HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 26, 2018 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsComments 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
Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Date: March 26, 2018
Location: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administration Center
4080 Lemon St, First Floor, Riverside CA 92501
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Adam Rush, Chair/Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale
Brian Berkson, Vice Chair/Verne Lauritzen,
City of Jurupa Valley
Deborah Franklin/Art Welch, City of Banning
Karen Spiegel/Randy Fox, City of Corona
Neil Winter/John Denver, City of Menifee
Victoria Baca/Ulises Cabrera, City of Moreno Valley
Berwin Hanna/Ted Hoffman, City of Norco
Michael Vargas/Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Andrew Kotyuk/Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Ben J. Benoit/Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and
Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist
Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional
Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Program, and Provide Policy Direction on
Transportation Programs and Projects related to
Western Riverside County and other areas as may
be prescribed by the Commission.
COMM-WRC-00045
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Monday, March 26, 2018
BOARD ROOM
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72
hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for
inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third
Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the
Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the
Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of
each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public
comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public
comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their
time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or
presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies
to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during
public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members
may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent
agenda for consideration.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 26, 2018
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
Page 2
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to
the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an
item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
7. AGREEMENT FOR EXPRESS LANES MARKETING SERVICES – NOTICE TO PROCEED 2 SERVICES
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-047-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No.
18-31-047-00, with Sherry Matthews, Inc., DBA Sherry Matthews Advocacy Marketing
(Sherry Matthews) for notice to proceed (NTP) 2 services related to express lanes
marketing;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to issue NTP 2 for an additional amount of
$2,225,000, and a total amount not to exceed (NTE) $2.5 million; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT
Page 16
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-104-00, with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Company (BNSF) for the advancement of BNSF engineering reviews required for the
Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) for a total amount not to exceed
$100,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
Page 3
9. CHANGE ORDER TO AMEND THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
WITH SKANSKA-AMES, A JOINT VENTURE, FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/STATE ROUTE 91
EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT
Page 22
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Change Order No. 5 to Agreement No. 16-31-057-00 for the I-15 Express
Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) with Skanska-Ames, a Joint Venture, (Skanska-Ames) to
perform early geotechnical work and provide support staff in support of the Interstate
15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of
$1,790,000, plus a contingency amount of $179,000, for a total amount of $1,969,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the change order amendment on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for the project;
4) Approve an adjustment of $1,256,970 to the FY 2017/18 budget to increase state
revenues and design builder expenditures; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT UPDATE
Page 28
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation related to potential
improvements to the State Route 91 corridor.
11. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVALIDATION
AND PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, COST ESTIMATES, AND RELATED SERVICES FOR
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 71/STATE ROUTE 91 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Page 29
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 11-31-110-09, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No.
11-31-110-00, with Parsons Transportation Group (Parsons) to provide professional
services for the preparation of an environmental revalidation and plans, specifications,
and cost estimates (PS&E) and related services for improvements for the State Route
71/SR-91 (71/91) Interchange project, from approximately one-quarter mile west of
Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the city of Corona in the amount of
$3,575,373, plus a contingency amount of $357,537, for an additional amount of
$3,932,910, and a total amount not to exceed $12,873,478;
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
Page 4
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. APPROVAL OF UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS FOR STATE ROUTE
71/STATE ROUTE 91 INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Page 50
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-103-00 with Southern California Gas (SCG) for
construction of utility relocations for the State Route 71/SR-91 Interchange (71/91 IC)
project in the amount of $2,890,941, plus a contingency amount of $289,094, for a
total amount not to exceed $3,180,035;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required for this utility relocation agreement; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
13. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS FOR 2018 MEASURE A WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS
Page 58
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award Agreement No. 18-26-107-00 to Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the
provision of travel training services (Travel Training Program) in an amount not to
exceed $220,000;
2) Award Agreement No. 18-26-108-00 to the Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley for the
provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School
Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $405,000;
3) Award Agreement No. 18-26-109-00 to the Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County for
the provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School
Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $630,000;
4) Award Agreement No. 18-26-111-00 to Care-A-Van Transit, Inc. for the provision of
directly operated transportation services (Care-A-Van Project) in an amount not to
exceed $1,140,000;
5) Award Agreement No. 18-26-112-00 to Care Connexxus for the provision of directly
operated transportation services (Adult Day Services Patients) in an amount not to
exceed $765,000;
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
Page 5
6) Award Agreement No. 18-26-113-00 to the City of Norco, Department of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services for the provision of directly operated
transportation services (Seniors on the Move-Senior Shuttle) in an amount not to
exceed $281,000;
7) Award Agreement No. 18-26-114-00 to Community Connect 211-Vetlink (211 One
Call/One Click) for the provision of transportation information services in an amount
not to exceed $193,133;
8) Award Agreement No. 18-26-115-00 to Community Connect TAP (Transportation
Access Program) for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services in an
amount not to exceed $360,000;
9) Award Agreement No. 18-26-116-00 to Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc.
dba Exceed for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Hemet
Transportation) in an amount not to exceed $179,000;
10) Award Agreement No. 18-26-117-00 to Forest Folk, Inc. for the provision of directly
operated transportation services (Idyllwild Area Shuttle) in an amount not to exceed
$173,640;
11) Award Agreement No. 18-26-118-00 to Friends of Moreno Valley for the provision of
directly operated transportation services (MoVAN) in an amount not to exceed
$313,029;
12) Award Agreement No. 18-26-119-00 to Independent Living Partnership for the
provision of mileage reimbursement of volunteer drivers (Transportation
Reimbursement and Information Project – TRIP Western Riverside) in an amount not
to exceed $1,318,000;
13) Award Agreement No. 18-26-120-00 to Michelle’s Place for the provision of travel
assistance (Treatment Travel Assistance TTA) in an amount not to exceed $30,000;
14) Award Agreement No. 18-26-121-00 to Operation Safehouse for the provision of
directly operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living Program) in
an amount not to exceed $112,400;
15) Award Agreement No. 18-26-122-00 to Riverside University Health Medical Center
(RUHS-MC) for the provision of directly operated transportation services
(Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $960,000;
16) Award Agreement No. 18-26-124-00 to Riverside University Health System-Behavioral
Health (RUHS-BH) for the provision of directly operated transportation services
(Transportation Change) in an amount not to exceed $660,000;
17) Award Agreement No. 18-26-125-00 to United States Veterans Initiative for the
provision of directly operated transportation services (US Vets Initiative
Transportation – Riverside) in an amount not to exceed $129,000;
18) Award Agreement No. 18-26-126-00 to Voices for Children for the provision of mileage
reimbursement of volunteer drivers (Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement Program) in
an amount not to exceed $330,805; and
19) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
Page 6
14. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and
upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled
to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2018, Board Chambers, First Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, February 26, 2018
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was
called to order by Chair Deborah Franklin at 1:31 p.m., in the Board Room at the County
of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California,
92501.
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Commissioner Neil Winter led the Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee in a flag salute.
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Marion Ashley
Victoria Baca
Ben Benoit
Brian Berkson
Deborah Franklin
Berwin Hanna
Kevin Jeffries
Andrew Kotyuk
Adam Rush*
Karen Spiegel
Michael Vargas
Neil Winter
*arrived after meeting was called to order
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 27, 2017
M/S/C (Spiegel/Baca) to approve the minutes as submitted.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 2
At this time, Commissioner Adam Rush arrived.
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions at this time.
7. AMENDMENTS TO THE INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES
PROJECT AND THE 15/91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the amendments to the
investment grade traffic and revenue study services agreement with Stantec Consulting
Services for the I-15 Express Lanes Project and the 15/91 Express Lanes connector project.
David Thomas clarified for Commissioner Karen Spiegel the 15/91 Express Lane Connector
project is a stand alone project and we are amending the I-15 Express Lanes project
amendment to do this work.
M/S/C (Baca/Hanna) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 15-31-048-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement
No. 15-31-048-00, with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) for
traffic and revenue study services for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes
Project (I-15 ELP) in the amount of $235,000, plus a contingency of
$23,500, for an additional amount of $258,500, and a total amount not
to exceed $1,844,900;
2) Approve Agreement No. 15-31-048-04, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement
No. 15-31-048-00, with Stantec for traffic and revenue study services for
the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91
ELC) in the amount of $110,000, plus a contingency amount of $11,000,
for a total amount not to exceed $121,000;
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the amendments on behalf of the Commission;
4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency
work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the projects;
and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 3
8. AMENDMENT TO THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT TOLL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 15/91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR
PROJECT
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the amendment to the I-15
Express Lanes Project toll services agreement with Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation for
the 15/91 Express Lanes connector project.
M/S/C (Vargas/Ashley) to:
1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 16-31-043-00 for the I-15
Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) with Kapsch TrafficCom Transportation
NA Inc. (Kapsch) to design, implement, operate, and maintain a toll
collection system (Toll Services) in support of the Interstate 15/State
Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of
$314,721, plus a contingency amount of $31,500, for a total amount of
$346,221;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency
work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project;
and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. AUTHORIZATION TO USE PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE § 130238 FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF
FASTRAK® 6C TRANSPONDERS
Reinland Jones, Toll Technology Manager, presented the details of the authorization to
use Public Utilities Code § 130238 for the procurement of Fastrak® 6C transponders.
In response to Commissioner Winter’s questions regarding the technology used to
recognize license plates, the different options of transponder devices, and the reliability
of the technology in the new transponders, Reinland Jones replied that technology
currently in use still recognizes license plates and works in tandem with the 6C and older
transponders. As far as stickers, the purpose of the standard transponder stickers are for
standard, everyday customers, while the tamper-proof stickers are for vehicles that will
not be tolled, such as CHP vehicles, bus fleets, and staff vehicles used in operations. In
these instances, tamper-proof stickers are required, and are about half the cost of basic
stickers. The reason standard transponders are used, is because they are more forgiving
than the tamper-proof versions. This is because, in the event a standard version is
improperly mounted, it can be removed, remounted, and remain functional. This is not
the case with the tamper-evident version, as removal will render it unusable, which has
lead to customer complaints in the past.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 4
Reinland Jones noted this transponder technology is widely used across a number of
states, and would provide far more reliability in our area than what is in place currently.
The current technology in use does have the capability to read the information of these
transponders, but it will require a software change that is currently being discussed with
contractors and operators.
Reinland Jones responded to Commissioner Rush’s questions regarding confusion among
customers and the new rules by stating on the 91-Express Lanes, the current technology
does not support the “switch over” option, thus requiring users to move into the 3+ lane
to identify themselves as a carpool vehicle. We are anticipating a full switch out of devices
for all of our customers, which will benefit the customers and the 91 facility seeing that it
is fairly old. This switch out will also increase the accuracy and reliability of transponder
read-rates if they are all updated devices. A marketing campaign will be initiated to get
the devices switched out for all customers. The Commission is exploring options to
incentivize our customers to swap out their old transponders for new ones and expedite
the transition.
At this time, Jennifer Crosson added that Commissioner Rush’s concerns are
understandable. However, they are spending a lot of time with OCTA to figure out the
best way to conduct the swap out. Staff is working with a consultant who has done this
swap out in Texas and Washington successfully. The current design is a pro-active
9-month swap out plan, with rewards for customers who swap out early.
Commissioner Rush asked why it is infeasible to just mail-out new transponders, and
asked if fleet-arrangements for companies have been considered (ie: a company with 15
vehicles, and just ‘shares’ 2 or 3 transferable transponders between the various vehicles).
Jennifer Crosson responded to Commissioner Rush’s question regarding the replacement
of transponders stating the transponders are transferrable. On average, each account
has 1.7 transponders, that is used in roughly 5 different vehicles. Ergo, it’s necessary to
gather information in an outreach program, to determine how many transponders are
truly needed (to avoid sending excess stickers). Businesses with fleets will benefit,
because the sticker transponders cost only $0.50 per unit instead of $12/unit; thus
making it very affordable and practical to have a transponder for every company vehicle.
We are currently working with OTC to do financial analysis, in order to change account
policies to reflect new transponder prices. This should be a great incentive for all
customers, to have individual transponder units at an affordable price, instead of
switching one, between various vehicles.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel asked for clarification on the sticker versus a transponder,
and to which Crosson answered that the sticker is the new, stream-lined transponder that
is more accurate, affordable, and less noticeable in the vehicle. Jennifer Crosson added
that a separate, switchable transponder will still be available for families/customers who
wish to declare HOV 3+; this will tie into the new project on I-15, which will require users
who use both the 91 and the 15, to have a switchable transponder.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 5
Jennifer Crosson added the switchable and sticker transponders will not double-charge if
used together, because the system will take the discounted transponder (the switchable
HOV transponder) first, and negate the secondary transponder charge. As far as charges
for lost and damaged units, all of the account policies will be changing, with the goal of
simplifying the complicated deposit and fee policies.
Reinland Jones explained that there is one set of hardware that does not change, and has
the software capability to read both old and new (6C) transponders.
Jennifer Crosson added there are 2 roads in question, both the SR-91 and the I-15; the SR-
91 will need an upgrade, but the I-15 will not because it has been set up for the 6C
technology. The implementation for the SR-91 to accept the new transponder is in
January 1, 2019. We anticipate issuing the new transponders in early 2019 because we
are having trouble getting the new transponders and have an aged transponder
inventory. It is necessary to be proactive and work with the surrounding agencies to make
sure this program is moving forward. As far as having fewer flaws, yes; simply by nature
of no longer being battery-powered, this transponder should last a lot longer and give us
a chance to upgrade the transponder fleet with our customers.
Commissioner Brian Berkson asked what methodology is being used to power the new
transponders. He added that while successful in cars, internal stickers are not practical
for motorcycles. Are external transponder stickers being considered for motorcycles?
Reinland Jones answered the transponders have an antennae and are energized by the
windshield. It is based off of a read-condition, on the lane-system itself. The system
reader lets off an energy-pulse and reads the RFID tag within the transponders. In
addressing the motorcyclist inquiry, Jones added that an external transponder is being
developed; one that is more transparent than the internal, sticker transponder. He
explained the external transponder will certainly be used, if it is decided that
motorcyclists will be issued transponders.
Commissioner Berkson mentioned that since the stickers do not permit users to claim
HOV identification, will they even work for motorcycles? Motorcycles are usually allowed
to use the HOV lane free of charge, is there some type of special programming that would
have to be done in order to allow them to use the lane and not be charged?
Jennifer Crosson explained that motorcycles are part of the special access account,
meaning that ultimately a motorcycle’s transponder IS the motorcycle. Advanced
technology is being designed to recognize motorcycles, which should render the need for
a transponder or account for motorcycles moot, seeing as they are permitted to use the
HOV lanes free of charge across the state.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 6
Commissioner Berkson asked if the new system will work with other highways such as
SR-241. Will the new technology allow the 91 to get away from even needing a 3+ lane;
asking if at some point, it will be possible to have technology that recognizes a switchable
transponder in any toll lane, so as to no longer limit HOV users to one lane?
Crosson confirmed the 6C technology will work with other toll highways, because it is the
goal of Caltrans, Title 21, and all agencies involved in the project to upgrade this system
at the same time, as a means of making the toll roads user-friendly and consistent state-
wide. Currently, bimonthly meetings are being held with different groups to discuss,
update and measure progress of the project; the meetings include Caltrans, Title 21,
RCTC, TCA, and other California transportation partners. Regarding the 3+ lane, Crosson
added that options for a 3+ transponder that can be read from any toll lane, in lieu of an
HOV-only lane, is being discussed and considered. However, further technological
upgrades as well as further cooperation with OCTA would be necessary to make that
possible.
Commissioner Winter inquired on the topic of security, noting that when transponders
were first introduced, there was an issue with theft of transponders from vehicles, that
would then be used illegally in an unregistered car; this prompted the need and usage of
license-plate identification technology capable of confirming a vehicle is linked to an
account. With 6C, will there be future technology that links the sticker transponder to
the license plate to confirm the sticker transponder is not illegally being used for an
unregistered vehicle/license plate?
Reinland Jones responded it is one of the options being explored. There are high hopes
that a similar license-scanning system will be possible with this technology, and is
definitely a security measure being discussed in design development.
Chair Franklin asked, in the event a customer is temporarily driving a loaner or rental car
(ie; their car is being serviced), how could they use the toll roads if the customer’s car has
a non-transferrable sticker?
Jennifer Crosson answered that as of right now, if a customer with a sticker transponder
is using a rental or loaner, that is something that must be discussed with the rental
company, or simply get a flex-transponder, which offers a transferrable option in such
situations. RCTC and TCA are discussing goals of reaching an agreement with rental
companies state-wide to put sticker transponders into all rental cars, and have the rental
companies buy them directly from the vendors, eliminating the middle-man. However,
that is an administrative-heavy process, and will take time to work that out and find a
streamlined, state-wide solution.
M/S/C (Baca/Vargas) to:
1) Make a finding, by a two-thirds vote, that the procurement of the new
6C transponders, as further described herein, qualifies for use of the
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 7
Commission’s procurement authority under Public Utilities Code (PUC) §
130238 (Specialized Equipment Law);
2) Authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Commission, to
undertake a procurement, including issuance of Request for Proposals
(RFP) No. 18-31-094-00, to procure 6C transponders using the
Commission’s procurement authority under the Specialized Equipment
Law;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to act on behalf of the
Commission for all purposes under PUC § 130238; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. AGREEMENT FOR EXPRESS LANES MARKETING SERVICES
Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, presented the scope of the amendment for
Express Lanes marketing services.
Jennifer Crosson clarified for Chair Franklin that she is unsure as to why none of the firms
in Riverside County submitted a bid. There were 12 firms at the pre-bid conference. Most
of the firms in attendance were more outreach oriented than marketing oriented. When
they had a better understanding of what the Commission was looking for, brand creating
and marketing services, they realized that it was not compatible with the services they
perform.
Commissioner Spiegel inquired about the need for a contingency and wanted to know if
it was typical to have a contingency on service-oriented agreements and what that type
of contingency would entail.
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, replied it is common to have contingencies on
the professional services agreements, whether it is final design, or marketing services, or
financial advisory, etc. These contingencies cover any unanticipated factors that turn up,
and were not covered in the scope of the agreement. This allows us to perform said work
with a contingency (this includes a change-order situation).
Commissioner Adam Rush voiced comments and concerns regarding traffic in the city of
Eastvale (as with many cities in the county) caused by the construction on the Limonite
Interchange Project. He also mentioned, after seeing the breakdown of costs, concern
about what seems a tremendous amount of funds needed for the agreement and how
that compares to other projects. He voiced that the main concern is the cost, and how
comfortable the Commission is in spending the funds; what is the cost vs. benefit?
Jennifer Crosson responded there is an outreach team for the I-15 Express Lanes and
there will be an outreach team for the ELC. This agreement is not project related outreach
it is for express lanes operations and opening marketing services on the I-15. Outreach
will be handled by the outreach team, this is marketing. Funding included in this
presentation and agreement are to provide a guideline for this agreement. This is task-
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 8
oriented work, wherein the Commission gives the firm a task, and they return with a price
that can be discussed and approved, allowing the project to move forward.
Commissioner Rush voiced his concerns regarding the scope of work for outreach and
marketing.
Michael Blomquist clarified that freeway closure notifications fall under public outreach
services; the 15 Express Lane outreach team is already in place and working on the
project. Both outreach and marketing are separate efforts on this project.
Anne Mayer, Executive Director requested clarification on Commissioner Rush’s
concerns.
Commissioner Rush stated his concern is with the cost, saying that he wants to ensure
that if the money is spent, they are reaping the maximum overall benefit.
Anne Mayer further explained that for a 3-year contract, the agreement will cost 2 million
dollars, which means that less than a million dollars a year is being spent on the 15 Express
Lane marketing process. This is a worthwhile venture, because thousands of customers
travel and use this service, and the marketing falls in line with the campaign to transition
to 6C Technology. With that considered, Anne Mayer feels that the proposed amount is
very reasonable marketing and advertising amount. She mentioned that the Commission
spends on outreach construction projects, outreach for the Commission communication
and outreach for marketing/advertisements. It’s true the Commission is spending more
money now than ever before on efforts like this because customers have higher
expectations. Today’s customers expect immediate responses and accurate information
provided in timely manner; and it’s necessary to meet these expectations because this is
a service the Commission is trying to encourage customers to use.
Michael Blomquist built on Anne Mayer’s point, saying that unlike the SR-91 Express Lanes
that have been around since 1995 with an established customer-base, the I-15 Express
Lanes are brand new. Therefore, work has to be done to establish that brand; the account
creation will involve focus groups. In addition, it is worth noting that over the course of
the 7-year period, the costs are very front-weighted, with the majority of the $2.5 million
budget being used in the first 3 years of services, and tapering off in the following 4 years.
Anne Mayer offered comparison in mentioning that the rail program marketing budget
for “Operation Lifesaver” was around $225,000. In fact, the Metrolink advertising budget
is being supplemented for the Perris Valley Line, for incentives and marketing to increase
ridership, which is also in a 6 figure range. Anne Mayer recognized that these numbers
are substantial numbers, but they have become commonplace in the industry,
maintaining that comparatively the I-15 Express Lane marketing budget is a reasonable
dollar amount.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 9
Commissioner Kevin Jeffries voiced his comments and concerns regarding the cost of this
agreement.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed her concerns regarding the outreach efforts and
the extensions to the contract.
Anne Mayer discussed the option for extension. In the event that an extension is needed,
it will be at the executive director’s discretion and will need to be re-addressed and
approved by the Commission.
Anne Mayer interjected that she understood all of the concerns mentioned, but that the
Commissioners were equating outreach with marketing. Clarifying that this contract is a
proposition to fund marketing efforts for the launch of the new I-15 Express Lanes and
newly updated SR-91 Express Lanes. For that launch, the Commission needs to brand the
I-15 Express Lanes, market it to new customers, notify communities about the opening of
the new operations center in Corona, and ramp-up operations at the facility. This contract
is for the marketing of the Express Lanes, between the I-15 Express Lanes, which is a $471
million project and the I-15/SR-91 is another $180 million dollar project; this is a $600
million investment with long-term debt associated with it; the contract being proposed is
for $750,000/year for the first 3 years, and $500,000 per year for the last 2 option years.
Chair Franklin interjected if anyone on the Commission would like to offer ideas on
outreach-specific projects, to improve outreach efforts, to please communicate with
RCTC staff.
Jennifer Crosson clarified for Commissioner Winter the goal of these marketing efforts
are to educate standing customers and new customers about the changes involved in this
project. It is necessary to educate customers about the 6C technology change, the policy
changes, and how to better communicate between the Commission and customers. Part
of the scope of services for this group is to do research, identify where to reach out to
people, host focus groups, and test various approaches; so emails and notifications to
customers, are clear to everyone. A big portion of this, is to provide education through
marketing in addition to advertising use of the new lanes. The Commission wants to
minimize frustration and confusion between the express lane projects, which may be a
challenge without this marketing contract, considering there are carpool policy changes,
zero-emission carpool policy changes, and technology changes just to name a few. New
grounds are being reached with this project, and customers need to know.
M/S/C (Kotyuk/Spiegel) to:
1) Approve a limited notice to proceed for $275,000 for 6C Transponders
transition, web interface for the I-15, and minor tolling concepts for the
I-15;
2) Bring this item back to the Committee with additional performance data;
and
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 10
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
At this time, Commissioner Kotyuk left the meeting.
11. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT FINAL ACCEPTANCE
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the terms of the SR-91 Design-Build
contract final acceptance.
David Thomas clarified for Commissioner Spiegel all of the maintenance will be taken over
by the respective agencies by March 15.
M/S/C (Baca/Wildomar) to:
1) Approve Final Acceptance for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement
Project (SR-91 CIP or Project) Design-Build Contract, Agreement
No. 12-31-113-01, with Atkinson/Walsh, a Joint Venture, subject to the
Executive Director’s verification that all contract requirements for Final
Acceptance have been met; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT UPDATE
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented the SR-91 Corridor potential
improvement update.
Sheldon Mar, Stantec representative, presented a detailed update on the collected traffic
data.
Commissioner Spiegel asked if any of the proposed improvement options will divert traffic
from the freeway onto the city streets.
Sheldon Mar responded that regional and local roads will be examined in the next phase
of the traffic analysis.
Sheldon Mar clarified for Commissioner Brian Berkson the three options selected will be
part of the traffic and revenue study.
Chair Franklin announced the two speakers from the audience.
Jim Steiner, Corona resident, presented his comments and concerns regarding the SR-91
CIP.
Michele Wentworth, Corona resident, presented her comments and concerns regarding
the SR-91 CIP. She requested a schedule for the remaining SR-91 progress.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 11
M/S/C to:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation related to
potential improvements to the State Route 91 corridor.
13. AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO FUND
ADDITIONAL CHP FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICES
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the scope of the
amendment with CHP to fund additional CHP freeway service patrol services.
M/S/C (Vargas/Baca) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-094-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 16-45-094-00, with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide
supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program
in Riverside County for an additional amount of $524,235, and a total
amount not to exceed $2,048,531;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
14. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS COMMITTEE
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, stated this item is for the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee to conduct an election of the officers for 2018.
At this time, Chair Franklin opened nominations for the Chair position.
Commissioner Benoit, seconded by Chair Franklin, nominated Vice Chair Adam Rush for
the Chair position for 2018.
No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations. Commissioner
Adam Rush was elected as the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee’s Chair for 2018.
The Chair then opened nominations for the Vice Chair position for 2018. Chair Franklin,
seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, nominated Commissioner Berkson for the Vice Chair
position for 2018.
No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations. Commissioner
Brian Berkson was elected as the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee’s Vice Chair for 2018.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
February 26, 2018
Page 12
15. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
There were no reports from Commissioners or the Executive Director.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tara Byerly
Deputy Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager
THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Express Lanes Marketing Services – Notice To Proceed 2
Services
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-047-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No.
18-31-047-00, with Sherry Matthews, Inc., DBA Sherry Matthews Advocacy Marketing
(Sherry Matthews) for notice to proceed (NTP) 2 services related to express lanes
marketing;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to issue NTP 2 for an additional amount of $2,225,000,
and a total amount not to exceed (NTE) $2.5 million; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
With the opening of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes in March 2017 as part of the State Route 91
Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project), the Commission embarked on its first business-type
activity as the owner of a managed lanes enterprise—a major change from its traditional
governmental activities. In 2020, the Commission will open the 15 Express Lanes, its second
enterprise, with the completion of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP).
Approximately two years later, the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector (15/91 ELC) is anticipated to
be completed and start operations.
The financing for the 91 Project and the I-15 ELP included Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans of approximately $421.1 million and $152.2 million, respectively.
The Commission also issued toll revenue bonds of $176.7 million for the 91 Project. Toll revenues
from the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and the 15 Express Lanes are pledged as security for repayment
of the TIFIA loans and the toll revenue bonds will be used to pay operating costs and major
rehabilitation costs.
1
Agenda Item 7
No governmental funds were pledged to fund the operations, major rehabilitation, and debt
service costs for these enterprises. Accordingly, the Commission is required to (i) operate and
maintain these express lanes in a reasonable and prudent manner and (ii) maintain them in good
repair, working order, and condition and in accordance with the requirements of applicable laws
and the related financing documents.
In order to operate and maintain the express lanes such that sufficient toll revenues are
generated to at least cover operating, debt service, and major rehabilitation costs, it is critical
that the Commission develop and implement effective marketing strategies to promote use of
the express lanes. Staff conducted a competitive procurement for express lanes marketing
services and presented its original recommendation last month.
Committee Feedback and Modified Contract Approach
At its February 26, 2018 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects (WRCPP) Committee
meeting, staff presented a proposed agreement with Sherry Matthews for express lanes
marketing services following a competitive procurement process. Committee members directed
staff to:
• Provide additional information regarding the work to be performed under the proposed
express lanes marketing services agreement including additional details of the work,
schedule, and proposed cost;
• Provide information related to spending and performance metrics for comparable
marketing services by the Commission and other agencies; and
• Eliminate the proposed contract contingency of $350,000 and require Commission
approval of the costs for and exercise of any of the two two-year options to extend the
agreement.
At its March 14, 2018 meeting, the Commission approved the express lanes marketing services
agreement and authorized a NTE amount for NTP 1 services of $275,000 to Sherry Matthews.
NTP 1 services include efforts related to the transition to 6C transponders for the 91 Express
Lanes and early work related to branding and website development for the 15 Express Lanes toll
operations. The 6C transition costs will be shared with Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) on a 50/50 basis in accordance with the Orange/Riverside cooperative agreement (ORCA)
related to the joint operation of the 91 Express Lanes. The NTP 1 services approval allowed
Sherry Matthews to begin work on time-sensitive tasks, while staff gathered the additional
information requested by the Committee to support the remaining NTP 2 services work to be
performed under the proposed full agreement.
This staff report provides the details of the work to be performed under NTP 2 over a three-year
term. The combined scope and term of NTP 1 and NTP 2 and elimination of contingency reflect
a $1.35 million decrease in the cost of $3.85 million initially proposed at the February WRCPP
Committee meeting. Additionally, this staff report presents comparable marketing services
2
Agenda Item 7
dollars spent and metrics from the Commission and other toll agencies. Therefore, staff believes
this report fulfills the WRCPP Committee’s direction.
Proposed NTP 2 Work Discussion
The work to be performed under NTP2 is driven by major express lane events that will occur
during the proposed three-year term of this agreement (early 2018 through early 2021). A
detailed cost breakdown and schedule for each express lane project was developed with
Sherry Matthews based on its experience providing similar express lanes work throughout the
United States. The cost and schedule will be refined after the market analysis in NTP 2 is
performed. A summary of the NTP 2 work to be performed, schedule and cost, in order of
occurrence, is provided below:
91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center Relocation – March 2019
The existing 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center (CSC) will be relocated to the
Commission’s express lanes Regional Operations Center around March 2019. The CSC address is
included on many of the 91 Express Lanes customer materials and will need to be updated and
reproduced. The customer materials were originally created by the firm contracted through the
91 Project that assisted with the RCTC 91 Express Lanes opening. The 91 Project has now been
accepted as complete, so another resource is needed to update and reproduce customer
materials. This work effort will seek to mitigate customer confusion and assist in providing a
positive customer experience related to the relocation of the CSC.
The cost of this work is estimated to be $20,000 and will be shared with OCTA.
91 Express Lanes Joint Marketing Contract Expiration – Mid 2019
As provided for in the ORCA related to the joint operation of the 91 Express Lanes, the marketing
efforts for the 91 Express Lanes to date have been provided by an OCTA-managed contract with
costs shared evenly between the agencies. That contract expires in mid-2019. This agreement
with Sherry Matthews allows for the Commission to provide the joint marketing with costs shared
evenly between the two agencies. The scope of services provides for the creation of a marketing
plan, the creative work related to the updating of the 91 Express Lanes website, radio and digital
advertising, as well as an update of the public relations training and toolkits put in place in early
2017. The goal of an annual joint marketing campaign is to educate customers on how to use
the road and to stimulate new account growth and traffic growth.
The estimated cost of the 91 Express Lanes marketing campaign (18 months) is $480,000, and it
is anticipated that 50 percent of the costs will be reimbursed by OCTA.
3
Agenda Item 7
RCTC 91 Express Lanes Account Promotions – November 2019
The 91 Express Lanes offers value-added promotions to its account holders through partnerships
with local businesses, events, and public transit operators. The current promotions are centered
in Orange County as these promotions were established by OCTA prior to the opening of the
RCTC 91 Express Lanes. Account promotions stimulate account growth that generates account-
related revenue and toll revenue. Sherry Matthews will assist the Commission in finding and
implementing value-added partnerships within Riverside County.
The cost of this work is estimated to be $20,000.
15 Express Lanes Customer Service Center Grand Opening – April 2020
The 15 Express Lanes CSC is expected to open to the public in April 2020, in advance of the new
15 Express Lanes. The CSC will be co-located with the relocated 91 Express Lanes Customer
Service Center at the Regional Operations Center. The advance opening of the CSC will allow the
15 Express Lanes CSC to answer questions about the 15 Express Lanes and open accounts for new
customers. Sherry Matthews will assist with the marketing of the new CSC. This work could
include the creation of maps, web based announcements, and banners.
The estimated cost of this effort is $15,000.
91 Express Lanes Price Sign Changes – Mid 2020
The 91 Express Lanes currently displays a joint price for customers travelling both the OCTA and
RCTC segments of the 91 Express Lanes. The opening of the 15 Express Lanes will force a change
as to how prices are displayed for customers using the 91 Express Lanes. The change will require
an update to the “How to Use” video, customer frequently asked questions, and other customer
materials. Sherry Matthews will assist with creating the new pricing messaging and related
materials.
The cost of the creative concept, message development, video creation, and material updates
and reproduction is estimated to be $30,000.
15 Express Lanes Opening – 2020
NTP 1 services provided for early work needed to advance the toll system and sign design work
currently underway. NTP 2 services will allow for the completion of a market analysis, marketing
plan, creative development and production, advertising, customer account outreach, and
coordination with the Commission’s ongoing commuter assistance outreach to employers. The
15 Express Lanes will introduce new toll technology and use policies to Riverside County. Most
noticeably, the 15 Express Lanes will introduce dynamic pricing for the first time in
Riverside County, as well as multiple ingress and egress points throughout the corridor; both are
significant changes from customers’ current experience on the 91 Express Lanes. A thorough
4
Agenda Item 7
customer education and marketing program is necessary to inform customers about how the
new road works to avoid customer confusion and potential customer service issues. Based on
lessons learned from other new toll facilities throughout the country, failure to adequately
prepare the public for these types of changes are likely to lead to impacts such as long queues at
the CSC and on the customer service phone lines and an increase in negative correspondence to
the Commission, elected officials and other government offices.
As noted previously, the I-15 ELP financing included a TIFIA loan that requires the express lanes
to generate sufficient revenue to meet the debt obligations in addition to operating and major
rehabilitation costs. Similar to a new private business opening its doors after a significant initial
capital investment, the Commission has a fiscal responsibility to its debtors and the public to
ensure customers use and support the facility. The marketing campaign for the 15 Express Lanes
opening will strive to support these goals.
The estimated cost of this work, which will take place over a two-year period, is $1.41 million.
15/91 Express Lanes Connector Opening – 2022
The 15/91 ELC is scheduled to open in 2022, one year after the base period of this contract
expires. The 15/91 ELC may pose some customer education challenges as it will connect the
Commission’s two operating express lanes that have some differing road operations and
customer policies. The Sherry Matthews team will have important insight into both the 91 and
15 Express Lanes that, if leveraged, will help with the 15/91 ELC customer education and
marketing campaign. In order to leverage the Sherry Matthews team’s experience, staff
proposes that the base year contract include the research and marketing plan development for
the 15/91 ELC prior to the end of the contract.
The estimated cost of the 15/91 ELC work is $250,000. The actual communications and marketing
will need to be performed under a new contract or during one of the available options periods of
the Sherry Matthews contract, subject to Commission approval.
Schedule and Cost Summary
The following is a preliminary high-level schedule of the proposed work to be performed based
on the major event dates provided above.
5
Agenda Item 7
The following is an estimated cost breakdown by project (91 Express Lanes, 15 Express Lanes and
15/91 ELC). Most of the 91 Express Lanes costs will be shared with OCTA; approximately
$250,000 is anticipated to be reimbursed by OCTA to the Commission. The 15 Express Lanes’
costs have been included in the I-15 ELP finance plan, and the 15/91 ELC costs will be included in
the 15/91 ELC budget.
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Marketing Plan and Strategy
Research
Market analysis
Marketing plan
Branding and Concept Design
Develop creative concepts
Key messaging
Branding and Concept Design Production
Develop and produce materials
Develop and produce videos
Advertising
Radio traffic sponsorships
Billboards
Gas station pump toppers
Digital
Special account promotions
Public Relations
Coordinate with RCTC
Customer education events
Toolkits
Mar-19 91 Express LaneCustomer Service Center Relocates
Jun-19 Joint Marketing Contract with OCTA Ends
Apr-20 15 Express Lane Customer Service Center Grand Opening
Jun-20 91 Express Lane Price Changes
Jun-20 15 Express Lane Opens
Mid-22 91/15 Express Lanes Connector Opens
2018 2019 20212020
91 Express Lanes 15 Express Lanes
15/91 Express Lane
Connector
Project Management Account management, meetings, reporting, invoicing,
budget management, etc.35,000$ 110,000$ 40,000$
Research/performance metrics 30,000 65,000 65,000
Market analysis 5,000 15,000 -
Marketing plan 15,000 15,000 10,000
Develop creative concepts 75,000 100,000 50,000
Key messaging 10,000 30,000 10,000
Develop and produce materials 100,000 100,000 50,000
Develop and produce videos 25,000 30,000 10,000
Radio traffic sponsorships 75,000 250,000 -
Outdoor - billboards - 150,000 -
Outdoor - gas station pumptoppers - 75,000 -
Digital (Banners, Google/Bing, Pandora, Mobile)75,000 375,000 -
Special account promotions 50,000 50,000 -
Coordinate with RCTC 10,000 10,000 5,000
Outreach events 15,000 30,000 -
Toolkits 30,000 20,000 10,000
550,000$ 1,425,000$ 250,000$
$2,225,000
Total By Project
Total NTP 2 Amount
Marketing Plan and
Strategy
Branding and Concept
Design
Branding and Concept
Design Production
Advertising
Public Relations
6
Agenda Item 7
The following is an estimated cost breakdown by year and project:
Comparable Customer Education, Research and Marketing Services Information
Staff surveyed the California toll operators to obtain information regarding their customer
education, research, and marketing efforts for both new facility launches and ongoing marketing
efforts. Requests for information were made to the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA),
OCTA, San Diego Association of Governments, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, Bay Area Toll Authority/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (ACTC). The information received is summarized in the table below. The
information was separated between new facility launches and ongoing marketing efforts.
Comparable Customer Education and Marketing Contracts
Marketing
Contract Term
Marketing
Contract
Value
Success Metrics Marketing/Education
Agency Staff Support
Agency
Reproduction
Support
New Facility Launches
RCTC 91
Express Lanes
16 months $265 K Account growth,
meet traffic
projections,
customer
education
Toll operations staff
oversees. No
dedicated staff.
Outsourced by
agency
MTC
680 Express
Lanes
Customer
Education
Bundled in
Program
Management
Contract
$326 K Impressions,
customer
education (lack
of customer
issues)
.7 FTE Yes, graphics
WSDOT
405 Express
Lanes
Opening
5 year base, 3 –
1 year options
$5.5 M Transponders
issued, accounts
opened
4 FTE No
2019 2020 2021 Total
CSC Relocation 20,000$ -$ -$
Price Sign Changes - 30,000 -
Joint Marketing 160,000 160,000 160,000
91 Account Promotion 20,000 - -
CSC Grand Opening - 15,000 -
Express Lanes Opening 410,000 1,000,000 -
Total 610,000$ 1,205,000$ 410,000$ 2,225,000$
Express Lanes Opening - - 250,000
91
Express
Lanes
15
Express
Lanes
550,000$
250,000
1,425,000
15/91 ELC
Subtotal 200,000 190,000 160,000
Subtotal 410,000 1,015,000 -
7
Agenda Item 7
ACTC 580
Express Lanes
Opening
2 years $620 K Transactions,
customer
compliance
.75 FTE No
RCTC 15
Express Lanes
(proposed)
2 years $1.41 M New accounts,
transactions,
customer
compliance
Toll operations staff
oversees. No
dedicated staff.
No
Ongoing Marketing
OCTA 1 year, 1 year
option
$290 K Customer
engagement,
number of
impressions and
clicks on ads
1.5 FTE Yes
RCTC/OCTA
2017 Life on
Time
Campaign
1 year, 1 year
option
$170 K Customer
engagement
1.5 FTE (OCTA) No
TCA 3 year, 2
1 year options
$1.3 M per
year
Revenue and
transactions,
new account
enrollments,
media
impressions,
Google Analytics
6.5 FTE in
communications;
1 FTE in marketing
No
Marketing of New Facility Launches
The length of marketing contracts and amount spent for a new facility launch ranges from
$265,000 (RCTC 91 Express Lanes) to $5.5 million (WSDOT 405 Express Lanes). The difference in
the amount spent can be attributed to the complexity of the project and the importance of the
campaign goals.
• The RCTC 91 Express Lanes required little customer education due to existing customer
familiarity with the OCTA 91 Express Lanes and its 22-year existence. The goal of the RCTC
91 Express Lanes campaign was to educate customers on the few new differences and to
announce the opening day. The RCTC 91 Express Lanes opening was followed by the OCTA
“Life on Time” campaign. Between the two campaigns, $435,000 was spent on the
91 Express Lanes over a four-month period.
• The ACTC contract related to its new express lanes and focused on how to use the road.
The Bay Area Toll Authority, who addressed the advertising related to the FasTrak
accounts and transponders, performs the ACTC 580 Express Lanes account management.
The proposed amount for the 15 Express Lanes reflects the need for extensive customer
education and marketing to ensure customers understand how to use the new road and
technology. The 15 Express Lanes will be opening a new CSC that will also need marketing to
attract new 15 Express Lanes customers. An effective marketing strategy for the 15 Express Lanes
8
Agenda Item 7
opening is critical to support the toll revenues needed for the operation of the express lanes and
to meet the debt obligations.
Ongoing Marketing
Ongoing marketing of existing facilities varied by toll operator and facility type. For example, the
annual marketing expenses for the 91 Express Lanes recently had an annual budget of
approximately $290,000, while the TCA annual budget is over three times that amount with a
budget of $1.3 million reflecting a different toll facility type covering a larger area.
Another perspective staff considered regarding the magnitude of ongoing marketing expenses is
the cost per customer account and cost per transponder issued. For example, staff’s proposed
contract with Sherry Matthews reflects a total estimated expense of $550,000 for the 91 Express
Lanes over three years. The total expense over a three-year period amounts to $4.03 per
customer account and $2.65 per transponder issued.
Additionally, a one-time campaign for an existing facility (e.g., the 91 Express Lanes’ 2017 Life On
Time) can factor in a certain year’s budget but not future years reflecting the focused approach
on a campaign-by-campaign basis.
A key differentiator between the Commission and most other toll operators in Southern
California is the Commission’s reliance on consultants rather than in-house staff to perform
marketing and customer education services. Whereas other operators have employees devoted
for these purposes, the Commission’s organizational structure and budget policy necessitates a
hybrid approach that requires staff from the Commission’s toll and external affairs departments
to collaborate in oversight of contracted resources. While this approach may at times result in
higher contract values, it ultimately results in lower employee and related costs.
Sherry Matthews Proposed Scope of Work
After comparing the data provided in this report to the plan for the proposed NTP 2 work, staff
believes the proposed work is appropriate considering the number of significant events to occur
over the contract period and the introduction of new technology, road design elements, and toll
policies. Staff will work with Sherry Matthews to develop detailed plans for each activity along
with a refined budget to maximize the effectiveness of the monies expended and success of the
express lanes.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends the approval of Amendment No.1 to the Sherry Matthews agreement in the
amount of $2,225,000 for NTP 2 customer education and marketing services related to the
Commission’s express lane facilities. The cost is considered fair and reasonable, and costs of
approximately $250,000 related to joint marketing efforts for the 91 Express Lanes are
anticipated to be reimbursed by OCTA.
9
Agenda Item 7
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2018/19+ Amount: $2,225,000
Source of Funds:
Toll revenues, SB132 state funds, 2017
Series A sales tax revenue bonds, OCTA
reimbursements
Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.:
Reimbursement Revenues:
009199 416 41605 0000 591 31 41203 $250,000
Expenditures/Expenses:
009199 73705 00000 0000 591 31 73704 $550,000
003027 73705 00000 0000 262 31 73704 $1,425,000
003039 73705 00000 0000 605 31 73704 $250,000
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/15/2018
Attachment: Draft Professional Services Agreement No. 18-31-047-01
10
17336.02109\30653064.1
Agreement No. 18-31-047-01
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR
EXPRESS LANES MARKETING SERVICES WITH
SHERRY MATTHEWS, INC., DBA SHERRY MATTHEWS ADVOCACY MARKETING
1. PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for express lanes marketing services is
made and entered into this ___ day of ______________, 2018, by and between the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and
SHERRY MATTHEWS, INC., a Texas corporation, DBA SHERRY MATTHEWS
ADVOCACY MARKETING ("Consultant").
2. RECITALS
2.1 The Commission and the Consultant entered into an agreement, dated
March ___, 2018, for the purpose of providing express lanes marketing
services (“Master Agreement”).
2.2 The Master Agreement authorized Commission staff to issue a Notice to
Proceed (NTP) 1 to commence the Services, as that term is defined under
the Master Agreement, and contemplated that an amendment to the Master
Agreement would be issued to include NTP 2 Services and authorization
for Commission staff to issue NTP 2.
2.3 The Commission and the Consultant now desire to amend the Master
Agreement in order to include the Scope of Services for NTP 2, the
Schedule of Services for NTP 2, and additional compensation for NTP 2
Services.
3. TERMS
3.1 The Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, shall be
amended to include those express lanes marketing services as set forth in
Exhibit “A” attached to this Amendment No. 1 and incorporated herein by
reference (“NTP 2 Services”).
11
2
17336.02109\30653064.1
Consultant shall commence performance of the NTP 2 Services upon
receipt of NTP 2, executed by the Commission’s Executive Director.
3.2 Consultant shall perform the NTP 2 Services in accordance with the terms
of the Master Agreement, and with the Schedule of Services for NTP 2
attached to this Amendment No. 1 as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein
by reference.
3.3 The total compensation for the NTP 2 Services shall not exceed Two Million
Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($2,225,000), without written
approval of Commission's Executive Director. Work shall be performed at
the rates set forth in the Master Agreement.
3.4 The maximum not to exceed value of the Master Agreement as amended
by this Amendment No. 1 is $2,500,000.
3.5 Except as amended herein, 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. 1.
3.6 This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.7 This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
[Signatures on following page]
12
3
17336.02109\30653064.1
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT NO. 18-31-047-01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of
the date first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONSULTANT
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SHERRY MATTHEWS, INC.
DBA SHERRY MATTHEWS
ADVOCACY MARKETING
By: __________________________ By: ____________________________
Dana W. Reed Signature
Chairman
___________________________
Name
____________________________
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By ____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
General Counsel Its: ________________________
* 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 persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to
RCTC.
13
17336.02109\30653064.1 Exhibit A
EXHIBIT "A"
NTP 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
[TO BE INSERTED]
14
Exhibit B
17336.02101\30623584.2
EXHIBIT "B"
NTP 2
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
[TO BE INSERTED]
15
Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager
Chris Sharman, Sherry Matthews Project Manager
Express Lanes Marketing Services Agreement
Agreement Number 18-31-047-01
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
March 26, 2018
February Committee
•Directed staff provide spending and performance metrics for
comparable marketing services;
•Moved item recommending Commission contract approval
–Limited Notice to Proceed 1
–$275,000 for time sensitive tasks
•Directed staff to return for future authorization to exercise option
years; and
•Direct staff to remove contract contingency.
March Commission
•Approved Contract;
•Approved a Limited Notice to Proceed 1 for $275,000
–Work to transition 6C transponders (shared with OCTA);
and
–Work to assist with 15 Express Lanes design
Industry Comparison –New Facilities
Marketing
Contract Term
Marketing
Contract Value Success Metrics Marketing/Education
Agency Staff Support
RCTC 91 Express
Lanes 16 months $265 K
Account growth,
meet traffic
projections,
customer education
Toll operations staff
oversees. No dedicated
staff.
MTC
680 Express Lanes
Customer Education
Bundled in
Program
Management
Contract
$326 K
Impressions,
customer education
(lack of customer
issues)
0.7 FTE
WSDOT
405 Express Lanes
Opening
5 year base,
3 –1 year options $5.5 M Transponders issued,
accounts opened 4 FTE
ACTC 580 Express
Lanes Opening 2 years $620 K
Transactions,
customer
compliance
0.75 FTE
RCTC 15 Express
Lanes (proposed)2 years $1.41 M
New accounts,
transactions,
customer
compliance
Toll operations staff
oversees. No dedicated
staff.
Marketing Services Contract
•Time and materials contract
–Use labor rates proposed during the RFP process
•Staff and Sherry Matthews develop a plan for each project
–Budget and performance metrics
•Notice to Proceed amount
–Not to Exceed amount based on preliminary planning with
Sherry Matthews
–Sherry Matthews performs all research, creative work,
production and advertisement buys
Marketing Services Procurement
Major Work Efforts
•91 Express Lanes ($550,000)
–Customer Service Center Relocation
–Price Sign Changes
–Recurring Marketing
–91 Account Promotion
•15 Express Lanes ($1,425,000)
–Customer Service Center Grand Opening
–Express Lanes Opening
•15/91 Express Lanes Connector ($250,000)
–Express Lanes Opening Planning
15 Express Lanes Challenges
•Different operating policies than 91 Express Lanes
•More ability to egress/ingress on 15 EL than 91 EL
•New transponder technology rollout
•New dynamic pricing
7
About Sherry Matthews
•30+ years experience in government
•19 years in transportation
•Woman -owned
•50+ employees
•Award -winning and effective work
•History of strong client relationships
Sherry Matthews Experience
14 years experience with toll roads in Texas
•Branded and launched new Central Texas Turnpike System and TxTag
pass for Texas Department of Transportation
•Supported four other toll projects
5 years experience with toll projects in Washington State
•Launched Washington State Department of Transportation’s first express toll
lanes with dynamic tolling/congestion pricing
•Branded and launched new carpool toll pass transponder with new 3+
peak business rules.
•Launching new SR 99 tunnel with time of day pricing
LA Metro for express lanes research project in 2016
15 EL Marketing Goals
New brand
concept
Create
awareness
Educate
motorists
Establish
accounts
860,000
monthly trips
by 2021
Overall Marketing Approach
11
Ad development Campaign implementation Measurement
Research and analysis Marketing plan development Message development Message testing
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
12
RCTC Timeline
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2018 2019 2020
6C Transition
Branding effort
Transponder design
Transponder packaging
Focus group testing
Refinement of materials
Production of materials
Customer communications
15 Express Lanes
On-road signage development and testing
Logo/branding development
Web graphics development
Customer correspondence
Key messaging development
Focus group testing
Marketing plan development
91 Express Lanes
Anniversary
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
13
RCTC Timeline
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
6C Transponder Transition
15 Express Lanes
Research –customer surveys
Marketing plan refinement
Development of ad concepts and
testing
Refining ad concepts
Outreach and partnership development
Outreach tool kit development
Ad and video development
91 Express Lanes
Research –customer surveys/focus groups
account growth
customer feedback
Key message development
Customer education/communication development
Public relations
2018 2019 2020
91 Express Lanes
Anniversary
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
14
RCTC Timeline
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2018 2019 2020
15 Express Lanes
Research –customer surveys
Marketing plan refinement
Paid media planning and buy
Media campaign
Outreach
15 Express Lanes Opening
91/15 Connector
Research
Marketing plan development
Key messaging
6C Transponder
Transition
91 Express Lanes
Anniversary
Staff Recommendation
•Approve Agreement No. 18-31-047-01, Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. 18-31-047-00, with Sherry Matthews, Inc., DBA
Sherry Matthews Advocacy Marketing for Notice to Proceed
(NTP 2) services related to express lanes marketing;
•Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the
Commission;
•Authorize the Executive Director to issue NTP 2 for an additional
amount of $2,225,000 and a total amount not to exceed (NTE)
$2,500,000; and
•Forward to the Commission for final action.
Marketing Services Procurement
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
SUBJECT: Reimbursement Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Company for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-104-00, with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
Company (BNSF) for the advancement of BNSF engineering reviews required for the
Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) for a total amount not to exceed $100,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A critical component of the I-15 ELP is the widening of the existing I-15 East Corona Overhead
bridge over the BNSF tracks adjacent to the State Route 91/I-15 junction (see Figure 1). In order
to complete this component, coordination with BNSF is required for the development of the
Construction and Maintenance (C&M) agreement required to be in place prior to the
construction of the widening of the I-15 East Corona Overhead.
16
Agenda Item 8
Figure 1: I-15 Express Lanes Project Vicinity Map
The local BNSF office is currently experiencing a substantial backlog of engineering review work
due to the significant number of ongoing grade separations and other projects within Southern
California. As the Commission approaches the need for BNSF engineering review of the I-15 East
Corona Overhead C&M agreement, it is apparent that the project would need to get in line with
all the other projects that are being submitted.
An advance reimbursement agreement would allow the local BNSF office to timely hire a firm to
perform engineering review of the C&M agreement and early construction submittals to meet
the schedule demands of the I-15 ELP. Under this advance reimbursement agreement, actual
charges to the I-15 ELP would be invoiced and paid when performed by BNSF on an as-needed
basis. The advance reimbursement agreement would have a negligible increase to the BNSF
project costs, if any, as these BNSF costs would otherwise be paid after the execution of and
through the C&M agreement. An advance reimbursement agreement was also utilized on the
SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project and helped keep the project on schedule.
Staff recommends the approval of Agreement No. 18-31-104-00, with BNSF for the advancement
of BNSF engineering review required for the I-15 ELP for a total amount not to exceed $100,000;
17
Agenda Item 8
authorization of the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement; and to forward to the Commission for final action.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2017/18
FY2018/19 Amount: $50,000
$50,000
Source of Funds: 2017A Sales Tax Revenue Bonds proceeds Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003027 81402 00000 0000 262 31 81402
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/14/2018
Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 18-31-104-00
18
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 3
March, 2018
17336.02101\30623293.1
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
BNSF File #: ______
LS 7602
MP 22.9
San Bernardino Subdivision
I-15 Express Lane Project
Corona, Riverside County, CA.
Agreement No. ____________
This Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into effective as of ____________2018, by
and between RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“RCTC”), a political
subdivision of the State of California, and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY (“BNSF”).
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, BNSF operates a freight transportation system by rail with operations throughout the United
States and Canada; and
B. WHEREAS, RCTC desires that the below described improvements be constructed at the location(s)
referenced in Recital G below over or under BNSF’s Rail Corridor; and
C. WHEREAS, it is the policy of BNSF, as owner of the Rail Corridor, to check the plans and specifications
for the grade separation bridges described below; and
D. WHEREAS, BNSF has entered into agreements with engineering consulting firms to provide plan and
specification reviews for overhead and underpass bridges to be constructed across BNSF’s Rail Corridor; and
G. WHEREAS, RCTC has adopted a project (“I-15 Express Lanes Project”) which adds two tolled express
lanes in each direction along I-15 between Cajalco Road and I-15/SR-60 interchange near the Riverside County Line,
and includes widening of the overhead that crosses BNSF’s Rail Corridor, Porphyry Overhead (I-15) DOT No.
026595H; and
H. WHEREAS, RCTC is obligated to reimburse BNSF for all of the costs incurred by BNSF for any
agreement between BNSF and RCTC and for the cost to check the plans and specifications for said bridges.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained
herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
BNSF will provide all the work, labor, including the services for outside engineering consultant’s plan and
specification reviews for the projects described below:
19
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 3
March, 2018
17336.02101\30623293.1
Porphyry Widening, Approximate BNSF MP 22.9, USDOT No. 026595H, in Corona, CA
Widen an existing Overpass Bridge Structure across BNSF’s Rail Corridor
Estimated cost to provide plan and specifications review is $100,000.00
SECTION 2. AUTHORITY TO BEGIN WORK
BNSF agrees not to commence work until receipt of notice to begin work in writing by RCTC, and that
reimbursement will be limited to those costs incurred subsequent to the date of such notification.
SECTION 3. PAYMENT OF FEES
RCTC, in consideration of the faithful performance of the work to be done by BNSF, agrees to pay BNSF
actual direct and related indirect costs accumulated in accordance with a work order accounting procedure as
prescribed and approved by the ICC Uniform System of Accounts, or its equivalent, for work described in Section 1,
SCOPE OF SERVICES above, with the total cost estimated to be $100,000.00.
Following the execution of the Agreement and written authorization to proceed with the SCOPE OF
SERVICES, progress billings may be submitted to RCTC to cover costs incurred and RCTC shall pay such progress
billings promptly upon receipt. Progress bills are not to be submitted more frequently that one (1) per month.
Final and detailed billing for all incurred costs associated with this work shall be made by the BNSF and
furnished to RCTC within one (1) year of project completion, and RCTC shall pay all eligible amounts of such bill,
less progress payments previously made, within sixty (60) days of final billing.
The parties agree that payment of any billing will not constitute agreement as to the appropriateness of any
item and that at the time of final audit all required adjustments will be made and reflected in a final payment by either
party. In the event that such final audit reveals an overpayment to BNSF, BNSF agrees to refund such overpayment
to RCTC within 60 days of agreement to audit findings.
During the progress of the work and for a period not less than three (3) years from the date of the final BNSF
invoice under this Agreement, the records and accounts pertaining to the work of the project and accounting therefor
shall be maintained by BNSF and made available for inspection and audit by RCTC and/or Federal Government, and
copies of all records, accounts, documents, or other data pertaining to the project shall be furnished by BNSF upon
request. If any litigation, claim, or audit is commenced, the records and accounts along with supporting documentation
shall be retained until all dispute, litigation, claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such dispute,
litigation, claim or audit continues past the three (3) year retention period.
No liability shall attach to RCTC or BNSF by reason of entering into this Agreement except as expressly
provided herein.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California,
excluding its conflict of laws principles. In the event of litigation arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the
parties hereto consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state courts of and federal courts in Riverside
County, California, and to service of process by any means authorized by California law
Signature Page to follow
20
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 3
March, 2018
17336.02101\30623293.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Reimbursement Agreement to be executed as
of the day and year first written above.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
By: ____________________________________________
Printed Name: Tiera Adams
Title: Manager Public Projects
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
By: _____________________________________________
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:__________________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
21
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
SUBJECT:
Change Order to Amend the I-15 Express Lanes Project Design-Build Contract
with Skanska-Ames, a Joint Venture, for the Interstate 15/State Route 91
Express Lanes Connector Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Change Order No. 5 to Agreement No. 16-31-057-00 for the I-15 Express Lanes
Project (I-15 ELP) with Skanska-Ames, a Joint Venture, (Skanska-Ames) to perform early
geotechnical work and provide support staff in support of the Interstate 15/State Route
91 Express Lanes Connector Project (15/91 ELC) in the amount of $1,790,000, plus a
contingency amount of $179,000, for a total amount of $1,969,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the change order amendment on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total
amount not to exceed as required for the project;
4) Approve an adjustment of $1,256,970 to the FY 2017/18 budget to increase state
revenues and design builder expenditures; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The 15/91 ELC will provide a tolled express lanes connector between the existing 91 Express
Lanes and the future I-15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91 (Figure 1 Vicinity Map).
22
Agenda Item 9
Figure 1: 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Vicinity Map
At its October 2017 meeting, the Commission approved an overall procurement strategy for the
15/91 ELC to secure all services and construction needed to deliver the project. The approved
strategy consists of a series of contract amendments to existing 91 Project and I-15 ELP contracts
with engineering companies, contractors, toll vendors, legal, and financial advisors. The 15/91
ELC is fully funded with state funds authorized by Senate Bill 132 in April 2017.
DISCUSSION:
At the April 12, 2017 Commission meeting, following a competitively negotiated procurement,
the Commission awarded a best-value design-build contract to Skanska-Ames to design and
construct the I-15 ELP in the amount of $243,900,000, plus a contingency amount of $19,512,000
for a total amount not to exceed $263,412,000.
Based on the overall procurement strategy approved for the 15/91 ELC, staff supports a change
order to amend the I-15 ELP design-build contract to perform geotechnical work and to provide
additional support staff for three months in support of the 15/91 ELC. This effort is being
advanced ahead of other planned design-build contract change orders and amendments to
deliver the 15/91 ELC, in order to appropriately staff ongoing efforts, avoid impacts to the I-15
ELP, and reduce the cost and impacts associated with performing this work at a later date. Staff
is in the process of negotiating contract Change Order No. 5 (Attachment 1) for a total not to
exceed amount of $1,790,000. A final amount is expected prior to the April Commission meeting.
23
Agenda Item 9
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 5 to amend the design-build contract between
the Commission and Skanska-Ames in the amount of $1,790,000, plus a contingency amount of
$179,000 for a total amount of $1,969,000. Further, authorization is requested for the Chair or
Executive Director to execute the change order amendment on behalf of the Commission and for
the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed
amount as required for the project. Finally, staff recommends approval of an adjustment of
$1,256,970 to the FY 2017/18 budget to increase state revenues and design builder expenditures,
as the 15/91 ELC was not included in the FY 2017/18 budget.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No
N/A Year: FY 2017/18
FY 2018/19 Amount: $1,256,970
$ 712,030
Source of Funds: SB 132 State Funds Budget Adjustment: Yes
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003039 415 41510 0000 605 31 41501 (revenues)
003039 81603 00000 0000 605 31 81603 (expenditures)
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/15/2018
Attachment: Draft Change Order No. 5
24
Riverside County Transportation Commission Contract Number: 16-31-057-00
I-15 ELP Design-Build Contract Page 1 of 3 Change Order Number 5
I-15 ELP PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 5 CONTRACT NO. 16-31-057-00
DATE: 3/14/2018
SECTION I:
Title: Geotechnical Work
Company Name: Skanska-Ames a Joint Venture (DB Contractor)
Description: Geotechnical investigations for the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector (ELC)
Additions/Deletions/Modifications to Contract Document requirements: NONE
Scope:
DB Contractor shall provide any and all supervision, labor, equipment, materials, laboratory
testing, traffic control, and other services necessary to perform geotechnical field investigations
and laboratory testing necessary to design the 15/91 ELC for roadway widenings, bridge structure
widenings, sign location changes and retaining walls. The DB Contractor is expected to develop
a geotechnical exploration plan and perform geotechnical investigations for structures to be
constructed within the work area depicted in the attached schematic drawing. The attached
drawing is for information and guidance only. DB Contractor shall conduct subsurface exploration,
analysis, design and report development per Technical Provisions Section 13. In addition, DB
Contractor shall provide an additional project engineer and ELC Manager for the 15/91 ELC effort
for three months.
SECTION II: Change Order Cost increase☒ decrease☐ none☐
Total Change Order Cost shall not exceed $1,790,000.00.
SECTION III: Time Impact
The status of all Completion Milestones is: 0 Days (No Adjustment)
SECTION IV: CHANGE REQUESTED BY:
RCTC ☒ DB CONTRACTOR ☐
25
Riverside County Transportation Commission Contract Number: 16-31-057-00
I-15 ELP Design-Build Contract Page 2 of 3 Change Order Number 5
SECTION V: Certification and Other Acknowledgments
I, _________________, the Authorized Representative of DB Contractor, hereby certify
under penalty of perjury that the above four sections represent a true, accurate and
complete summary of all aspects of this Change Order, and that (a) the amount of time
and/or compensation requested will be justified as to entitlement and amount, (b) the
amount of time and/or compensation requested will include all known and anticipated
impacts or amounts, direct, indirect and consequential, which may be incurred as a
result of the event, occurrence or matter giving rise to the proposed change (and
includes all Subcontractor and Supplier amounts), and (c) the cost and pricing data
forming the basis for this Change Order is complete, accurate and current, with specific
reference to the California False Claims Act (Government Code section 1250 et seq.)
and the U.S. False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. section 3729 et seq.).
It is understood and agreed that this Change Order shall not alter or change, in any way,
the force and effect of the Contract Documents, including any previous amendment(s)
thereto, except insofar as the same is expressly altered and amended by this Change
Order.
This Change Order supersedes all prior commitments, negotiations, correspondence,
conversations, agreements or understanding applicable to the issues addressed herein.
No deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or
agreements, whether oral or written, other than the Agreement, as amended in
accordance with its terms.
This Change Order is binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, each of the parties
and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DB Contractor, intending to be legally bound, has
executed this Change Order as of the date below.
DB Contractor:
Skanska-Ames a Joint Venture
By: ____________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: ___________________________
Dated as of: _____________________
26
Riverside County Transportation Commission Contract Number: 16-31-057-00
I-15 ELP Design-Build Contract Page 3 of 3 Change Order Number 5
SECTION VI (Reviewed and recommended agreed by RCTC Project Manager):
By: ___________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: __________________________
Dated as of: ____________________
Comments:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
SECTION VII (Agreed by RCTC’s Authorized Representative):
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RCTC, intending to be legally bound, has executed this
Change Order as of the date first written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: ____________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: ___________________________
Dated as of: _____________________
27
AGENDA ITEM 10
Agenda Item 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State Route 91 Corridor Potential Improvement Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation related to potential
improvements to the State Route 91 corridor.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On March 20, 2017, the Commission opened general purpose and express lanes as part of the
State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (Project). Staff gathered data related to traffic
conditions both before and after the Project opening to help evaluate the impact of the Project
on mobility in the SR-91 corridor.
Since the opening, staff has managed demand for the express lanes through changing of toll rates
to match congestion levels throughout each day. Staff also made operational improvements in
the corridor since the Project opening through changing in striping, signing, and channelizers.
Staff continues to evaluate further potential improvements to the SR-91 corridor, the associated
potential impacts to toll revenue, estimated cost and timing of potential improvements, and
other related factors. Staff will continue to provide monthly progress of this work to the
Committee and as well as any future staff recommendations.
28
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
Sheldon Mar, Consultant Project Manager
FINE TUNING THE 91 CORRIDOR
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee Meeting
March 26, 2018
Today’s Presentation
•I-15 northbound-to -91 westbound entrance options
–Traffic impacts
•91 westbound at county line
–Traffic impacts of turning the ramp-meter off under
existing conditions
•91 westbound at county line
–Implementation:costs, schedule, and issues
•Results planned for the next WRCPP meeting
15 NORTHBOUND TO 91 WESTBOUND
EXPRESS LANES ENTRANCE
TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS
" 1 5 N o r t h b o u n d
" T r a f f i c F l o w O p t i o n s
I-15 Northbound –Existing Traffic Conditions
•Queues south of Cajalco are not new
•Congestion around Ontario Ave is new
•EL traffic extended into GP lanes
•Queues developed along GP lanes
I-15 Northbound –Existing Traffic Conditions
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
11/13/1711/20/1711/27/1712/4/1712/11/1712/18/171/8/181/15/181/22/181/29/182/5/182/12/182/19/182/26/183/5/183/12/183/19/18# of Hours of Queue -EL Channelizers until clearing McKinley
•Duration of queues from I-15 NB to WB EL has declined as tolls have increased.
•Some days see no queue at all.
I-15 Northbound –Existing Traffic Conditions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM9:00 AM9:30 AM10:00 AMSpeed (mph)I-15 NB Express -Price Sign (Ontario) to Gantry (3.3 miles)
May to October 2017 Mid-Late January 2018
•NB to WB EL speeds in recent past have improved, near free-flow
I-15 Northbound –Existing Traffic Conditions
6:30 AM Late August to October Mid January to Early February
91 East 69 69 69 69 69 41 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 41 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Magnolia Ave 62 67 49 50 65 17 50 53 51 52 69 70 70 71 69 74 69 66 57 58 63 49 53 53 63 64 58 58 60 62 61 63 63 60 62
Magnolia Ave (0.8 miles before)68 34 28 28 29 19 24 31 25 28 29 30 37 36 40 35 35 67 33 30 29 32 66 23 68 68 64 66 68 67 68 68 68 36 39
Ontario Ave 37 22 19 20 19 17 18 25 15 19 18 18 20 50 31 35 26 66 27 16 18 23 58 28 65 66 57 65 64 64 64 63 66 33 43
El Cerrito Rd 17 20 16 20 17 17 20 42 9 19 14 10 11 17 28 20 30 59 18 11 11 15 59 17 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 49 48
Cajalco Rd 17 21 18 18 16 17 21 38 10 18 14 8 11 17 22 20 33 36 14 10 11 12 43 17 52 54 53 50 69 69 69 69 69 49 48
Weirick Rd 18 20 18 12 14 18 16 18 12 14 22 18 21 15 17 15 20 25 12 11 10 11 49 15 31 54 32 39 52 52 49 51 55 37 37
Weirick Rd (1.2 miles before)18 24 17 12 14 18 14 18 12 15 12 8 8 12 14 12 18 29 11 11 9 9 42 18 26 70 41 70 70 70 45 44 70 40 70
Temescal Canyon Rd 19 26 29 21 21 14 20 9 18 19 14 7 10 20 17 16 47 53 27 15 12 15 40 53 41 62 57 61 64 60 54 56 61 56 59
Temescal Canyon Rd (1.4 miles befo 18 23 33 22 24 18 16 18 17 12 14 9 11 19 17 18 70 70 29 15 12 20 47 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Indian Truck Trail 50 61 40 43 36 36 49 31 38 41 36 33 34 42 37 58 71 69 71 38 45 66 59 68 67 68 68 66 61 67 67 67 67 68 68
Indian Truck Trail (1.2 miles before)30 44 23 32 27 18 24 18 30 34 35 30 36 45 32 70 70 70 70 46 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
7:30 AM
91 East 69 69 69 69 69 41 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 41 49 69 45 69 69 69 69 22 49 52 43 32 56 54 48 58 47 51 53 49 46
Magnolia Ave 60 63 50 49 69 17 54 54 53 50 65 68 72 58 66 66 46 50 53 45 54 39 59 63 63 59 64 64 65 64 66 65 64 58 63
Magnolia Ave (0.8 miles before)33 36 32 27 32 19 34 33 30 23 39 28 32 26 36 43 42 68 38 33 38 34 66 67 68 68 69 68 68 69 68 68 69 66 68
Ontario Ave 33 26 25 18 21 17 24 24 21 19 27 19 18 42 33 30 38 67 27 22 17 18 56 67 68 66 66 68 66 67 70 67 67 41 66
El Cerrito Rd 35 23 21 16 15 17 20 18 23 19 23 17 13 17 30 27 42 60 36 24 24 27 40 69 61 60 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 60
Cajalco Rd 35 22 17 17 14 17 19 17 23 19 23 15 15 17 26 24 36 33 30 20 23 23 21 47 31 37 42 44 48 42 42 47 42 42 42
Weirick Rd 35 17 14 13 11 18 15 18 14 16 27 21 24 16 16 13 22 26 16 13 13 11 24 25 19 28 21 23 27 24 19 25 24 22 26
Weirick Rd (1.2 miles before)35 14 14 10 8 18 11 18 11 14 16 8 9 18 16 11 34 70 16 11 11 11 27 24 20 32 19 18 27 23 17 24 21 19 23
Temescal Canyon Rd 15 10 9 11 5 10 10 11 7 9 10 6 6 13 11 11 63 67 12 12 11 11 56 49 50 60 48 37 58 51 25 56 42 38 54
Temescal Canyon Rd (1.4 miles befo 35 12 9 12 8 18 12 18 9 12 9 7 8 18 12 16 70 70 14 14 12 18 70 70 70 70 70 18 70 70 39 70 70 70 70
Indian Truck Trail 31 34 30 30 29 30 32 29 30 43 31 31 30 61 47 69 69 73 67 49 32 69 67 67 68 67 68 68 70 67 69 68 67 68 69
Indian Truck Trail (1.2 miles before)35 24 16 17 17 18 22 18 34 70 34 35 37 18 70 70 70 70 70 70 37 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
8:30 AM
91 East 69 69 56 69 69 41 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 41 51 69 69 69 69 69 69 43 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Magnolia Ave 65 55 60 50 56 17 59 68 48 68 67 64 72 49 53 57 46 47 54 56 50 54 57 64 62 61 60 57 62 61 59 62 61 62 61
Magnolia Ave (0.8 miles before)69 45 68 44 37 19 46 68 19 68 50 43 48 29 68 50 68 68 67 45 38 50 67 68 68 69 68 35 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Ontario Ave 37 40 54 36 33 17 61 70 17 70 62 38 42 61 46 59 74 67 65 27 27 36 61 68 67 66 63 33 66 64 64 68 66 67 66
El Cerrito Rd 17 42 36 38 33 17 69 69 17 61 60 34 41 17 46 54 69 69 69 31 26 45 61 69 69 69 69 46 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Cajalco Rd 17 31 18 33 28 17 42 43 17 35 42 23 27 17 34 44 69 69 44 26 20 31 38 42 46 43 50 55 46 56 47 69 45 41 69
Weirick Rd 18 17 12 20 17 18 20 23 18 20 35 38 35 18 16 16 64 64 19 14 12 15 26 25 28 24 27 34 24 29 25 37 25 20 35
Weirick Rd (1.2 miles before)18 14 11 16 12 18 15 21 18 13 17 13 14 18 16 16 70 70 20 15 11 16 30 24 34 26 26 40 21 27 32 31 27 16 35
Temescal Canyon Rd 14 12 6 11 10 13 10 13 11 12 14 10 8 26 44 15 66 63 18 11 12 15 54 43 57 56 54 58 40 53 57 58 57 20 42
Temescal Canyon Rd (1.4 miles befo 18 15 9 12 14 18 12 15 18 14 24 13 11 18 70 29 70 70 31 16 16 23 70 70 70 70 70 70 45 70 70 70 70 36 70
Indian Truck Trail 35 32 29 31 31 32 43 47 64 68 65 64 36 63 68 68 66 65 66 65 66 68 62 66 64 65 67 65 66 65 66 68 66 65 67
Indian Truck Trail (1.2 miles before)70 21 11 16 17 18 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 18 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
I-15 Northbound –No-Build vs. Option 1
•GP lane queues improve versus existing
•Extend EL auxiliary lane permits more storage and gets EL traffic out of the way
•Queue spills past channelizers –queuing in EL exists alongside fast-moving GP traffic
I-15 Existing Model
Express - NB to WB I-15 GP Lanes
Location4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AMAt Magnolia 65 63 23 13 13 13 13 13 32 66 66 66 64 64 64 64 63 64
N. of Egress 58 52 32 13 13 13 13 16 35 63 58 53 42 42 43 42 43 52
S. of Aux Lane 64 63 59 22 20 25 25 31 51 65 64 60 23 22 26 25 32 52
N. of Ontario 66 66 66 53 28 17 24 23 56 66 66 66 52 28 18 24 23 56
At Ontario 66 66 66 61 49 34 39 41 65 66 66 66 61 49 34 39 41 65
S. of Ontario 66 65 65 64 54 54 62 59 64 66 65 65 64 54 54 62 59 64
El Cerrito-Ontario 60 61 62 54 47 43 47 45 52 60 61 62 54 47 43 47 45 52
I-15 Option 1 - Extended Auxiliary Lane
Express - NB to WB I-15 GP Lanes
Location4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AMAt Magnolia 64 63 18 13 13 13 13 13 39 66 66 66 65 65 64 65 64 65
N. of Egress 64 62 40 14 14 13 13 14 43 66 66 65 58 54 52 50 53 64
S. of Aux Lane 66 64 47 18 14 14 13 15 51 66 65 52 29 25 25 22 26 56
N. of Ontario 66 65 65 65 64 64 64 64 66 66 66 65 65 65 64 64 64 65
At Ontario 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 67
S. of Ontario 66 65 65 64 65 62 63 63 65 66 65 65 64 65 62 63 63 65
El Cerrito-Ontario 58 62 62 53 58 42 48 46 59 58 62 62 53 58 42 48 46 59
I-15 Northbound –No-Build vs. Option 2
•Option 2 shortens the EL queue
•Forces a merge resulting in crawl conditions but for a shorter distance –does not spill outside of the EL
I-15 Existing Model
Express - NB to WB I-15 GP Lanes
Location4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AMAt Magnolia 65 63 23 13 13 13 13 13 32 66 66 66 64 64 64 64 63 64
N. of Egress 58 52 32 13 13 13 13 16 35 63 58 53 42 42 43 42 43 52
S. of Aux Lane 64 63 59 22 20 25 25 31 51 65 64 60 23 22 26 25 32 52
N. of Ontario 66 66 66 53 28 17 24 23 56 66 66 66 52 28 18 24 23 56
At Ontario 66 66 66 61 49 34 39 41 65 66 66 66 61 49 34 39 41 65
S. of Ontario 66 65 65 64 54 54 62 59 64 66 65 65 64 54 54 62 59 64
El Cerrito-Ontario 60 61 62 54 47 43 47 45 52 60 61 62 54 47 43 47 45 52
I-15 Option 2 - Extended Auxiliary Lane and 2-lane entrance
Express - NB to WB I-15 GP Lanes
Location4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AM4:30 AM5:00 AM5:30 AM6:00 AM6:30 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM8:00 AM8:30 AMAt Magnolia 64 63 16 7 5 5 5 5 37 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65
N. of Egress 67 67 67 66 66 66 66 66 67 66 66 66 65 65 64 64 64 65
S. of Aux Lane 67 66 67 66 66 66 66 66 67 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65
N. of Ontario 67 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 66 67 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 66
At Ontario 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 66 66 66 67
S. of Ontario 65 65 65 64 65 63 63 62 65 65 65 65 64 65 63 63 62 65
El Cerrito-Ontario 56 62 62 49 57 44 47 41 59 56 62 62 49 57 44 47 41 59
91 WESTBOUND AT COUNTY LINE
TURNING OFF THE GREEN RIVER RAMP METER
TRAFFIC OPERATION ANALYSIS
Current Traffic Counts
Green River Road Ramp
Green River Road Ramp Meter –Option 7 (existing)
•Green River Road throughput 100-150 vph higher under Option 4b
•Option 7 (existing without meter) shows at most 50 vph more throughput
•Constrained by the GP lane merge.
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM
Green River Road On-Ramp Volume
Existing Model Option 7 Option 4b
Green River Road Ramp Meter –Option 7 (existing)
•Existing minus Green River Road meter –speed improves from 8
mph to 10 mph
•Exceeds 20 mph after 9:15 AM
•Less improvement vs. Option 4 without meter
Opt 7:
25
minutes
Others:
29
minutes
From To Existing Model
Existing w/ Meter
(Option 7)
4:30 AM 4:45 AM 36 43
4:45 AM 5:00 AM 34 39
5:00 AM 5:15 AM 28 32
5:15 AM 5:30 AM 18 21
5:30 AM 5:45 AM 13 15
5:45 AM 6:00 AM 11 12
6:00 AM 6:15 AM 9 11
6:15 AM 6:30 AM 8 10
6:30 AM 6:45 AM 8 9
6:45 AM 7:00 AM 8 9
7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7 9
7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7 9
7:30 AM 7:45 AM 7 9
7:45 AM 8:00 AM 7 9
8:00 AM 8:15 AM 7 10
8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8 10
8:30 AM 8:45 AM 8 12
8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9 14
9:00 AM 9:15 AM 11 20
9:15 AM 9:30 AM 14 34
9:30 AM 9:45 AM 23 42
9:45 AM 10:00 AM 40 43
GP Speed (mph)
OPTION 7
From To w/o 241 Off SR 241 Off SR 241 Aux
Approaching
241 e/o EL Ing
County Line
West
County Line
Mid
County Line
East
w/o EL
Egress
e/o EL
Egress
Grn Riv
Merge GrnRiv-71 SR 71 71-Serfas
Serfas-
Maple
Maple-
Lincoln
Lincoln-
Main
4:30 AM 5:00 AM 57 58 60 60 57 60 61 54 39 38 15 21 16 30 60 61 51
5:00 AM 5:30 AM 59 60 59 60 55 60 60 51 33 31 13 15 11 9 8 63 58
5:30 AM 6:00 AM 61 61 59 60 56 60 61 51 21 19 12 14 9 8 14 64 63
6:00 AM 6:30 AM 61 61 58 60 59 60 61 51 17 16 11 13 9 8 24 62 64
6:30 AM 7:00 AM 62 62 57 60 58 60 61 53 15 15 11 12 8 8 50 66 64
7:00 AM 7:30 AM 63 62 57 61 59 61 62 53 15 15 10 11 8 7 66 66 65
7:30 AM 8:00 AM 63 61 57 61 59 61 62 53 15 15 11 11 8 7 66 66 65
8:00 AM 8:30 AM 64 61 53 60 57 61 62 53 15 15 11 12 8 7 66 66 65
8:30 AM 9:00 AM 64 60 51 60 58 61 62 53 15 15 10 11 8 7 65 65 64
9:00 AM 9:30 AM 63 60 52 60 57 60 61 53 16 15 11 12 8 20 65 65 64
9:30 AM 10:00 AM 63 61 55 60 53 60 61 50 21 21 16 22 26 48 64 64 64
4:30 AM 5:00 AM 60 60 61 60 61 61 61 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 58 61 56
5:00 AM 5:30 AM 59 58 60 60 60 61 60 57 56 57 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
5:30 AM 6:00 AM 60 60 61 60 61 62 60 57 56 58 58 58 58 59 56 60 56
6:00 AM 6:30 AM 60 60 61 61 61 62 57 56 56 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
6:30 AM 7:00 AM 60 61 61 61 62 62 38 56 54 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
7:00 AM 7:30 AM 61 62 62 62 62 63 17 32 49 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
7:30 AM 8:00 AM 61 62 62 62 63 63 14 17 18 41 56 58 58 59 56 60 56
8:00 AM 8:30 AM 61 62 62 62 63 63 12 16 16 15 20 58 59 59 56 60 56
8:30 AM 9:00 AM 61 61 62 61 62 62 15 17 17 15 17 56 59 59 57 60 56
9:00 AM 9:30 AM 60 60 61 61 62 62 24 28 33 40 48 59 59 60 58 61 56
9:30 AM 10:00 AM 60 61 61 61 61 62 60 59 58 59 59 60 60 60 59 61 57GENERAL PURPOSEEXPRESS LANE“Heat Map” –Option 7
Existing, remove Green River Road Ramp Meter
Option 7:Minimal change in mainline
operations
EXISTING
From To w/o 241 Off SR 241 Off SR 241 Aux
Approaching
241 e/o EL Ing
County Line
West
County Line
Mid
County Line
East
w/o EL
Egress
e/o EL
Egress
Grn Riv
Merge GrnRiv-71 SR 71 71-Serfas
Serfas-
Maple
Maple-
Lincoln
Lincoln-
Main
4:30 AM 5:00 AM 58 57 60 60 56 60 61 53 34 32 17 24 16 30 61 61 51
5:00 AM 5:30 AM 59 60 60 61 57 60 61 50 24 22 14 14 10 9 9 63 58
5:30 AM 6:00 AM 61 61 59 61 57 61 61 51 18 16 12 13 9 8 11 64 63
6:00 AM 6:30 AM 61 61 59 60 57 60 61 51 17 16 12 13 9 8 14 65 64
6:30 AM 7:00 AM 62 62 58 61 59 61 61 53 16 14 10 11 8 8 50 66 64
7:00 AM 7:30 AM 63 62 57 61 58 61 62 53 15 14 11 11 8 7 66 66 65
7:30 AM 8:00 AM 64 61 55 61 58 61 62 53 15 15 11 12 9 7 66 66 65
8:00 AM 8:30 AM 64 61 53 61 57 61 62 53 15 15 11 11 8 7 66 66 65
8:30 AM 9:00 AM 64 59 50 60 57 61 61 53 15 15 11 11 8 7 65 65 64
9:00 AM 9:30 AM 63 59 47 60 57 60 61 53 15 15 11 11 9 14 65 65 64
9:30 AM 10:00 AM 63 61 54 60 55 61 61 51 21 20 14 16 15 48 64 64 64
4:30 AM 5:00 AM 60 60 61 60 61 61 61 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 58 61 56
5:00 AM 5:30 AM 59 58 60 60 60 61 60 57 56 57 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
5:30 AM 6:00 AM 60 60 61 60 61 62 60 57 56 58 58 58 58 59 56 60 56
6:00 AM 6:30 AM 60 60 61 61 61 62 57 56 56 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
6:30 AM 7:00 AM 60 61 61 61 62 62 37 55 54 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
7:00 AM 7:30 AM 61 62 62 62 62 63 19 35 51 58 58 58 59 59 56 60 56
7:30 AM 8:00 AM 61 62 62 62 63 63 15 17 19 39 57 58 58 59 56 60 56
8:00 AM 8:30 AM 61 62 62 62 63 63 13 16 17 15 21 58 59 59 56 60 56
8:30 AM 9:00 AM 61 61 62 61 62 62 15 17 18 16 17 58 59 59 57 60 56
9:00 AM 9:30 AM 60 61 61 61 62 62 23 30 35 41 52 59 59 60 58 61 56
9:30 AM 10:00 AM 60 61 61 61 61 62 60 59 58 59 59 60 60 60 59 61 57GENERAL PURPOSEEXPRESS LANE
Summary
Scenario Impacts
Existing Model Extensive queuing at County Line
Heavy delays throughout AM peak period.
Existing without Green River Road ramp meter Green River Road travel time drops from 29 to 25 minutes
Safety considerations –ramp dropping from 3 to 1 lane.
I-15 Option 1 Reduces impact to GP lanes of spillback out of EL’s.
Can result in slow moving EL traffic alongside fast moving GP traffic.
I-15 Option 2 Lessens potential for EL spillback into GP lane.
Greater storage potential than Option 1.
Results in a near-crawl speed at drop from 2 to 1 lane but overall speed
comparable to Option 1.
91 WESTBOUND IMPROVEMENTS AT COUNTY
LINE:
IMPLEMENTATION
Options Considered
Option 1: Convert Express Lane Access Lane to Auxiliary Lane
Option 2:Shift Express Lane Access East
Option 3: Continuous Weave Lane
Option 4: Convert Shoulder to Auxiliary Lane to Green River
Option 5: Convert Shoulder to Auxiliary Lane to SR 71
Option 6: Continuous Weave Lane & Convert Shoulder to
Auxiliary Lane to Green River
Evaluation of Options
•Cost
•Environmental
•Constructability
•Design Considerations
•Schedule
Option 1
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
• $2.5M (No Soundwall)
• $8.5M (Soundwall)
• Noise
• Air Quality
• New Pricing Sign (Changeable Message)
• Relocate Overhead Signs
• Replace Guardrail and Asphalt Shoulder
• No New Nonstandard Design Features 2 years
Option 2
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
•$1M (No Soundwall)• Noise
• Air Quality
• Convert Existing Changeable Message Sign
◦Convert to Pricing Sign
• Relocate Overhead Signs
• New Nonstandard Features Requiring Approval:
◦General Purpose Lanes #1, 2, & 3: 11’-Width
◦8’-Width Outside Shoulders
• Location of Weave Lane
◦Horizontal Curve
◦Green River Road Bridge
1.5 years
Option 3
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
$0.5M • Minimal Impacts • Maintain Existing Overhead Signs • No New Nonstandard Features 9 months
Option 4
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
• $4M (No Soundwall)
• $10M (Soundwall)
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Significant Drainage Improvements
• Replace Guardrail and Asphalt Shoulder
• Overhead Sign Panel Shifts
• New Nonstandard Features Requiring Approval:
◦All Lanes 11’-Width, Impact to Trucks
◦2’ Shoulders, Less Rain Capacity
◦Stopping Sight Distance (48 mph)
• Drainage Inlets in Outside Lane
2 years
Option 5
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
• $5M (No Soundwall)
• $11M (Soundwall)
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Significant Drainage Improvements
• Replace Guardrail and Asphalt Shoulder
• Overhead Sign Panel Shifts
• New Nonstandard Features Requiring Approval:
◦All Lanes 11’-Width, Impact to Trucks
◦2’ Shoulders, Less Rain Capacity
◦Stopping Sight Distance (48 mph)
• Drainage Inlets in Outside Lane
2 years
Option 6
Cost Environmental Constructability Design Considerations Schedule
• $4.5M (No Soundwall)
• $10.5M (Soundwall)
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Significant Drainage Improvements
• Replace Guardrail and Asphalt Shoulder
• Overhead Sign Panel Shifts
• New Nonstandard Features Requiring Approval:
◦All Lanes 11’-Width, Impact to Trucks
◦2’ Shoulders, Less Rain Capacity
◦Stopping Sight Distance (48 mph)
• Drainage Inlets in Outside Lane
2 years
Results Planned for Next Meeting
•Toll revenue impacts
–91 westbound, county line options 1, 3, 4, and 5
–15 northbound options 1 and 2
•Project implementation: cost, schedule, and issues
–15 northbound options 1 and 2
•Staff recommendation for 91 westbound action
•Staff recommendation for 15 northbound action
AGENDA ITEM 11
Agenda Item 11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Mark Lancaster, Project Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Agreement with Parsons Transportation Group to Provide
Professional Services for the Preparation of an Environmental Revalidation
and Plans, Specifications, Cost Estimates, and Related Services for
Improvements for the State Route 71/State Route 91 Interchange Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 11-31-110-09, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No.
11-31-110-00, with Parsons Transportation Group (Parsons) to provide professional
services for the preparation of an environmental revalidation and plans, specifications,
and cost estimates (PS&E) and related services for improvements for the State Route
71/SR-91 (71/91) Interchange project, from approximately one-quarter mile west of
Green River Road to Serfas Club Drive in the city of Corona in the amount of $3,575,373,
plus a contingency amount of $357,537, for an additional amount of $3,932,910, and a
total amount not to exceed $12,873,478;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total
amount not to exceed as required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The project for improvements to the 71/91 interchange was identified and approved by the
voters in 2009 as part of the Measure A and was included in the 2009 Measure A 10-Year Western
Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan. The project will improve mobility on SR-91 and SR-71
by enhancing operations and the capacity of the 71/91 interchange by constructing a new, direct
flyover connector from eastbound SR-91 to northbound SR-71 and reconfiguring the eastbound
SR-91 ramp between Green River Road and the 71/91 Interchange. The 71/91 interchange
project is also included in the SR-91 Implementation Plan adopted by the Commission.
At its February 2012 meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 11-31-110-00 to Parsons
to provide engineering services for the 71/91 interchange improvements in the amount of
29
Agenda Item 11
$8,136,031, plus a contingency of $804,537, for a total amount not to exceed $8,940,568. There
have been six amendments to the agreement; however, none resulted in a change in the original
Commission authorization amount.
The environmental document was prepared by Parsons and approved in June 2011 and
revalidated in November 2014. Subsequently, Parsons prepared the PS&E package for the
project, which was conditionally approved by Caltrans in June 2015. Since that time, the
Commission has been acquiring right of way and relocating conflicting utilities required for the
project in anticipation that construction funding would eventually become available.
The passage of SB 1 last year provided an opportunity for funding the construction phase of this
project through the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP), a competitive grant
program. The Commission approved the joint application with Caltrans for SCCP funding it’s
January 2018 meeting. The likelihood of successfully competing for these funds is maximized by
accelerating the delivery of this project; therefore, staff directed Parsons to begin preliminary
work to get the project ready for construction.
Due to the length of time since approval of the latest environmental document revalidation, the
environmental document needs to be revalidated again, and the PS&E needs to be revised per
current Highway Design Manual standards prior to construction.
Staff negotiated a scope of services with Parsons and its team to complete the environmental
document revalidation, revise the PS&E, and provide bidding and construction phase support in
the amount of $4,428,079. An unexpended balance of approximately $853,000 from the initial
authorization, including the contingency, is available to commence the effort to finalize the PS&E,
bring the project to a state of “Ready-To-List”, and prepare the construction contract for
advertisement. The estimated cost balance of $3,575,373 is the subject of Amendment No. 7 to
the Parsons agreement and is funded with SB 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) formula funds
with 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway funds as a match.
Staff will cautiously progress with this scope of services and minimize expenditures related to
this amendment in anticipation of California Transportation Commission award of SCCP funding
for the project in May and the November election. The full scope of services and costs will only
be expended if the SB 1 recall effort fails to qualify for the November ballot or is defeated in the
November election.
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 7 to the agreement and authorization for the
Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf
of the Commission. Staff further recommends authorizing the Executive Director to approve
contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as may be required for the project.
30
Agenda Item 11
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2018/19 Amount: $3,932,910
Source of Funds: SB 1 LPP formula funds, 2009 Measure A
Western Riverside County Highway funds Budget Adjustment: N/A
GLA/Project Accounting No.: 003021 81102 00000 0000 262 31 81101
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/16/2018
Attachment: Draft Agreement No. 11-31-110-09
31
17336.02103\30428024.2
Agreement No. 11-31-110-09
AMENDMENT NO. 7
TO
AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.
FOR
PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ESTIMATE (PS&E)
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATE ROUTE 91/STATE ROUTE 71 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
1. PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for Preparation of Plans, Specifications
and Cost Estimate (PS&E) is made and entered into as of this _____ day of _____, 2018,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
(“Commission”) and PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. ("Consultant").
2. RECITALS
2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement dated
March 14, 2012 for the purpose of preparing Plans, Specifications and Cost
Estimate (PS&E) for the construction of the State Route 91/State Route 71
Interchange Improvements Project (the "Master Agreement").
2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into a letter agreement
dated September 20, 2012, for the purpose of amending certain hourly rates
and classifications while maintaining the maximum compensation provided
under the Master Agreement (“Amendment No. 1 to the Master
Agreement”).
2.3 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
2 to the Master Agreement, dated March 19, 2013, for the purpose of
including additional compensation under the Master Agreement.
2.4 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into letter agreements
dated December 19, 2013 and August 13, 2014, for the purpose of
addressing items not listed in scope of service and to transfer budget within
the Master Agreement. The letter agreements are on file at the offices of
the Commission.
DRAFT32
17336.02103\30428024.2 2
2.5 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
3 to the Master Agreement, dated December 5, 2014, for the purpose of
extending the term of the Master Agreement for the continued preparation
of PS&E for the State Route 91/State Route 71 Interchange Improvements
Project.
2.6 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
4 to the Master Agreement, dated December 28, 2015, for the purpose of
extending the term of the Master Agreement for the continued preparation
of PS&E for the State Route 91/State Route 71 Interchange Improvements
Project.
2.7 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
5 to the Master Agreement, dated September 1, 2016, for the purpose of
extending the term of the Master agreement for continued preparation of
PS&E for the State Route 91/State Route 71 Interchange Improvements
Project.
2.8 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No.
6 to the Master Agreement, dated January 1, 2018, for the purpose of
extending the term of the Master Agreement and to update the
indemnification provision pursuant to SB 496.
2.9 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to provide
additional compensation for the continued preparation of PS&E for the State
Route 91/State Route 71 Interchange Improvements Project.
3. TERMS
3.1 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to
include Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, more
fully described in Exhibit “A” attached to this Amendment and incorporated
herein by reference.
3.2 The maximum compensation for Services perform pursuant to this
Amendment shall be Three Million Five Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand
Three Hundred Seventy-Three ($3,575,373). Work shall be performed at
the rates included in Exhibit “C” attached to this Amendment and
incorporated herein by reference. DRAFT33
17336.02103\30428024.2 3
3.3 The maximum not to exceed value of the Master Agreement as amended is
Twelve Million One Hundred Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty Dollars
$12,104,120.
3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master
Agreement, as previously amended, 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.
3.5 This Amendment No. 7 shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.6 This Amendment No. 7 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
[Signatures on following page]DRAFT34
17336.02103\30428024.2 4
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO
AGREEMENT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.
FOR
PREPARATIONS OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ESTIMATE (PS&E)
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATE ROUTE 91/STATE ROUTE 71 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on
the date first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION GROUP, INC.
By: ___________________________ By: _______________________
Anne Mayer, Executive Director Chris A. Johnson,
Vice President/
Regional Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _____________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Counsel to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission
DRAFT35
17336.02103\30428024.2 5
EXHIBIT “A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
DRAFT36
EXHIBIT A (PART 1)
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 1
Date: 1-23-2018
SR 71/SR 91 Interchange Improvement Project
Scope of Work (Amendment #7)
Background:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in cooperation with Caltrans, proposes to improve
the existing State Route 71 (SR-71)/State Route 91 (SR-91) interchange (Project) in the City of Corona,
Riverside County. The proposed improvements include constructing a new direct flyover connector from
eastbound (EB) SR-91 to northbound (NB) SR-71 and reconfiguring the EB SR-91 ramp between Green River
Road and the SR 71/91 interchange. The proposed project is anticipated to improve mobility on SR-91 and
SR-71 by enhancing operations and capacity at the SR 71/91 interchange. The project limits extend from
postmile (PM) R0.9 to PM R2.6 along SR-91 and PM 1.9 to PM R3.0 along SR-71.
Final design for the project was completed in March 2015. The Final Structure Plans for three (3) bridges and
eight (8) nonstandard retaining walls were approved and signed by Caltrans. Additionally, Caltrans provided
‘Conditional Approval’ on the 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Package. Due to a lack of
funding, the Project plans were shelved in March 2015.
Additional Scope of Work:
This additional scope of work describes tasks required to update and revise applicable Project components
and take the Project through the Ready To List (RTL) process, as well as provide support during bidding and
construction.
Optional Services:
1. Update Traffic Study
2. Revalidation of USACE EA/FONSI
3. Update Superelevation Rates per Caltrans HDM 12/16/16 Update
4. Perform Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) for E91/N71 Connector
5. Reclassify Caltrans “Standard” Type 1 Retaining Walls to Caltrans “Non-Standard” Type 1
Retaining Walls
1. Project Management PS&E Component - (WBS 100.15)
1.1 Project Controls & Administration
Acting as Prime Consultant, Consultant will execute subcontracts with sub-Consultants and direct their
work. Prime contract terms and conditions will be incorporated into the subcontract agreements.
Consultant will be the primary contact for RCTC. This task will also include communication/ coordination
efforts by the Project Manager as part of the overall management of the project.
1.2 Project Management Plan (PMP)
No additional scope is required for this task.
1.3 Meetings
It is assumed there will be an average of two (2) meetings per month through December 2019 (including
the monthly PDT meeting). Consultant will prepare and distribute agendas prior to the meetings and
meeting minutes after the meetings.
DRAFT37
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 2
Date: 1-23-2018
1.4 Encroachment Permits/Permits to Enter
Consultant will coordinate and process encroachment permits required to update preliminary
engineering tasks.
Deliverables: Caltrans Encroachment Permit
1.5 Progress Payment
Consultant will submit a progress payment invoice to RCTC for services completed on a monthly basis.
The invoice will be detailed so it can be verified and approved by RCTC on a timely basis.
Deliverables: Monthly Progress Report, Monthly Invoice
1.6 Maintain Complete Project Files
No additional scope is required for this task.
2. Utilities (WBS 185.20.40)
No additional scope is required for this task.
3. Right of Way (WBS 185)
No additional scope is required for this task.
4. Mapping and Surveys (WBS 185)
4.1. Updated Project Information (185.05)
No additional scope is required for this task.
4.2. Engineering Surveys (185.10)
4.2.1. Control Surveys (185.10.50)
Consultant will recover primary control that was established in 2011 and 2012. From this primary
control, additional survey control will be set for the engineering surveys and aerial mapping for the
recently constructed SR-91 CIP.
4.2.2. Engineering Surveys (185.10.60)
Consultant will conduct research, planning, field survey, processing and adjusting data, and creating
the design project file required to perform a topographic survey for the recently constructed SR-91
CIP.
4.2.2.1. Aerial Topographic Mapping
New mapping is required for the recently constructed SR-91 CIP. Consultant will obtain color
aerial photography at 1:3,600 scale which will be used to generate 1 inch = 50-foot mapping
with 2-foot contour intervals per Caltrans mapping standards. Mapping will be compiled in
conformance with current Caltrans mapping standards. Mapping deliverables will be provided
in MicroStation format. Full color ortho-imagery will be prepared at a 0.25 foot pixel resolution.
Deliverables: Aerial Color Imaging and Topographic Mapping 2-D and 3-D DTM
4.2.2.2. Design/Field Surveys
Consultant will complete updated field surveys for the recently constructed SR-91 CIP. DRAFT38
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 3
Date: 1-23-2018
Deliverable: Design/Field Survey
5. Environmental Support (WBS 165)
5.1. Environmental Revalidation
5.1.1. Environmental Revalidation
Consultant will prepare Environmental Revalidation for the previously approved Environmental
Document (IS/MND/CE).
Deliverables: Environmental Revalidation
5.1.2. Perform Environmental Studies (WBS 165)
In accordance with required mitigation described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND),
Consultant will complete a habitat assessment and, as required, focused surveys for the Brand’s
Phacelia, San Diego Ambrosia, and San Miguel Savory will be conducted during the appropriate
blooming season.
Consultant will prepare a Memorandum To File to accompany the Environmental Revalidation for
each previously approved Environmental Technical Study to document that there is no change.
Deliverables: Sensitive Plant Survey Report-to summarize findings;
Memorandum To File for each Environmental Technical Study
5.2. Agreements During PS&E Component (WBS 205)
Consultant will complete permits and agreements during the PS&E Phase, and will provide assistance in
identifying and obtaining necessary permits and agreements for project construction.
5.2.1. Permits (WBS 205.10)
Consultant will verify that the design plans and specifications conform to the requirements of these
permits. Consultant will obtain approval of the following permits:
5.2.1.1 U.S Army Corps of Engineers Permit (205.10.05)
Consultant will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and prepare any additional
information to obtain an approved or preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. The
jurisdictional determination will be used to complete the application and obtain issuance of the
404 permit, currently assumed to be a nationwide permit 14.
Deliverables: Documentation for Jurisdictional Determination, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Permit (404)
5.2.1.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Section 408 Outgrant Process
Consultant will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the requirements of
Section 408 “Out-grant process” in order to obtain “formal approval” to construct the bridge and related
freeway improvements including bridge footings etc within land owned by the USACE.
Deliverables: Section 408 Out-Grant Supporting Documents
Section 408 – Out-Grant Approval (letter from USACE)
DRAFT39
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 4
Date: 1-23-2018
5.2.1.3 Department of Fish and Game 1602 Agreement (205.10.20)
Consultant will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game to complete the application
and obtain issuance of the 1602 agreement.
Deliverable: Department of Fish and Game 1602 Agreement
5.2.1.4 Local Agency Concurrence/Permit (205.10.30)
Consultant will prepare and submit necessary documentation to affected agencies for issuance of
specific permits. Based on the environmental commitments, the project will require encroachment
permits or equivalent documentation from the City of Corona and Riverside County Flood Control, United
States Army Corps of Engineers, and Chino Hills State Park. This task will also include the preparation of
reports and analysis for the Section 408 and outgrant processes necessary to work on USACE property. In
addition, this task includes work necessary to obtain a right-of-entry permit from Chino Hills State Park.
Deliverables: Encroachment Permits application or equivalent documentation from City of Corona,
Riverside County Flood Control, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Chino Hills State Park, Section
408 and Outgrant reports, Documentation for right-of-entry permit from Chino Hills State Park.
5.2.1.5 Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit (205.10.50)
Consultant will coordinate with the RWQCB to complete applications and obtain issuance of the RWQCB
401 permit.
Deliverable: Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permits
5.2.1.6 Environmental Mitigation (235.05)
Consultant will prepare documentation and coordinate with appropriate resource agencies to obtain
approval of compensatory mitigation for biological impacts. These impacts are associated with
riparian/riverine areas, jurisdictional waters/streambeds, sensitive habitats, and Public/Quasi Public
lands. As part of the mitigation, the consultant will prepare habitat mitigation monitoring plans and
agreements associated with obtaining a conservation easement. This task also includes activities
necessary to complete paleontological mitigation. The Consultant will prepare a paleontological
mitigation plan for any resources that are found within the project areas.
Deliverable: Habitat Mitigation Plans, Agreements for Conservation Easements, Paleontological
Mitigation Plan
5.2.1.7 Update Environmental Commitments (235.40)
Consultant will update the environmental commitments record as required by the Standard
Environmental Reference. This task includes any support necessary to ensure commitments are included
in the PS&E package.
Deliverable: Completed Environmental Commitment Record
5.3 Railroad Agreements
No additional scope is required for this task.
6.0 Geotechnical Studies
6.1 Geotechnical Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing/Processing
No additional geotechnical field investigations and laboratory testing will be conducted for this task. DRAFT40
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 5
Date: 1-23-2018
6.2 Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) (230.05.70.15)
The GDR will be updated as necessary based on revised plans and current Caltrans requirements.
Deliverable: Updated GDR
6.3 Materials Report (230.05.70.25)
The Materials Report will be updated based on the revised plans and the current Highway Design Manual.
Deliverable: Updated Materials Report
6.4 Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) (240.65)
No additional scope is required for this task.
6.5 Foundation Report (240.80)
Consultant will update the previously approved Foundation Reports based on the revised plans and
supplemental ground motion analysis. ARS curves will be updated and calculations and recommendations
will be revised as necessary.
6.5.1 Log of Test Borings (LOTB) Sheets
Consultant will update the previously approved LOTB sheets for this task.
Deliverable: Updated Foundation Reports and LOTB Sheets
7.0 Preliminary Design and Engineering Reports
7.1 Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) (WBS 185.15)
No additional scope is required for this task.
7.1.1 Updated Fact Sheets (185.15.15)
Consultant will prepare Supplemental Design Exception Fact Sheets per the Highway Design Manual December
16, 2016 update. The Fact Sheets will include a Mandatory Design Exception for non-standard superelevation
rates at seven (7) locations and an Advisory Design Exception to not provide a 300’ auxiliary lane at the Green
River on-ramp.
Deliverable: Supplemental Fact Sheets
7.2 Structure Site Plans (WBS 185.30)
7.2.1 Site Plans for Bridges and Structures (185.30.10)
No additional scope is required for this task.
7.2.2 Site Plans for Retaining Walls (185.30.15)
No additional scope is required for this task.
7.3 Type Selection (WBS 240.75)
No additional scope is required for this task.
8.0 Roadway - Draft Plans and Estimate (WBS 230)
No additional scope is required for this task.
9.0 Roadway - Intermediate PS&E (WBS 230)
Consultant will update the previously approved Roadway PS&E package to meet current Caltrans standards including
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Caltrans Design Information Bulletins, Caltrans Standard Plans, Caltrans Standard DRAFT41
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 6
Date: 1-23-2018
Specifications, Caltrans Standard Special Provisions, and California Manual on Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD).
Roadway plans will be updated to accommodate the recently constructed SR-91 CIP. Tasks include:
9.1 95%-1 Roadway PS&E
Consultant will prepare the 95% Roadway PS&E which will include the following:
9.1.1 Updated Roadway Plans and Reports
Consultant will update the Roadway Plans per current Caltrans standards. Consultant will obtain updated
Lane Closure Charts and update the Transportation Management Plan.
9.1.2 Update Roadway Specifications
Consultant will update the Roadway Specifications to Caltrans 2015 Specification format.
9.1.3 Updated Roadway Estimate
Consultant will update the Roadway Estimate as required per changes to Caltrans standards.
Deliverable: 95%-1 Roadway Plans, Specifications and Estimates; Storm Water Data Report; Hydrology &
Hydraulics Report; Transportation Management Plan
9.2 95%-2 Roadway PS&E
Consultant will prepare the 95%-2 Roadway PS&E which will include the following:
9.2.1 Updated Roadway Plans
Consultant will update the Roadway Plans per comments from RCTC and Caltrans on the 95%-1 Roadway
Submittal.
9.2.2 Updated Roadway Specifications
Consultant will update the Roadway Specifications per comments from RCTC and Caltrans on the 95%-1
Roadway Submittal.
9.2.3 Updated Roadway Estimate
Consultant will update the Roadway Estimate per comments from RCTC and Caltrans on the 95%-1 Roadway
Submittal.
Deliverable: 95%-2 Roadway Plans, Specifications and Estimates; Storm Water Data Report; Hydrology &
Hydraulics Report; Transportation Management Plan
10.0 Structures - Draft Plans and Quantities (WBS 240)
No additional scope is required for this task.
11.0 Structures - Intermediate PS&E (240.85)
Consultant will update previously approved Final Structural Plans, Specifications, and Estimate package to meet
current Caltrans standards, including:
· AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (6th Edition with Caltrans Amendments)
· Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) - Version 1.7 dated April 2013
· Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications – 2015 Edition
· Latest Caltrans Technical Bridge manuals DRAFT42
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 7
Date: 1-23-2018
Items requiring design revisions include, but are not limited to; abutments, barriers, deck, foundations,
superstructure, and approach slabs.
Consultant to update the following structures:
· Green River On-Ramp OH
· E91/N71 Connector
· E91-N71 Connector UC (Widen)
· MSE Walls (5 total)
· Soil Nail Walls (3 total)
Consultant will revise and submit a revised 95% Structures PS&E package. Tasks include:
11.1 Initial PS&E (95%-1)
11.1.1 Structures Independent Check
Consultant will update the Independent Design Check Calculations to the latest design standards.
11.1.2 Initial Structures PS&E
Consultant will prepare the Initial Structures PS&E which will include the following:
11.1.2.1 Updated Structure Plans
Consultant will update the Structure Design Calculations and Structure Plans to the latest design
standards.
11.1.2.2 Draft Structures Special Provisions and Cost Estimate
This task includes efforts required to prepare revised draft Structure Specifications and Estimate (SS&E),
consistent with Caltrans 2015 Standard Plans. The activities include:
· Review of the revised structure plans and quantities.
· Update structure contract item list.
· Prepare revised draft special provisions.
· Update cost estimate for structure contract items and working day summary.
Deliverable: Initial Structures Plans, Specifications and Estimates in accordance with the OSFP IPG.
11.2 Intermediate PS&E (95%-2)
11.2.1 Updated Structure Plans
Consultant will update the Structure Plans per comments from OSFP on the Initial PS&E Submittal.
11.2.2 Draft Structures Special Provisions and Cost Estimate
Consultant will update the Structure Special Provisions and Cost Estimate per OSFP comments on the Initial
PS&E Submittal.
Deliverable: Intermediate Structures PS&E in accordance with the OSFP IPG
12.0 Ready to List Process
Consultant will combine the updated Roadway and Structures PS&E's to enter into the Ready to List Process.
12.1 Combined Roadway/Structures PS&E for OE Review DRAFT43
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 8
Date: 1-23-2018
The end product of the task is to provide structure plans, specifications, and estimates for PS&E district
circulation. This task is comprised of the following sub-tasks:
12.1.1 Finalize Structures for Incorporation into Roadway PS&E
Final review of the Structures PS&E by HQ DES, including review of the draft Structures PS&E package,
Hydraulic Report, and Foundation Report. This sub-task also includes constructability review of final
documents and concurrence by DES project development team that approved recommendations have been
incorporated in the final Structures PS&E.
12.1.1.1 Structure PS&E for OE Review (WBS 250.55)
This task includes efforts required to prepare final structures plans for incorporation into the final SPS&E
package. The activities include:
· Update plan sheets based on final project review (95% Constructability Review).
· Review and incorporate District and Structure Office Engineer comments into final structure plans
and quantity calculations.
· Update Memorandum to Specification Engineer and other items for Resident Engineers.
· Update specifications based on final project review (95% Constructability Review).
· Update Basic Engineering Estimate System (BEES) estimate.
· Transmit final SPS&E package to District Office Engineer and/or DES Office Engineer for review.
Deliverable: Structure Plans, Special Provisions and Estimates for OE Review
12.1.2 Finalize PS&E for District Circulation (100% PS&E)
This task is comprised of the following sub-tasks. The end product of the task is to provide Roadway Plans for
draft PS&E district circulation.
12.1.2.1 Incorporate Draft Structures PS&E (230.55)
Consultant will incorporate structures plan sheets and the structures estimate for District PS&E
circulation.
12.1.2.2 Circulate and Review Draft District PS&E Package (255.05)
Consultant will provide support for the District circulation of the draft PS&E package, including
preparation of 50 plan sets for distribution. This sub-task also includes preparation of plan sets for a Plan
Safety Review and a final Constructability Review. A review of the final TMP, permit approvals and
aesthetics are also part of this sub-task.
Deliverable: District Circulation of Draft PS&E Package
12.2 Log-in and Final District Circulation (255.20)
Consultant will update PS&E deliverables as a result of the comments from the District draft PS&E circulation, Plan
Safety Review, and Constructability review.
Deliverable: Final District Circulation of PS&E Package
12.3 Products Required for Construction Administration
12.3.1 Geotechnical Information Handout (255.25)
Consultant will review the Geotechnical investigations and reports and select the necessary information and
sections to be included in the Geotechnical Information Handout DRAFT44
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 9
Date: 1-23-2018
Deliverable: Draft and Final Geotechnical Information Handout
12.3.2 Materials Information Handout (255.30)
Consultant will prepare a Materials Information Handout for the use of prospective bidders. The handout will
include test data on local materials sources; soil survey sheets showing borings, tests, and seismic
information. It will also include a statement that the non-commercial borrow, disposal, or material sites
conform to regulations and environmental laws.
Deliverable: Draft and Final Materials Information Handout
12.3.3 Construction Staking Package (255.35)
Consultant will provide project cross sections for contractor review and construction staking notes for the
work. Cross sections and staking notes will be provided in accordance with District 8 standard requirements.
These cross sections do not need to be complete prior to Ready to List but must be available for contractor
review during advertisement. Staking notes must be provided when the PS&E is submitted to HQ for review.
Additionally, Consultant will provide Project Control for Construction that includes locating and verifying
project control as necessary to verify that control is viable for construction staking. Includes work required to
enable control to be used for construction staking.
Deliverable: Construction Staking Package and Project Control for Construction Staking
12.3.4 Resident Engineer’s Pending File (255.40)
Consultant will prepare the Resident Engineer and Structures Engineer (RE/SE) Pending File. This sub-task is
an ongoing task throughout project development. The documents in the file should be pertinent to the
project work and provide the RE/SE with relevant information for use during construction. Included are the
Environmental Commitments Record, cross sections, and “as-built” drawings of existing facilities, slope
staking notes, grid grades, and structures 4-scales when requested by construction. This sub-task does not
need to be complete prior to Ready to List but must be available for contractor review during advertisement.
Deliverable: Resident Engineer’s Pending File
12.4 Environmental Certification at RTL (260.75)
Consultant will review the PS&E to support RCTC and Caltrans with Environmental Certification and ensure the
following tasks are completed.
· Confirm all required Environmental Commitments are included in the PS&E package.
· Confirm all actions in the PS&E are covered by the approved environmental document, which remains
valid.
· Review conformance of PS&E with applicable Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Records.
· Review, interpret, analyze, and confirm that the PS&E is in conformance with all permit requirements.
· Review and confirm all permits are complete and are included with the PS&E package.
· Confirm that environmental construction window(s) apply and if so, the PS&E addresses these
window(s).
Deliverable: Environmental Certification
13.0 Bid and Construction Support
13.1 Bid Support DRAFT45
SR 71/ SR91 PS&E – Scope of work Page 10
Date: 1-23-2018
Consultant will attend the pre-construction and pre-bid meetings. Consultant will assist in answering questions
regarding special provisions, design drawings, or conflicts in the design during the bidding process.
Deliverable: Bid Support
13.2 Design Support During Construction
13.2.1 Roadway Design Support
Consultant will answer contractor roadway related Request for Interpretations (RFIs) during construction and
prepare any necessary Contract Change orders (CCOs) should they be deemed necessary.
Deliverable: Roadway Design Support
13.2.2 Structures Design Support
Consultant will answer contractor structure related RFIs during construction and prepare any necessary
Contract Change orders (CCOs) should they be deemed necessary. Consultant will review submittals and
shop-drawings related to structures work for conformance to the bid documents and overall intent of the
design.
Deliverable: Structure Design Support
13.3 As-Built Drawings
Consultant will incorporate As-Built redline comments prepared by the contractor and Resident Engineer on the
signed Design Plans. The As-Built drawings will be updated MicroStation design files.
Deliverable: As-Built Drawings
DRAFT46
17336.02103\30428024.2 6
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE
DRAFT47
17336.02103\30428024.2 7
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION DRAFT48
No.DescriptionAmendment No 7 Cost ProposalPARSONS TY LIN PSOMAS EMIFPLLYNN CAPOUYA1.0Project Management $54,766$54,7664.0Mapping and Surveys$168,895$0$168,8955.0Environmental Support$400,695$400,6956.0Geotechnical Studies$99,268$3,555$95,7129.0Roadway - Intermediate PS&E$806,820$660,219$117,375$29,22611.0Structures - Intermediate PS&E$974,046$827,308$146,73812.0Ready to List Process$161,008$161,00813.0 Bid and Construction Support$746,426$652,213 $35,359 $58,85316.0 ODCs$163,450$157,000 $1,200 $4,950 $0 $0 $300TOTAL: $3,575,373$2,916,764 $183,298 $173,845 $154,566 $117,375 $29,526 BUDGET SUMMARY (Amendment No 7)SR-71/91 IC PS&EDRAFT49
AGENDA ITEM 12
Agenda Item 12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Mark Lancaster, Project Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Utility Agreement with Southern California Gas for State Route
71/State Route 91 Interchange Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 18-31-103-00 with Southern California Gas (SCG) for
construction of utility relocations for the State Route 71/SR-91 Interchange (71/91 IC)
project in the amount of $2,890,941, plus a contingency amount of $289,094, for a total
amount not to exceed $3,180,035;
2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency
amount as may be required for this utility relocation agreement; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission, in cooperation with Caltrans, proposes to improve the existing 71/91 IC in the
city of Corona, Riverside County, California. The proposed improvements include constructing a
new direct connector from eastbound SR-91 to northbound SR-71 and realigning the eastbound
SR-91 entrance ramp between Green River Road and the 71/91 IC. The proposed project is
anticipated to improve mobility on SR-91 and SR-71 by enhancing operations and capacity at the
71/91 IC.
The project will require a new utility agreement with SCG to relocate an underground gas
transmission pipeline crossing under SR-71. The Commission authorized design of this relocation
in April 2016, and it was anticipated to return to the Commission for construction approval of the
relocation. As a part of establishing liability for the cost of the utility relocations, the utility owner
performs a prior rights check, which is verified by the Commission’s Utility Coordinator. Staff
anticipates that 100 percent of the cost to relocate this facility will be the Commission’s
responsibility. It is anticipated the pipeline will be relocated prior to the commencement of
71/91 IC construction activities.
50
Agenda Item 12
The total estimated cost to relocate the SCG pipeline facility is $2,890,941. Staff recommends a
contingency of $289,094 for a total amount not to exceed $3,180,035. Additionally, staff
recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute the utility
agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or her designee to
approve the use of the contingency amount.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2018/19 Amount: $3,180,035
Source of Funds:
2009 Measure A Western Riverside
County Highway funds; federal
earmarks, to the extent available
Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003021 81301 00000 0000 262 31 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/16/2018
Attachment: Utility Agreement No. 18-31-103-00
51
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Page 1 of 6
UTILITY AGREEMENT (RCTC AGREEMENT NO: 18-31-103-00)
RW 13-5 (REV 9/2014)
DISTRICT
08
COUNTY
RIV
ROUTE
71/91
POST MILE
RIV-71-1.9/R3.0;
RIV-91-R0.9/R2.6
ID
0F541/0800000137
FEDERAL AID NUMBER
HPLU21LN 6054 (066)
OWNER’S FILE NUMBER
WO#B91404.000
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
On the project YES NO On the Utilities YES NO
UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 23273 DATE ___ _______________
The Riverside County Transportation Commission, herein after called “RCTC”, proposes to
improve the existing SR 71/SR 91 interchange in the City of Corona, Riverside County. The proposed
improvements include constructing a new direct flyover connector from eastbound SR 91 to
northbound SR 71 and reconfiguring the eastbound SR 91 ramp between Green River Road and the
SR 71/91 interchange.
and
Southern California Gas
251 East 1st, ML 8080
Beaumont, CA 92223-2903
hereinafter called "OWNER," owns and maintains
underground high pressure gas line across SR 71
within the limits of RCTC’s project which requires
relocation of underground high pressure gas line across SR 71
to accommodate RCTC’s project
It is hereby mutually agreed that:
I. WORK TO BE DONE
In accordance with Notice to Owner No. 23273 dated April 14, 2016 OWNER shall relocate
the underground high pressure gas line across SR71. All work shall be performed
substantially in accordance with OWNER’s Plan No. XXXX dated XXXX consisting of X
sheets, a copy of which is on file at RCTC. Deviations from the OWNER’s plan described
above initiated by either RCTC or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto
under a Revised Notice to Owner. Such Revised Notices to Owner, approved by RCTC and
agreed to/acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an approved revision of the
OWNER’s plan described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said
deviation shall commence prior to written execution by the OWNER of the Revised Notice to
Owner. Changes in the scope of the work will require an amendment to this Agreement in
addition to the revised Notice to Owner.
52
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 2 of 6
RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010)
II. LIABILITY FOR WORK
The existing facilities described in Section I above will be relocated at 82.76% RCTC
expense in accordance with Section 5(A) of the Master Contract dated November 1, 2004,
and 17.24% OWNER expense for that portion located within the RCTC/State’s right of way
in trespass in accordance with the following proration:
RCTC requires OWNER to relocated 145 feet of underground gas line for the project. The
total estimated cost of this relocation is $2,890,941.00.
OWNER has 120 feet of gas line installed by Easement outside of RCTC/State right of way.
OWNER pays 0% of this portion per Master Contract section 5(A).
OWNER has 25 feet of gas line installed inside RCTC/State right of way pursuant to a
trespass. OWNER pays 100% of this portion per the Streets and Highways Code.
145 linear feet = 100% of the relocation.
120 linear feet installed in Easement = 82.76% of total gas line relocation. The RCTC share
is $2,392,542.77.
25 linear feet installed in trespass = 17.24% of the total gas line relocation. The Owner’s
share is $498,398.23.
III PERFORMANCE OF WORK
OWNER agrees to perform the herein described work with its own forces or to cause the
herein described work to be performed by the OWNER’s contractor, employed by written
contract on a continuing basis to perform work of this type, and to provide and furnish all
necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said
work diligently to completion.
OWNER agrees to cause the herein described work to be performed by a contract with the
lowest qualified bidder, selected pursuant to a valid competitive bidding procedure, and to
furnish or cause to be furnished all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment required
therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion.
Use of out-of-state personnel (or personnel requiring lodging and meal “per diem” expenses)
will not be allowed without prior written authorization by RCTC’s representative. Requests for
such authorization must be contained in OWNER’s estimate of actual and necessary
relocation costs. OWNER shall include an explanation why local employee or contract labor
is not considered adequate for the relocation work proposed. Per Diem expenses shall not
exceed the per diem expense amounts allowed under the State’s Department of Personnel
Administration travel expense guidelines.
Work performed directly by Owner’s employees falls within the exception of Labor Code
Section 1720(a)(1) and does not constitute a public work under Section 1720(a)(2) and is not
53
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 3 of 6
RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010)
subject to prevailing wages. OWNER shall verify compliance with this requirement in the
administration of its contracts referenced above.
Engineering services for locating, making of surveys, preparation of plans, specifications,
estimates, supervision, and inspection are to be furnished by the Utility Owner and approved
by RCTC. Cost principles for determining the reasonableness and allowability of OWNER’s
costs shall be determined in accordance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31; 23 CFR, Chapter
1, Part 645; and 18 CFR, Chapter 1, Parts 101, 201 and OMB Circular A-87, as applicable.
IV PAYMENT FOR WORK
RCTC shall pay its share of the actual and necessary cost of the herein described work within
45 days after receipt of five (5) copies of OWNER’s itemized bill, signed by a responsible
official of OWNER’s organization and prepared on OWNER’s letterhead, compiled on the
basis of the actual and necessary cost and expense incurred and charged or allocated to said
work in accordance with the uniform system of accounts prescribed for OWNER by the
California Public Utilities Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Federal
Communications Commission, whichever is applicable.
It is understood and agreed that RCTC will not pay for any betterment or increase in capacity
of OWNER’s facilities in the new location and that OWNER shall give credit to RCTC for the
“used life” or accumulated depreciation of the replaced facilities and for the salvage value of
any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold by OWNER.
Not more frequently than once a month, but at least quarterly, OWNER will prepare and
submit itemized progress bills for costs incurred not to exceed OWNER’s recorded costs as
of the billing date less estimated credits applicable to completed work. Payment of progress
bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made under the terms of this
Agreement. Payment of progress bills which exceed the amount of this Agreement may be
made after receipt and approval by RCTC of documentation supporting the cost increase and
after an Amendment to this Agreement has been executed by the parties to this Agreement.
The OWNER shall submit a final bill to RCTC within 360 days after the completion of the work
described in Section I above. If RCTC has not received a final bill within 360 days after
notification of completion of OWNER’s work described in Section I of this Agreement, and
RCTC has delivered to OWNER fully executed Director’s Deeds, Consents to Common Use
or Joint Use Agreements, if required for OWNER’s facilities, RCTC will provide written
notification to OWNER of its intent to close its file within 30 days and OWNER hereby
acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be deemed to have
been abandoned. If RCTC processes a final bill for payment more than 360 days after
notification of completion of OWNER’s work, payment of the late bill may be subject to
allocation and/or approval by RCTC.
The final billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged to the
project, less the credits provided for in this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by
progress billings. However, RCTC shall not pay final bills which exceed the estimated cost of
this Agreement without documentation of the reason for the increase of said cost from the
OWNER and approval of documentation by RCTC. Except, if the final bill exceeds the
OWNER’s estimated costs solely as the result of a revised Notice to Owner as provided for in
54
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 4 of 6
RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010)
Section I, a copy of said revised Notice to Owner shall suffice as documentation. In either
case, payment of the amount over the estimated cost of this Agreement may be subject to
allocation and/or approval by RCTC.
In any event if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this Agreement, an
Amended Agreement shall be executed by the parties to this Agreement prior to the payment
of the OWNER’S final bill. Any and all increases in costs that are the direct result of deviations
from the work described in Section I of this Agreement, shall have the prior concurrence of
RCTC.
Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by OWNER for a period
of three years from the date of the final payment and will be available for audit by RCTC, State
and/or Federal auditors. In performing work under this Agreement, OWNER agrees to comply
with the Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities found at 18 CFR Part 101, 201, et al.,
and, to the extent they are applicable to OWNER doing work on the project that is the subject
of this Agreement, the Contract Cost Principles and Procedures as set forth in 48 CFR,
Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645, and 2 CFR Part 200 et al. If a
subsequent RCTC, State and/or Federal audit determines payments to be unallowable,
OWNER agrees to reimburse RCTC upon receipt of RCTC’s billing. If OWNER is subject to
repayment due to failure by RCTC to comply with applicable laws, regulations and ordinances
then RCTC will ensure that OWNER is compensated for actual cost in performing work under
this agreement.
V. GENERAL CONDITIONS
All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of RCTC’s request of September 4, 2013 to review,
study and/or prepare relocation plans and estimates for the project associated with this
Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
If RCTC’s project which precipitated this Agreement is canceled or modified so as to eliminate
the necessity of work by OWNER, RCTC will notify OWNER in writing and RCTC reserves
the right to terminate this Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually
acceptable terms and conditions for terminating the Agreement.
OWNER shall submit a Notice of Completion to RCTC within 30 days of the completion of
the work described herein.
Where OWNER has prior rights in areas which will be within the highway right of way and
where OWNER’s facilities will remain on or be relocated on STATE highway right of way, a
Joint Use Agreement shall be executed by the parties.
It is understood that said highway is a Federal aid highway and accordingly, 23 CFR, Chapter
1, Part 645 is hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference; provided, however, that
the provisions of any agreements entered into between RCTC and the OWNER pursuant to
State law for apportioning the obligations and costs to be borne by each, or the use of
accounting procedures prescribed by the applicable Federal or State regulatory body and
approved by the Federal Highway Administration, shall govern in lieu of the requirements of
said 23 CFR 645.
55
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 5 of 6
RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010)
In addition, the provisions of 23 CFR 635.410, Buy America, are also incorporated into this
agreement. The Buy America requirements are further specified in Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), section 1518; 23 CFR 635.410 requires that all
manufacturing processes have occurred in the United States for steel and iron products
(including the application of coatings) installed on a project receiving funding from the FHWA.
OWNER understands and acknowledges that this project is subject to the requirements of the
Buy America law (23 U.S.C., Section 313) and applicable regulations, including 23 CFR
635.410 and FHWA guidance. OWNER hereby certifies that in the performance of this
Agreement, for products where Buy America requirements apply, it shall use only such
products for which it has received a certification from its supplier, or provider of construction
services that procures the product certifying Buy America compliance. This does not include
products for which waivers have been granted under 23 CFR 635.410 or other applicable
provisions or excluded material cited in the Department’s guidelines for the implementation of
Buy America requirements for utility relocations issued on December 3, 2013.
THE ESTIMATED COST TO RCTC FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS
$2,392,542.77.
56
UTILITY AGREEMENT (Cont.) Page 6 of 6
RW 13-5 (REV 6/2010)
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
UTILITY AGREEMENT NUMBER 23273
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and
year above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OWNER:
COMMISSION Southern California Gas
By By
ANNE MAYER Date Name Date
Executive Director
Title
APPROVAL AS TO FORM:
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By
Name Date
General Counsel
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
By
Nicole Deluca Date
Utility Coordinator
Parsons
57
AGENDA ITEM 13
Agenda Item 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: March 26, 2018
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Monica M. Morales, Management Analyst
THROUGH: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT: Specialized Transit Grant Awards for 2018 Measure A Western Riverside
County Specialized Transit Call for Projects
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to approve the following 2018 Measure A Western Riverside
County Specialized Transit grants for a three-year period covering FY 2018/19 through
FY 2020/21:
1) Award Agreement No. 18-26-107-00 to Blindness Support Services, Inc. for the provision
of travel training services (Travel Training Program) in an amount not to exceed $220,000;
2) Award Agreement No. 18-26-108-00 to the Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley for the
provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School
Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $405,000;
3) Award Agreement No. 18-26-109-00 to the Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County for the
provision of directly operated transportation services (Before and After School
Transportation Program) in an amount not to exceed $630,000;
4) Award Agreement No. 18-26-111-00 to Care-A-Van Transit, Inc. for the provision of
directly operated transportation services (Care-A-Van Project) in an amount not to exceed
$1,140,000;
5) Award Agreement No. 18-26-112-00 to Care Connexxus for the provision of directly
operated transportation services (Adult Day Services Patients) in an amount not to exceed
$765,000;
6) Award Agreement No. 18-26-113-00 to the City of Norco, Department of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services for the provision of directly operated transportation
services (Seniors on the Move-Senior Shuttle) in an amount not to exceed $281,000;
7) Award Agreement No. 18-26-114-00 to Community Connect 211-Vetlink (211 One
Call/One Click) for the provision of transportation information services in an amount not
to exceed $193,133;
8) Award Agreement No. 18-26-115-00 to Community Connect TAP (Transportation Access
Program) for the provision of transportation pass or voucher services in an amount not
to exceed $360,000;
9) Award Agreement No. 18-26-116-00 to Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc. dba
Exceed for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Hemet
Transportation) in an amount not to exceed $179,000;
58
Agenda Item 13
10) Award Agreement No. 18-26-117-00 to Forest Folk, Inc. for the provision of directly
operated transportation services (Idyllwild Area Shuttle) in an amount not to exceed
$173,640;
11) Award Agreement No. 18-26-118-00 to Friends of Moreno Valley for the provision of
directly operated transportation services (MoVAN) in an amount not to exceed $313,029;
12) Award Agreement No. 18-26-119-00 to Independent Living Partnership for the provision
of mileage reimbursement of volunteer drivers (Transportation Reimbursement and
Information Project – TRIP Western Riverside) in an amount not to exceed $1,318,000;
13) Award Agreement No. 18-26-120-00 to Michelle’s Place for the provision of travel
assistance (Treatment Travel Assistance TTA) in an amount not to exceed $30,000;
14) Award Agreement No. 18-26-121-00 to Operation Safehouse for the provision of directly
operated transportation services (Main Street Transitional Living Program) in an amount
not to exceed $112,400;
15) Award Agreement No. 18-26-122-00 to Riverside University Health Medical Center
(RUHS-MC) for the provision of directly operated transportation services (Transportation
Program) in an amount not to exceed $960,000;
16) Award Agreement No. 18-26-124-00 to Riverside University Health System-Behavioral
Health (RUHS-BH) for the provision of directly operated transportation services
(Transportation Change) in an amount not to exceed $660,000;
17) Award Agreement No. 18-26-125-00 to United States Veterans Initiative for the provision
of directly operated transportation services (US Vets Initiative Transportation – Riverside)
in an amount not to exceed $129,000;
18) Award Agreement No. 18-26-126-00 to Voices for Children for the provision of mileage
reimbursement of volunteer drivers (Volunteer Mileage Reimbursement Program) in an
amount not to exceed $330,805; and
19) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Providing funding to non-profit providers of transit services for persons with disabilities, low
income, and senior citizens has long been a priority of the Commission. The voter-approved 1989
and 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plans specify funding allocations for the provision of this type
of service provided by transit operators and non-profit agencies.
In April 2008, the Commission approved the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) and adopted a strategy for developing and conducting a
specialized transit call for projects program for Western County. The coordinated plan is updated
in July every 3 years to identify additional qualified populations as well as underserved areas of
Riverside County that would qualify for funding under the Specialized Transit Call for Projects.
The fourth program cycle is set to expire on June 30, 2018. In November 2017, the Commission
directed staff to develop the application and scoring criteria for the 2018 Measure A Western
Riverside County Specialized Transit Call for Projects (2018 Call for Projects) and approved the
fund allocation. The applications were released to the public on November 8, 2017, with the
59
Agenda Item 13
implementation term of three years. The due date for completed proposals was January 9, 2018,
at which time 17 eligible proposals were received from various agencies. It should be noted that
Care Connexxus did not submit a proposal by the deadline; however, the Board President of Care
Connexxus reached out to staff explaining recent management challenges and staff turnover.
With this justification, Care Connexxus submitted its proposal by January 31 bringing the total
eligible proposals received by the Commission to 18. Should the Commission approve an award
to Care Connexxus, staff will monitor and assist Care Connexxus during this award term to ensure
compliance with the specialized transit funds agreement.
The following table is a summary for the fund allocation made available by the Commission for
the 2018 Call for Projects covering FY 2018/19 to FY 2020/21:
FISCAL YEARS 2018/19-2020/21
Funding Source Fiscal Year Total
2009 Measure A 2019 $2,700,000
2009 Measure A 2020 $2,700,000
2009 Measure A 2021 $2,800,000
TOTAL $8,200,000
As in the 2015 Call for Projects, the current 2018 Call for Projects was oversubscribed by
$2,948,391 in terms of funds sought by applicants compared to funds actually available from the
Commission.
Evaluation and Scoring:
To evaluate and score the projects, staff invited the Citizen’s Advisory Committee/Social Services
Transportation Advisory Council (1 vote) to participate on the project evaluation and scoring
committee. Commission staff participated with one vote, staff from the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority participated with one vote, and an outside consultant for the
Commission participated with one vote. Essentially, projects were evaluated by a group
consisting of participants with no vested operational interest in the proposed projects. The intent
of staff with this panel was to provide an unbiased scoring environment that would allow for the
best projects to rise to the top.
The scoring criteria used by the evaluation committee was developed from the goals and
objectives analysis that were generated during the development of the 2008 Coordinated Plan
and the 2012 and 2015 updates. The attachment outlines the results of this process identifying
awarded amounts as well as scores and rankings.
60
Agenda Item 13
Process and Schedule:
There is no financial impact on the current budget, thus, no budget action is needed nor
requested at this time. Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $8.2 million for projects approved
by the Commission will be programmed for FYs 2018/19, 2019/20, and 2020/21 through the
regular budget process.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY2018/19+ Amount: $8,200,007
Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County
Specialized Transit Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 260 26 86101 $8,160,007 Specialized Transit Operating
260 26 86102 $40,000 Specialized Transit Capital
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/20/2018
Attachment: 2018 Project Request and Recommendation Funding Summary
61
Applicant
Score Measure Yr 1
Request
Measure Yr 1
Recommendation
Minimum Local
Match
Total Year 1 Project
Cost (Measure A +
Match)
Measure Yr 2
Request
Measure Yr 2
Recommendation
Minimum
Local Match
Total Year 2
Project Cost
(Measure A +
Match)
Measure Yr 3
Request
Measure Yr 3
Recommendation
Minimum Local
Match
Total Year 3
Project Cost
(Measure A +
Match)
Total 3 Year
Project Cost
Total 3 Year
Measure A
Award
Required
Match
Blindness Support Services Inc 71 78,012.00$ 72,000$ 24,480$ 96,480$ 82,935.60$ 73,000$ 24,820$ 97,820$ 87,859.20$ 75,000$ 25,500$ 100,500$ 294,800$ 220,000$ 74,800$
Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley 68 205,306.20$ 130,000$ 44,200$ 174,200$ 238,508.82$ 135,000$ 45,900$ 180,900$ 388,434.00$ 140,000$ 47,600$ 187,600$ 542,700$ 405,000$ 137,700$
Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 83 206,316.00$ 200,000$ 68,000$ 268,000$ 216,942.00$ 210,000$ 71,400$ 281,400$ 227,964.00$ 220,000$ 74,800$ 294,800$ 844,200$ 630,000$ 214,200$
Care A Van Transit Inc 96 $ 390,500.00 $ 370,000 125,800$ 495,800$ $ 409,563.00 $ 380,000 129,200$ 509,200$ $ 425,997.00 $ 390,000 132,600$ 522,600$ 1,527,600$ 1,140,000$ 387,600$
Care Connexxus 74 319,002.00$ 250,000$ 85,000$ 335,000$ 328,203.00$ 255,000$ 86,700$ 341,700$ 337,681.00$ 260,000$ 88,400$ 348,400$ 1,025,100$ 765,000$ 260,100$
City of Norco* (Cap Yr 1)91 125,191.00$ 116,000$ 45,840$ 161,840$ 81,314.00$ 81,000$ 27,540$ 108,540$ 84,288.00$ 84,000$ 28,560$ 112,560$ 382,940$ 281,000$ 101,940$
Community Connect 211-Vetlink 28 $ 63,243.00 $ 63,243 21,503$ 84,746$ $ 64,510.00 $ 64,510 21,933$ 86,443$ $ 65,380.00 $ 65,380 22,229$ 87,609$ 258,798$ 193,133$ 65,665$
Community Connect TAP 45 $ 172,200.00 $ 110,000 37,400$ 147,400$ $ 175,644.00 $ 120,000 40,800$ 160,800$ $ 180,035.00 $ 130,000 44,200$ 174,200$ 482,400$ 360,000$ 122,400$
EXCEED 80 $ 57,144.00 $ 57,000 19,380$ 76,380$ $ 59,990.00 $ 60,000 20,400$ 80,400$ $ 62,856.00 $ 62,000 21,080$ 83,080$ 239,860$ 179,000$ 60,860$
Forest Folk Inc 67 $ 53,250.00 $ 53,250 18,105$ 71,355$ $ 59,540.00 $ 59,540 20,244$ 79,784$ $ 60,850.00 $ 60,850 20,689$ 81,539$ 232,678$ 173,640$ 59,038$
Friends of Moreno Valley 70 $ 100,141.00 $ 100,141 34,048$ 134,189$ $ 103,979.00 $ 103,979 35,353$ 139,332$ $ 108,909.00 $ 108,909 37,029$ 145,938$ 419,459$ 313,029$ 106,430$
Independent Living Partnership 90 477,628.00$ 433,000$ 147,220$ 580,220$ 502,768.00$ 440,000$ 149,600$ 589,600$ 526,446.00$ 445,000$ 151,300$ 596,300$ 1,766,120$ 1,318,000$ 448,120$
Michelle's Place 83 12,000.00$ 8,000$ 2,720$ 10,720$ 15,000.00$ 10,000$ 3,400$ 13,400$ 16,000.00$ 12,000$ 4,080$ 16,080$ 40,200$ 30,000$ 10,200$
Operation Safehouse 84 37,017.58$ 37,000$ 12,580$ 49,580$ 37,727.02$ 37,700$ 12,818$ 50,518$ 37,727.02$ 37,700$ 12,818$ 50,518$ 150,616$ 112,400$ 38,216$
Riverside University health Medical Center
(RUHS-MC)66 496,694.87$ 310,000$ 105,400$ 415,400$ 523,267.42$ 320,000$ 108,800$ 428,800$ 551,264.17$ 330,000$ 112,200$ 442,200$ 1,286,400$ 960,000$ 326,400$
Riverside University Health System -
Behavioral Health (RUHS-BH)65 $ 414,609.40 $ 210,000 71,400$ 281,400$ $ 413,560.81 $ 220,000 74,800$ 294,800$ $ 433,459.79 $ 230,000 78,200$ 308,200$ 884,400$ 660,000$ 224,400$
U S Vets 70 $ 43,295.00 $ 43,000 14,620$ 57,620$ $ 43,295.00 $ 43,000 14,620$ 57,620$ $ 43,295.00 $ 43,000 14,620$ 57,620$ 172,860$ 129,000$ 43,860$
Voices for Children 92 $ 99,754.00 $ 99,754 33,916$ 133,670$ $ 109,565.00 $ 109,565 37,252$ 146,817$ $ 121,486.00 $ 121,486 41,305$ 162,791$ 443,279$ 330,805$ 112,474$
TOTALS 3,351,304.05$ 2,662,388$ 911,612$ 3,574,000$ 3,466,312.67$ 2,722,294$ 925,580$ 3,647,874$ 3,759,931.18$ 2,815,325$ 957,211$ 3,772,536$ 10,994,409$ 8,200,007$ 2,794,402$
40,000$ Capital
*Includes capital request of $40,000 in year one which requires a 50% local match 8,160,007$ Operating
2018 PROJECT REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION FUNDING SUMMARY
62