AGENDA ITEM 9 Agenda Item 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Management Analyst Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission’s Active Transportation Program Cycle 3 Augmentation Funding Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the two highest scoring active transportation projects for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program, consisting of the Riverside County Department of Public Health’s Cabazon/Banning Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ (CVAG) CV Link project, for funding totaling approximately $4,799,222; 2) Approve the Riverside County ATP contingency list, consisting of the next highest scoring projects, for inclusion in the MPO ATP Augmentation Regional Program; 3) Submit the recommended projects to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program and subsequent submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final approval in December 2017; 4) Submit the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation regional projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) programming; and 5) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors regarding timely funding allocations, obligations, and project delivery. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATP Cycle 3 ATP is a highly competitive statewide program that funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs to enhance or encourage walking and biking. Cycle 3 commenced in June 2016, and approximately $264 million was available in funding for Fiscal Year 2019/20 and FY 2020/21. A total of 456 applications were submitted statewide requesting nearly $977 million. The CTC awards 50 percent of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10 percent to small urban and rural regions, and 40 percent at the large MPO level. The ATP process allows applicants two 129 Agenda Item 9 rounds of opportunity to be awarded – statewide and MPO level. As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. ATP guidelines require that the large MPOs work with county transportation commissions to develop its regional program recommendations. SCAG, as one of the largest MPOs receives about half of the MPO funds in the state and distributes 95 percent to the counties based on population for implementation projects and sets aside 5 percent for planning and non-infrastructure projects. Riverside County was allotted approximately $6.6 million for implementation projects and in January 2017, the Commission approved the award of these funds to the next highest scoring projects. A total of 26 projects were submitted from local agencies in Riverside County, requesting about $66 million. In total, 7 projects were awarded (three from statewide and four from MPO), totaling $18 million in ATP Cycle 3 funds. See Attachment 1 for list of approved Cycle 3 statewide and MPO projects. ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Funds In April 2017, with the passage of SB 1, an additional $200 million for the program became available for FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19 and a call for projects for ATP Augmentation funds was released on June 30, 2017, allowing only Cycle 3 applicants to apply. A total of $8 million, which is 4 percent of the available funding was allocated to the California Conservation Corps and the remaining funds were distributed as follows: $96 million (48 percent) for the statewide competitive component, $19.2 million (9.6 percent) for small urban and rural regions, and $76.8 million (38.4 percent) for the large MPO component. Priority of funds were given to projects, which could deliver one or more phases in FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19, and as programming capacity became available in FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/21 additional projects were considered for funding. Applications were due August 1, 2017, and a total of 20 applications were submitted from local agencies in this county. CTC staff’s statewide competitive component recommendations were released August 31, 2017 and included 11 projects (8 of which are new) from Riverside County, as shown in the table below. ATP Augmentation Statewide – CTC Staff Recommendations Agency Project Title ATP Funding ($000) CTC Score Cycle 3 Funded/Projects Requesting Advances Moreno Valley Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Gap Closure $ 2,849 94.0 La Quinta La Quinta Village Complete Streets – A Road Diet 7,313 90.0 Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive and Pedestrian Improvement 772 89.5 New Funded Projects Riverside County Cabazon SRTS Sidewalk Safety Improvements 1,070 85.0 130 Agenda Item 9 Agency Project Title ATP Funding ($000) CTC Score Riverside County Clark Street SRTS Sidewalk and Intersection Safety Improvements 684 84.0 Indio Herbert Hoover Elementary Improvements 2,983 83.0 Hemet Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect 2,288 83.0 Perris Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail – Phase 2 3,004 83.0 Temecula Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect 3,759 80.0 County Public Health Riverside County SRTS Program, Lake Elsinore 500 80.0 Riverside La Sierra Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements 999 79.0 Total $ 26,221 The projects listed above represent 26.5 percent of the proposed $98.9 million of programming for Cycle 3 Augmentation funds, which total includes the recommendation to over program by approximately $3 million. Approval for these projects is anticipated at the October 18-19, 2017 CTC meeting. See Attachment 2 for full listing of CTC Recommendations. The SCAG MPO ATP Augmentation share is about $40 million (of the $76.8 million large MPO funds) and includes $38 million for implementation projects and $2 million for planning and non-infrastructure activities. Riverside County’s share for implementation projects is approximately $4.8 million. MPO ATP guidelines allow each county transportation commission to add up to 10 points to the CTC score for projects based on local criteria. In May 2014, the Commission approved adding 10 points to projects consistent with adopted local and regional plans, consistent with state and MPO ATP guidelines. All projects submitted within the county, at a minimum, are consistent with the SCAG adopted 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The CTC’s ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation program guidelines added a provision for the MPO component to allow supplanting of funds to projects that received less ATP funding than requested in Cycle 3 due to the fact that the SB 1 funding was made soon after the CTC’s recommendations for Cycle 3 were approved. Staff recommends that the approximately $4.8 million allotted to Riverside County for implementation projects be awarded to the next highest scoring projects, listed below, that requested advancements in programming or received partial funding in Cycle 3. 131 Agenda Item 9 MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Recommendations Agency Project Title Original ATP Request – Cycle 3 ($000) Cycle 3 Award Amount ($000) Recommended Augmentation Funding ($000) Total Award – Cycle 3/ Augmentation ($000) CTC/RCTC Score County Public Health Cabazon/ Banning SRTS Program $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 87.0/97.0 CVAG CV Link $ 24,307 $ 5,584 $ 4,299 $ 9,883 85.5/95.5 Total $ 4,799 Staff is continuing to work with SCAG on the programming capacity of funds available under Cycle 3 and the Cycle 3 Augmentation. It is possible that after a comprehensive review of all of the county transportation commissions’ recommendations for Cycle 3 Augmentation that further adjustments may be required; however, the total allocation of $4.8 million will be distributed among the highest scoring projects. Staff also recommends the next highest scoring projects (as shown in Attachment 1) be submitted to SCAG for a contingency list. In the event that a programmed project is delivered for less or fails, a contingency list will be provided to the CTC and will be in effect only until the adoption of the next statewide program. The $2 million set aside for planning and non-infrastructure projects will be selected from SCAG’s Sustainability Planning Grants (SPG) program. Projects that will be considered for funding are: 1) those that submitted through SCAG’s 2016 SPG program that were unfunded; and 2) new projects submitted in SCAG’s 2017 supplemental call for projects, which opened July 6, 2017 with applications due August 31, 2017. To qualify as a planning project, applicants must also meet ATP requirements such as qualification as a disadvantaged community (DAC). The DAC requirement does not apply to non-infrastructure programs. As of the writing of this staff report, SCAG recommendations for this program have not been made available. Next Steps Upon approval of the above recommendations, staff will submit the projects to SCAG for inclusion in the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program, which will be approved by the SCAG Regional Council on October 5, 2017. SCAG will then submit the MPO Augmentation projects to the CTC for final approval at the CTC’s December 5-6, 2017 meeting. Staff will work closely with project sponsors in preparing allocation funding requests and requests for obligating federal funds. Projects awarded under the MPO component must obtain concurrence from the Commission on each allocation request for funding as required by the CTC. Projects will also be required to be included in the FTIP. As a condition of the project allocation for the statewide and MPO ATP programs, the CTC requires project sponsors to submit to Caltrans semi-annual reports on the activities and progress 132 Agenda Item 9 made toward implementation of the project and a final delivery report upon project completion. The purpose of the reports is to ensure that the project is implemented in a timely manner according to the scope and budget identified in the project application. Staff will continue to participate in CTC/Caltrans working groups to further develop and improve the ATP guidelines and process, and participate in future evaluations of ATP project applications. The next ATP Call for Projects is expected to commence in early Spring 2018. Financial Impact ATP funds are administered through the CTC, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration. The Commission is not a recipient of these MPO ATP funds; therefore, there is no fiscal impact to the Commission’s budget. Attachments 1) ATP Award Status for Cycle 3/SB 1 Augmentation Applications 2) CTC Staff Recommendations for ATP Augmentation Funds 133 BLANK ATTACHMENT 1: ATP AWARD STATUS FOR CYCLE 3/SB 1 AUGMENTATION CALLS FOR PROJECTS BY PROJECT RANKINGS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Title DAC 1 Total Project Cost (000's) Total Fund Request (000's) CTC Final Score RCTC Score Funding Status PROJECTS AWARDED AT THE STATE LEVEL (California Transportation Commission Approved 12/7/16) 1 Moreno Valley Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Gap Closure X 3,149 2,849 94.00 n/a *Awarded Statewide Cycle 3/ Recommended for Augmentation Funds 2 La Quinta La Quinta Village Complete Streets - A Road Diet Project X 9,533 7,313 90.00 n/a *Awarded Statewide Cycle 3/ Recommended for Augmentation Funds 3 Desert Hot Springs Palm Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project X 965 772 89.50 n/a *Awarded Statewide Cycle 3/ Recommended for Augmentation Funds 4 Wildomar City of Wildomar Active Transportation Plan 375 300 88.00 98.00 Awarded SCAG Sustainable Planning Grants (received local funds) 5 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health Riverside County Safe Routes to School Program, Cabazon/Banning X 625 500 87.00 97.00 *Awarded MPO Cycle 3/ Recommended for Augmentation Funds 6 Jurupa Valley Pacific Avenue Safe Route to School and Road Diet Project X 2,638 607 86.00 96.00 Awarded MPO Cycle 3 7 CVAG CVLink X 99,997 24,307 85.50 95.50 * Awarded MPO Cycle 3 (partial funding $5.584M)/ Recommended for Augmentation Funds 8 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health (Injury Prevention Services) Riverside County Safe Routes to Schools Program, Eastern Coachella Valley X 625 500 85.00 95.00 *Awarded MPO Cycle 3 (SPG Plng/NI 5%) (partial funding $349k) 9 Riverside County Transportation Department Cabazon Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Safety Improvements X 1,120 1,070 85.00 95.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 10 Riverside County Transportation Department Clark Street SR2S Sidewalk and Intersection Safety Improvements X 2,945 684 84.00 94.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 11 Indio Herbert Hoover Elementary Pedestrian Improvements X 2,983 2,983 83.00 93.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 12 Perris Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail - Phase 2 X 3,204 3,004 83.00 93.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 13 Hemet Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect X 2,288 2,288 83.00 93.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 14 Riverside County Dept. of Public Health (Injury Prevention Services) Riverside County Safe Routes to Schools Program, Lake Elsinore X 625 500 80.00 90.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 15 Temecula Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect X 4,761 3,759 80.00 90.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 16 Riverside La Sierra Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements X 1,215 999 79.00 89.00 *Recommended for Statewide Augmentation Funds 17 Riverside County Transportation Department Lakeview Avenue Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Safety Improvements X 1,349 1,269 75.00 85.00 * 18 Eastvale Road Diet, Bike Lanes, Education, Encouragement and Enforcement Program 1,510 1,208 74.00 84.00 *Awarded partial funding from SB821 19 Cathedral City Cathedral City Pedestrian Safety Improvements X 573 419 71.00 81.00 * 20 Calimesa County Line Road Active Transportation Program – Cycle 3 X 1,342 1,005 67.00 77.00 * UNFUNDED PROJECTS (Contingency List) 134 ATTACHMENT A: ATP AWARD STATUS FOR CYCLE 3/SB 1 AUGMENTATION CALLS FOR PROJECTS BY PROJECT RANKINGS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY APPLICATIONS Applicant Project Title DAC 1 Total Project Cost (000's) Total Fund Request (000's) CTC Final Score RCTC Score Funding Status 21 Palm Springs Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closures, Safety Lighting, and ADA-Compliant Upgrades X 2,855 2,425 58.00 68.00 * 22 Coachella Coachella - Grapefruit Avenue Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Roadway Safety Improvement Project X 2,209 2,209 58.00 68.00 23 Perris Multi-modal SRTS & Metrolink to Metrolink Stations Connectivity Project X 2,000 950 54.00 64.00 24 Riverside County Transportation Department Dillon Road Bike Lane Improvements X 3,280 3,200 45.00 55.00 * 25 Riverside Riverside Recreational Trail (PA&ED)X 750 750 39.00 49.00 26 Riverside Traffic Circle Installation to Encourage Increased Biking and Walking 242 242 8.00 18.00 Grand Total 153,158 66,112 1 Project identified as partially or fully in a Disadvantaged Community (DAC). *Indicates applicant applied for ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation funds. 135 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation - Statewide Component Staff Recommendations ($1,000's) California Transportation Commission Page 1 of 3 September 5, 2017 Application ID Co Project Title DAC Total Project Cost Recommended ATP Funding 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 CON CON NI PA&ED PS&E ROW Project Type SRTS REC TR Final Score 7-Paramount-1 LA West Santa Ana Branch Bikeway Phase 2 X 4,550 3,423 345 3,078 0 0 3,078 0 0 345 0 Infrastructure 99.00 4-Oakland-4 ALA 14th Street: Safe Routes in the City X 13,939 10,578 0 1,235 9,343 0 9,343 0 0 1,235 0 Infrastructure 95.00 9-Kern County Road Department-6 KER Boron/Desert Lake Pedestrian Path X 2,319 1,971 461 1,510 0 0 1,510 0 0 268 193 Infrastructure X 95.00 7-Los Angeles DPW (Bureau of Engineering)-4 LA Jefferson Boulevard Complete Street X 6,336 5,986 925 5,061 0 0 5,061 0 600 325 0 Infrastructure X 95.00 8-Moreno Valley-1 RIV Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Gap Closure X 3,149 2,849 275 2,574 0 0 2,574 0 90 160 25 Infrastructure X 94.00 6-Kern County Road Department-1 KER Rexland Acres Community Sidewalk X 6,376 5,640 375 5,265 0 0 4,519 0 25 746 350 Infrastructure X 93.00 3-Yuba County-2 YUB Eleventh Avenue Pedestrian and Bicyclist Route Improvements X 1,701 1,505 227 1,278 0 0 1,253 25 57 170 0 Combination X 92.00 7-SCAG-4 LA Southern California Disadvantaged Communities Planning Initiative X 1,350 1,150 1,150 0 0 0 0 1,150 0 0 0 Plan 91.00 4-Oakland-1 ALA Fruitvale Alive Gap Closure X 8,241 5,850 850 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 800 50 Infrastructure 90.00 7-Lancaster-2 LA 2020 Safe Route To School Pedestrian Improvements X 7,443 5,272 0 5,272 0 0 5,272 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 90.00 8-La Quinta-1 RIV La Quinta Village Complete Streets - A Road Diet X 9,533 7,313 0 7,313 0 0 7,313 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 90.00 5-Santa Barbara-2 SB Eastside Green Lanes & Bike Boulevard Gap Closure X 2,763 2,736 73 207 18 2,438 2,438 0 73 207 18 Infrastructure X 90.00 8-Desert Hot Springs-1 RIV Palm Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement X 965 772 0 772 0 0 772 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 89.50 4-Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART)-1 SON SMART Pathway - Petaluma (Payran to Southpoint)X 3,272 1,461 1,461 0 0 0 1,461 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 89.00 7-Compton-1 LA Compton-Carson Regional Safe Bicycling and Wayfinding X 1,868 1,617 0 1,617 0 0 1,617 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 88.00 3-Yuba County-1 YUB McGowan Parkway Bicycle Lane and Pedestrian Route Improvements X 1,559 1,246 216 0 1,030 0 1,000 30 54 162 0 Combination X 88.00 12-Santa Ana-2*ORA City of Santa Ana - First Street Pedestrian Improvements X 4,572 4,572 0 540 4,032 0 4,032 0 10 530 0 Infrastructure X 88.00 Totals Funded Projects Requesting Advances 79,936 63,941 6,358 40,722 14,423 2,438 56,243 1,205 909 4,948 636 * Applicant received $19,000 less than requested in the 2017 ATP. This $19,000 was restored from 2017 ATP Augmentation Funds 11-Imperial Beach-1 SD Imperial Beach Boulevard Improvement and Safe Routes to Schools X 5,175 2,570 312 2,258 0 0 2,193 65 0 303 9 Combination X 88.00 4-San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency-5 SF Geneva Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvement X 9,987 2,350 2,350 0 0 0 2,350 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 88.00 3-Davis-1 YOL Providing Safe Passage: Connecting Montgomery Elementary and Olive Drive X 4,425 3,540 412 0 3,128 0 3,128 0 0 380 32 Infrastructure X 86.50 4-Sunnyvale-1 SCL Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Improvements X 2,362 1,889 0 380 1,509 0 1,509 6 56 318 0 Combination X 86.00 10-Stockton-4 SJ Miner Avenue Complete Streets X 5,347 3,816 0 3,816 0 0 3,816 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 85.00 3-Roseville-2 PLA Washington Boulevard Bikeway and Pedestrian Pathways X 3,982 2,212 0 0 2,212 0 2,030 182 0 0 0 Combination X 85.00 2017 ATP Funded Projects Requesting Advances New Projects Recommended for Funding 136 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation - Statewide Component Staff Recommendations ($1,000's) California Transportation Commission Page 2 of 3 September 5, 2017 Application ID Co Project Title DAC Total Project Cost Recommended ATP Funding 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 CON CON NI PA&ED PS&E ROW Project Type SRTS REC TR Final Score 8-Riverside County Transportation Department-3 RIV Cabazon Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Safety Improvements X 1,120 1,070 282 788 0 0 788 0 0 122 160 Infrastructure X 85.00 3-Citrus Heights-1 SAC Citrus Heights Electric Greenway (Class 1 Multi-Use Trail)X 7,015 5,866 0 311 5,555 0 5,525 30 0 246 65 Combination X X 84.00 3-El Dorado County-1 ED El Dorado Trail - Missouri Flat Road to El Dorado X 4,394 3,419 3,419 0 0 0 3,374 45 0 0 0 Combination X 84.00 8-Riverside County Transportation Department-4 RIV Clark Street SR2S Sidewalk and Intersection Safety Improvements X 2,945 684 0 684 0 0 684 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 84.00 10-Patterson-1 STA Ninth Street Improvements X 907 907 75 832 0 0 764 0 75 68 0 Infrastructure X 84.00 6-Tulare County-8 TUL County of Tulare: Earlimart Sidewalk Improvements X 1,973 1,868 180 1,688 0 0 1,688 0 0 180 0 Combination X 84.00 4-East Bay Regional Park District-2 ALA Doolittle Drive Bay Trail, Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline, Oakland X 7,950 4,000 500 3,500 0 0 3,500 0 0 250 250 Infrastructure 83.00 3-Placerville-1 ED Upper Broadway Pedestrian Connection X 2,206 1,886 500 1,386 0 0 1,386 0 0 173 327 Infrastructure 83.00 8-Indio-1 RIV Herbert Hoover Elementary Pedestrian Improvements X 2,983 2,983 100 240 0 2,643 2,638 5 100 240 0 Combination X 83.00 8-Hemet-1 RIV Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect X 2,288 2,288 0 200 2,088 0 1,990 98 0 200 0 Combination X 83.00 8-Perris-1 RIV Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail - Phase 2 X 3,204 3,004 237 524 0 2,243 2,243 0 237 287 237 Infrastructure 83.00 5-Guadalupe-1 SB Guadalupe Street (Hwy 1) Pedestrian Improvements X 458 401 0 401 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 83.00 4-Pittsburg-2 CC Pittsburg Active Transportation and Safe Routes Plan (WalkBikePittsburg2035)X 312 312 312 0 0 0 312 0 0 0 0 Plan 82.00 6-Fresno-4 FRE Downtown Fresno Courthouse Park Interconnectivity Project X 915 809 28 781 0 0 715 0 28 66 0 Infrastructure 82.00 7-Glendale-1 LA Glendale Transportation Center 1st/Last Mile Regional Improvements Phase II X 1,301 1,101 172 929 0 0 929 0 43 129 0 Infrastructure 82.00 7-Palmdale-1 LA City of Palmdale - Civic Center Complete Streets X 2,564 1,700 66 212 0 1,422 1,422 0 66 212 0 Infrastructure 82.00 7-Rosemead-1 LA SR2S Sidewalk Gap Closure on Delta Avenue X 1,175 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 1,100 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 82.00 7-Santa Monica-2 LA Active Aging - Safe Routes for Seniors 500 400 0 400 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 Non-Infrastructure 82.00 10-Angels Camp-1 CAL Route 49 Sidewalk Infill and Bike Lanes, Angels Camp X 1,985 1,985 165 1,820 0 0 1,820 0 0 0 165 Infrastructure X 81.00 6-Kern County Road Department-2 KER Virginia Street Pedestrian Path Project X 2,456 2,173 22 420 0 1,731 1,731 0 22 354 66 Infrastructure X 81.00 10-Merced County PW-2 MER Plainsburg Road Complete Street Upgrade X 1,688 1,671 76 200 0 1,395 1,351 44 76 200 0 Combination X 81.00 5-Monterey County Resource Management Agency DPW-2 MON Las Lomas Drive Bicycle Lane & Pedestrian Project X 3,168 2,894 0 368 0 2,526 2,431 0 98 270 95 Infrastructure 81.00 3-Sacramento County-1 SAC Folsom Boulevard Complete Street Improvements, Phase 1 X 5,001 4,180 532 176 3,472 0 3,472 0 0 532 176 Infrastructure 81.00 8-Big Bear Lake-1 SBD Alpine Pedal Path Rathbun Creek Extension - Big Bear Lake X 986 788 0 788 0 0 788 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 81.00 8-Ontario-1 SBD Sultana Elementary and De Anza Middle School Pedestrian Improvements X 1,506 1,278 178 0 1,100 0 1,100 0 0 136 42 Infrastructure X 81.00 6-Tulare County-1 TUL Allensworth Elementary Sidewalk Improvements X 313 260 0 260 0 0 260 0 0 0 0 Combination X 81.00 7-Norwalk-1 LA Alondra Active Transportation Improvement X 973 963 12 138 0 813 813 0 12 138 0 Infrastructure 80.50 10-Sonora-1 TUO Red Church Pedestrian and Circulation Improvement X 815 722 76 646 0 0 646 0 0 67 9 Infrastructure X 80.50 137 2017 Active Transportation Program Augmentation - Statewide Component Staff Recommendations ($1,000's) California Transportation Commission Page 3 of 3 September 5, 2017 Application ID Co Project Title DAC Total Project Cost Recommended ATP Funding 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 CON CON NI PA&ED PS&E ROW Project Type SRTS REC TR Final Score 7-Baldwin Park-3 LA Walnut Creek-San Gabriel River East Bank Greenway & Neighborhood Connections X 2,193 1,355 0 0 1,355 0 573 782 0 0 0 Combination 80.00 10-Merced County PW-1 MER Delhi Community Pedestrian and Bike Connectivity Project X 1,531 1,531 266 0 1,265 0 1,221 44 88 178 0 Combination X 80.00 8-Temecula-1 RIV Santa Gertrudis Creek Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Extension and Interconnect X 4,761 3,759 189 3,570 0 0 3,570 0 189 0 0 Combination 80.00 8-Apple Valley-2 SBD Bear Valley Road Class 1 Bike Path Connector X 999 792 792 0 0 0 792 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 80.00 8-Apple Valley-1 SBD Apple Valley South - Safe Routes to School X 4,294 3,470 333 3,137 0 0 3,137 0 0 333 0 Infrastructure X 80.00 11-Chula Vista-1 SD Class 2 Bike Lanes on Broadway in Chula Vista, CA X 1,466 851 104 747 0 0 747 0 0 104 0 Infrastructure 80.00 11-El Cajon-2 SD Cajon Valley Union School District SRTS Plan (Phase 2) X 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 Plan 80.00 11-Encinitas-1 SD Santa Fe Drive Corridor Bike and Pedestrian Improvements 1,142 996 41 0 173 782 742 40 41 148 25 Combination X 80.00 11-National City-1 SD National City Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Enhancements X 2,028 1,678 0 0 1,678 0 1,678 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 80.00 2-Redding-3 SHA West Street Area School Safety Improvements X 3,196 2,538 400 0 2,138 0 2,138 0 400 0 0 Infrastructure X 80.00 8-Riverside County DPH-4 RIV Riverside County SRTS Program, Lake Elsinore X 625 500 0 500 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 Non-Infrastructure X 80.00 4-Berkeley-3 ALA Sacramento Street Complete Streets Improvements X 1,814 1,542 0 185 1,357 0 1,357 0 0 185 0 Infrastructure 79.00 1-Humboldt County PW-2 HUM McKinleyville Safe Routes to School Program X 612 612 25 52 535 0 490 45 25 40 12 Combination X 79.00 6-Arvin-1 KER Franklin Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements X 350 350 0 0 50 300 300 0 5 45 0 Infrastructure X 79.00 7-Los Angeles Co Dept. of PW-5 LA Puente Creek Bikeway X 3,700 2,960 0 400 0 2,560 2,360 200 0 400 0 Combination X 79.00 9-Mono County-1 MONO Mono County Complete Streets: Bridgeport Main Street Revitalization X 434 434 23 43 368 0 368 0 23 43 0 Infrastructure X 79.00 12-Buena Park-1 ORA Buena Park School District Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Improvements X 1,654 1,644 50 166 1,428 0 1,428 91 50 75 0 Combination X 79.00 8-Riverside-1 RIV La Sierra Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements X 1,215 999 0 0 0 999 999 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure 79.00 3-Sacramento-5 SAC Two Rivers Trail (Phase II)X 6,361 3,333 0 3,333 0 0 3,333 0 0 0 0 Infrastructure X 79.00 8-Fontana-1 SBD Fontana Safe Routes to Schools Pedestrian Improvements X 1,918 1,918 10 157 191 1,560 1,556 4 10 157 191 Combination X 79.00 Totals New Projects 135,172 98,851 12,739 36,436 30,702 18,974 85,686 3,081 1,644 6,579 1,861 PA&ED: Environmental Phase REC TR: Recreational Trails Eligible ROW: Right-of-Way Phase SRTS: Safe Routes to School CON: Construction Phase DAC: Benefit to Disadvantaged Communities Plan: Active Transportation Plan PS&E: Plans, Specifications & Estimate Phase 138 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM Cycle 3 Augmentation (SB 1) Recommendations Lorelle Moe-Luna Senior Management Analyst ATP Program Overview •Administered by the California TransportationCommission(CTC) •Competitive Statewide Program •Funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programstoenhanceorencouragewalkingandbiking CTC Scoring Criteria Total Points Category 35 pts Potential for Increased walking and biking 25 pts Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of bicycle/pedestrian fatalities and injuries 15 pts Public Participation and Planning 10 pts Improved Public Health 10 pts Benefit to Disadvantaged Communities 5 pts Leveraging of non-ATP funds 100 pts Total Review of Previous Cycles Cycle (Year) Funds Available (millions) Riverside County Awarded (millions) % of Total 1 (2014)$ 368.1 $ 31.4 8.5% 2 (2015)$ 359.0 $ 10.4 2.9% 3 (2017)$ 263.5 $ 17.9 6.8% 3 Augmentation (SB 1) (2017) $ 192.0* $ 20.1**10.5% Total $1,182.6 $ 79.8 6.7% *$8 million allocated to CA Conservation Corps **Excludes awarded advancements from Cycle 3, pending CTC approval Oct 2017 Palo Verde Valley Statewide Award MPO Award ATP Funded Projects (Cycles 1, 2, 3, SB 1 Augmentation) Distribution of Funds –Cycle 3 461 total applications = $977M 26 from Riverside Co = $66M$264M FY 2020 FY 2021 CTC Awardees: Moreno Valley La Quinta Desert Hot Springs $158M (60%) State/Rural SCAG = $56M $105M (40%) MPO RCTC Awardees: Riverside Co Public Health – Cabazon/Banning Jurupa Valley CVAG (partial $5.584M) $6.6M Riverside County $53.2M (95%) Implementation $2.8M (5%) Planning/Non- Infrastructure + other local $ 2016 Sustainability Planning Grants (SPG) Program Call for Projects SCAG Awardees: Wildomar Riverside Co Public Health –Eastern Coachella Valley Distribution of Funds –Cycle 3 Augmentation $192M* FY2018 FY2019 $115.2M (60%) State/Rural SCAG = $40M $76.8M (40%) MPO $2M (5%) Planning/Non- Infrastructure 2017 Sustainability Planning Grants (SPG) Program Call for Projects $4.8M Riverside County $38M (95%) Implementation *$8M to CA Conservation Corps Applications due August 31st New projects ok Must have applied in Cycle 3 Supplemental applications due August 1st Priority Order: Projects that can advance all phases to FY18, FY19 Projects that can advance one or more phases to FY18, FY19 Capacity may become available in FY20 and FY21 Distribution of Funds –Cycle 3 Augmentation (cont’d) $192M* FY2018 FY2019 $115.2M (60%) State/Rural SCAG = $40M $76.8M (40%) MPO $2M (5%) Planning/Non- Infrastructure 2017 Sustainability Planning Grants (SPG) Program Call for Projects $4.8M Riverside County $38M (95%) Implementation *$8M to CA Conservation Corps CTC Recommendations: Advancements ($10.9M) Moreno Valley La Quinta Desert Hot Springs New Projects ($15.3M) County (2 projects) Indio Perris Hemet Riverside Co Public Health –Lake Elsinore Temecula Riverside (Pending Approval at Oct 18th CTC Meeting) RCTC Recommendations: Advancements/Partial Funding Riverside Co Public Health – Cabazon/Banning CVAG SCAG Recommendations: New Projects Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Palm Springs Recommendations 1.Approve the two highest scoring active transportation projects for inclusion in the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program,consisting of the Riverside County Department of Public Health’s Cabazon/Banning Safe Routes to School (SRTS)Program and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’(CVAG ) CV Link project,for funding totaling approximately $4,799,222; 2.Approve the Riverside County ATP contingency list,consisting of the next highest scoring projects,for inclusion in the MPO ATP Augmentation Regional Program ; 3.Submit the recommended projects to the SCAG for inclusion in the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation Regional Program and subsequent submittal to the CTC for final approval in December 2017; 4.Submit the MPO ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation regional projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)programming;and 5.Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors regarding timely funding allocations,obligations,and project delivery. AGENDA ITEM 10 Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 11, 2017 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Martha Masters, Management Analyst Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director SUBJECT: Revision to the Fiscal Year 2017/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the Revised Fiscal Year 2017/18 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended projects as shown in Attachment 1 in the amount of $3,343,187 to include an additional three projects in the cities of Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, and Temecula; 2) Direct staff to prepare and execute memorandums of understanding (MOU) with the three additional project sponsors to outline the project schedule and local funding commitments; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On July 12, 2017, the Commission approved 21 projects totaling $3,599,364 for SB 821 funding as indicated in Attachment 1. Due to the passage of SB 1, which provides an increase of $100 million annually to the Active Transportation Program (ATP), the California Transportation Commission (CTC) decided to augment the ATP Cycle 3 program. On June 30, 2017, the CTC released the ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation call for projects allowing agencies that applied under the recently concluded ATP Cycle 3 process the opportunity to apply for ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation funds made available from SB 1. Applications were due to the CTC on August 1, 2017. Staff was aware that projects submitted under the Commission’s SB 821 call for projects were also being submitted for the CTC’s ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation call for projects. In most cases, these ATP project applications represented larger projects, and the SB 821 project applications represented smaller portions of the ATP applications. Project sponsors strategically submitted larger projects for the ATP program since the ATP funding had a significant amount of funding 139 Agenda Item 10 available compared to the SB 821 funding. As a result, at the July 12, 2017 Commission meeting staff recommended to return to the Commission with a revision to the FY 2017/18 SB 821 funding recommendations, if SB 821 funding was freed up from projects approved through the ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation. Revised Allocations On August 31, 2017, the CTC notified agencies of the 2017 ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation recommendations that will be presented to the CTC at its October 18-19, 2017 meeting for final adoption. Two projects that were included in the SB 821 funding recommendations are being recommended for ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation funding: • County of Riverside – Clark Street Sidewalk project • City of Riverside – Carmine Street Sidewalk Improvements project Upon CTC’s approval of ATP Augmentation funds for the above two projects in October, staff recommends removing these projects from the FY 2017/18 SB 821 allocations. This action would free up a total of $724,000 SB 821 funds that would be programmed to the following three next highest scored projects: Agency Project Title Allocation Lake Elsinore Palomar Multi-Use Trail $ 245,523 La Quinta Jefferson Street Sidewalk Gap Closure 90,000 Temecula Citywide Buffered Bike-Lane Striping 132,300 Total $ 467,823 The remaining FY 2017/18 SB 821 amount of $256,177 is not sufficient to fully fund the construction of the next two projects that were tied at a score of 33.67; therefore, based on prior practice it is recommended the remaining funds be reserved for the FY 2019/20 SB 821 Call for Projects. All project scores are included in Attachment 1. Summary of Revised Recommended SB 821 Allocations Coachella Valley Western Riverside Recommended Projects 7 15 Revised Total SB 821 Recommended Allocation $1,178,672 $2,164,515 Recommended Allocation % 35% 65% 140 Agenda Item 10 List of Revised FY 2017/18 SB 821 Recommended Projects Project Title Allocation Coachella Valley (7) Palm Desert Class II Bike and Golf Cart Lane Improvements - Citywide $ 85,000 Desert Hot Springs Desert View Sidewalk Project 293,000 La Quinta La Quinta High School ADA Improvements 109,500 Rancho Mirage ADA Pedestrian Access Ramp Upgrades on Highway 111 234,925 Palm Springs Racquet Club Road and Farrell Drive Missing Links Sidewalks 277,500 Indio Avenue 42 Sidewalk Gap Closure 88,748 *La Quinta Jefferson Street Sidewalk Gap Closure 90,000 Subtotal Coachella Valley Projects (35%) $ 1,178,672 Western Riverside (15) Eastvale 65th Bicycle Safety Enhancement $ 123,700 Riverside County Mayberry Avenue Sidewalk Improvements (Stanford Street – Meridian Street) 244,000 Moreno Valley Gentian Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue Class II Bike Lanes 49,000 Wildomar Grand Avenue Bike Lane – Phase I 270,000 Wildomar Grand Avenue Bike Lane – Phase II 214,000 Lake Elsinore Bicycle Lanes to Downtown 50,100 Lake Elsinore Machado Street Missing Link Bike Lanes 75,900 Riverside County Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk Improvements 307,500 Hemet Sidewalk and ADA Ramps – Alessandro Street 75,000 Lake Elsinore Chaney Street Missing Link Sidewalk 137,830 Lake Elsinore Sumner, Mohr and Davis Street Missing Link Sidewalk 97,953 Lake Elsinore W. Lakeshore Drive Missing Link Sidewalk 131,934 Lake Elsinore Mission Trail Missing Link Bike Lanes 9,775 *Lake Elsinore Palomar Multi-Use Trail 245,523 *Temecula Citywide Buffered Bike-Lane Striping 132,300 Subtotal Western Riverside Projects (65%) $ 2,164,515 Grand Total** $ 3,343,187 *Recommended additional projects for FY 2017/18 SB 821 funds. **There may be a difference due to rounding. Per the Commission’s SB 821 adopted policies, jurisdictions receiving an allocation have 24 months to complete approved projects and submit claim forms for reimbursement upon project completion. MOUs will be required to outline the project schedules, funding plan, and local agency match commitment. Staff will monitor the progress of the projects to ensure timely implementation of delivery and expenditures as the intent of the SB 821 program is to deliver and expend FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19 funds within the timeframe of this cycle. 141 Agenda Item 10 Future Opportunities It is anticipated that the CTC will have an ATP Cycle 4 Call for Projects sometime in March of next year. Staff encourages the agencies to start considering projects to apply for ATP funds and begin the process of crafting the applications as soon as possible. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 Amount: $1,671,594 $1,671,594 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund SB 821 Allocations Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/14/2017 Attachment: Revised FY 2017/18 SB 821 Funding Recommendations 142 ATTACHMENT 1 Total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cumulative Average Rank Agency Project Description Project Cost Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score 1 Palm Desert Class II Bike and Golf Cart Lane Improvements - Citywide 170,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 85,000$ 43.67 2 Desert Hot Springs Desert View Sidewalk Project 493,000$ 293,000$ 293,000$ 378,000$ 42.00 3 Eastvale 65th Bicycle Safety Enhancement 247,400$ 123,700$ 123,700$ 501,700$ 42.00 4 La Quinta La Quinta High School ADA Improvements 219,000$ 109,500$ 109,500$ 611,200$ 41.33 5 Riverside County Mayberry Ave Sidewalk Improvements (Stanford St. - Meridian St.)488,000$ 244,000$ 244,000$ 855,200$ 41.33 6 Moreno Valley Gentian Ave. and Eucalyptus Ave. Class II Bike Lanes 70,000$ 49,000$ 49,000$ 904,200$ 40.67 -Riverside County Clark Street Sidewalk Project*1,111,000$ 555,500$ -$ 904,200$ 40.67 7 Wildomar Grand Avenue Bike Lane-Phase I 1,800,000$ 270,000$ 270,000$ 1,174,200$ 40.00 8 Wildomar Grand Avenue Bike Lane-Phase II 1,426,000$ 214,000$ 214,000$ 1,388,200$ 39.00 9 Rancho Mirage ADA Pedestrian Access Ramp Upgrades on Highway 111 469,850$ 234,925$ 234,925$ 1,623,125$ 38.33 10 Lake Elsinore Bicycle Lanes to Downtown 100,200$ 50,100$ 50,100$ 1,673,225$ 37.67 11 Lake Elsinore Machado Street Missing Link Bike Lanes 151,800$ 75,900$ 75,900$ 1,749,125$ 37.67 12 Riverside County Serfas Club Drive Sidewalk Improvements 615,000$ 307,500$ 307,500$ 2,056,625$ 37.67 13 Palm Springs Racquet Club Road & Farrell Drive Missing Links Sidewalks 555,000$ 277,500$ 277,500$ 2,334,125$ 37.00 14 Hemet Sidewalk and ADA Ramps (Alessandro Street)150,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 2,409,125$ 36.33 15 Lake Elsinore Chaney Street Missing Link Sidewalk 275,660$ 137,830$ 137,830$ 2,546,955$ 36.33 16 Lake Elsinore Sumner, Mohr and Davis St. Missing Link Sidewalk 195,905$ 97,953$ 97,953$ 2,644,908$ 36.33 17 Lake Elsinore W. Lakeshore Drive Missing Link Sidewalk 263,868$ 131,934$ 131,934$ 2,776,842$ 36.33 -Riverside Carmine Street Sidewalk Improvements (College Ave. - Sierra Vista Ave.)*337,000$ 168,500$ -$ 2,776,842$ 36.33 18 Indio Avenue 42 Sidewalk Gap Closure 177,495$ 88,748$ 88,748$ 2,865,589$ 36.00 19 Lake Elsinore Mission Trail Missing Link Bike Lanes 19,550$ 9,775$ 9,775$ 2,875,364$ 35.67 20 Lake Elsinore Palomar Multi-Use Trail 491,046$ 245,523$ 245,523$ 3,120,887$ 34.67 21 La Quinta Jefferson Street Sidewalk Gap Closure 180,000$ 90,000$ 90,000$ 3,210,887$ 34.67 22 Temecula Citywide Buffered Bike-Lane Striping 189,000$ 132,300$ 132,300$ 3,343,187$ 34.00 23 Moreno Valley Heacock St Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Improvements 650,000$ 582,000$ 33.67 24 Riverside County Mayberry Ave Sidewalk Improvements (Peartree-Casino)495,000$ 371,250$ 33.67 25 Moreno Valley Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Segment (Cottonwood-Bay)650,000$ 585,000$ 32.67 26 San Jacinto Cottonwood Ave Pedestrian Improvements 200,000$ 80,000$ 32.67 27 Banning Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 188,278$ 75,311$ 32.00 28 Riverside County Mecca Curb Ramp Accessibility 363,800$ 272,850$ 31.67 29 Perris Mountain Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 150,000$ 75,000$ 29.67 30 Palm Springs Cerritos Road Missing Links Sidewalks 190,800$ 133,560$ 29.33 31 San Jacinto Lyon Avenue Sidewalk Installment 100,000$ 50,000$ 28.67 32 Coachella Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 257,641$ 128,821$ 25.67 Totals 13,441,293$ 6,420,979$ 3,343,187$ ** *Projects recommended for ATP Cycle 3 Augmentation award totaling $724K (pending October CTC approval). **Remaining $256K will be utilized for future SB 821 Call for Projects. Note: There may be a difference due to rounding. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2017/18 PROJECT RANKING/FUNDING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Projects for Funding Unfunded Projects Additional Recommended Projects for Funding 143