HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 1, 1992 Budget & Finance053771
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, KAY CENICEROS,
CORKY LARSON, PAT MURPHY)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992
10:30 A.M.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CONFERENCE ROOM
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92660
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
4A. City of Canyon Lake Measure A Loan.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission recommend approval of the City of Canyon Lake's request for a
loan of up to $4.0 million in Measure A Funds for the Railroad Canyon Road project, and
direct staff and Legal Counsel to work with the City of Canyon Lake and the WRCOG
Executive Director to develop an Agreement for approval by the Commission for approval
at their meeting in May or June.
4B. Acquisition of Right -of -Way for the Route 79, Keller Road to Newport Road, Measure A
Highway Improvement Project.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve:
(1) Acquiring the required ROW (approximately $1.5 million) for the Route 79 project
from Newport to Keller;
Page 3
April 1, 1992
Budget & Finance Agenda
contract is $372,000 for base work and $37,000 for Extra Work for a total contract amount
of $409,000. A standard contract will be used and reviewed by Legal Counsel.
4F. Contract Revision for Valley Research and Planning Associates.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the contract amendments to Valley Planning and Associates as outlined in the
memo. Authorize the Executive Director to transfer $50,000 from Contingency with
$30,000 allocated to Professional Services, and $20,000 allocated to Highways for a total
contract value for Valley Research and Planning Associates of $80,000.
5. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/ PARK-N-RIDE.
5A. Caltrans/RCTC Draft Telecommuting WorkCenter Contribution Agreement.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission: 1) approve, subject to review by Legal Counsel, the Caltrans
Contribution Agreement awarding $75,000 in state funding to the Commission for the
Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County; 2) authorize the Commission
Chairperson and Executive Director to execute said Agreement, and 3) upon receipt of
funds transfer same to the Economic Development Partnership pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement for implementation of the identified marketing tasks.
5B. Rideshare Incentive Tracking Program Database.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission:
1) Authorize the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from the
three approved Measure A Rideshare Incentive Program budgets for the
development of an incentive tracking computer program;
2) Approve the modified contract, subject to legal review, for use between RCTC
and Kevin R. Odom; and,
3) Authorize the Executive Director to sign the agreement on behalf of the
Commission.
Page 5
April 1, 1992
Budget & Finance Agenda
7. FINANCIAL ITEMS.
7A. Cost and Schedule Reports for the Month of February,
Staff Recommendation
Receive and file.
7B. Mid -Year Budget Revisions.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve the budget revisions as shown on the worksheet included
in the agenda packet.
7C. CONTINUATION OF B&F PRESENTATION ON PROJECT STRUCTURE (SCHEDULING
AND CONTRACTS).
Staff will continue the presentation of project structure (scheduling and contracts).
8. ADJOURNMENT.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMENDED
MINUTES
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1992
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee was called to order by Commissioner Russ
Beirich at 10:40 a.m. at the offices of Lund & Guttry, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, The Bob Hope
Building, Ste. 309, Rancho Mirage, California.
Members Present:
Russ Beirich
Kay Ceniceros
Corky Larson
Pat Murphy
2. GENERAL ITEMS.
Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager, stated that an urgency item, 'Property Acquisition
for Exchange with the Press -Enterprise', needed to be added to the agenda. This item was
received from Legal Counsel after the Budget and Finance agenda was published.
M/S/C to approve the addition of the °Property Acquisition for Exchange with the
Press Enterprise" to the Budget and Finance Committee agenda.
2A. SELECTION OF AUDITORS FOR 1992 FISCAL AUDIT.
Dean Martin, RCTC Controller, stated in preparation for renewal of the audit contract for
the current fiscal year, he conducted a survey of other government agencies to determine
contract term of auditors and the benefits/problems associated with the frequency of
change. The survey indicated that it is preferable to maintain auditors for five years due
to cost savings and greater efficiency. The trend is to write the audit contract for three,
with and option to extend another two years. After five years, an RFP is issued.
M/S/C that the Commission retain the audit services of Ernst & Young for an
additional two years for a total contract of five years with the understanding
that the types of efficiencies resulting from not changing auditors should be
reflected in whatever fee is negotiation. At the end of two years, and RFP will
be considered.
Page 2
March 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee Minutes
The Committee discussed contract cost and they felt that it should be made clear to Ernst
& Young that if the Commission were to retain them for an additional two years, that the
contract should not be over the current contract cost.
2B. MEASURE A RCTC/CALTRANS LOGO.
Mark Massman reported that the Measure A RCTC/Caltrans logo will be unveiled at the
Commission meeting. The Commission and Catrans is going to try and get the WRCOG,
and CVAG to adopt the logo, as well as have it adopted by the local agencies.
Commissioner Beirich asked if the Measure A project could be listed on the sign without
the logo. Mark Massman responded that this would be in place of the highway sign that
is already used on highway projects, and that a logo would provide recognition and an
awareness of Measure A, while demonstrating to the voters the cooperation of the various
agencies in delivering Measure A projects.
Commissioner Beirich expressed his concerns relating to expending funds for signs rather
than using the funds for projects.
Commissioner Murphy stated the importance of making the public aware of the projects
that their sales tax is funding.
Commissioner Ceniceros agreed and stated the elected officials are frequently asked how
the sales tax for transportation is being used.
Dean Martin requested that the staff recommendation be amended to authorize staff to
make the appropriate budget transfer.
M/S/C that the Commission:
(1) Approve the expenditure of Measure A funds in the amount of $15,000
for FY 91 /92 to design and purchase project signs displaying the
Measure A logo and direct staff to make the appropriate fund transfer;
(2) Authorize the Executive Director to conduct a competitive bid process
for purchase of Measure A signs, select the successful bidder based
on unit price, and enter into a sign purchase agreement; and
(3) Direct staff to:
Develop a family of Measure A signs around the new logo
which allows for customization based on a project's funding
partners;
Establish criteria for the allocation and use of Measure A
project signs;
Provide, free of charge, an appropriate number of Measure A
project signs to the lead agency for their Installation at project
sites;
Develop a Measure A sign policy, In cooperation with CVAG
and WRCOG, for their review and approval to establish sign
requirements on local projects funded In whole or part by
Measure A.
Page 3
March 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee Minutes
3. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
3A. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ESTIMATE 1992-96.
Dean Martin reported that a subcommittee comprised of Commission staff, the RTA, and
a subcommittee of the WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee met recently to evaluate
the continued availability of funds for streets and roads in the Western County Area.
Their research indicated that all of the LTF funds available to the Western County Area
will be needed for transit in the next few years. The subcommittee agreed that the RTA
five year plan was ambitious regarding major capital improvement since all exiting buses
would be replaced, a significant number of expansion buses are included, and a second
operations center would be constructed to services buses operating in the eastern portion
of the RTA service area. Additionally, the RTA plan did not anticipate any discretionary
revenues that may be available from federal or state sources. The Subcommittee further
agreed that funds remaining in FY 1992-93 after transit is funded should be allocated 75%
to the cities and county for streets and roads and 25% as a reserve for additional transit
service and capital needs. All LTF funds available in the Western County Area after FY
1992/93 would be dedicated solely for transit purposes. The recommendation was
reviewed by the WRCOG Executive Committee for submittal to the commission.
Commissioner Larson asked which agency has the final say concerning the
recommendations made by the Subcommittee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.
Dean Martin responded that the Commission has the final say, and that the suggestions
made by the WRCOG and Subcommittee are only recommendations, not policy unless
adopted by the Commission.
M/S/C That the Commission accept the Local Transportation Fund estimate
for 1992-96 as presented by staff.
3B. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS - WESTERN COUNTY STREETS AND ROADS -
REVISION FY 1991-92.
That the Commission allocate $64,647 to the City of Banning and $23,642 to
the City of Riverside from LTF funds available to the Western County from
prior year unclaimed apportionments for street and road purposes in FY
1991 /92.
3C. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS,
The Committee members reviewed Beaumont's request. Commissioner Beirich inquired
as to the purpose for Beaumont's request and Jerry Rivera responded that the request
is toward keeping full-time drivers. They had difficulty in retaining drivers in the past.
Commissioner Beirich felt that Beaumont should be made aware that there is no
assurance for approval of such a request in the future and that they should be more
diligent in preparing their budget.
Page 4
March 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee Minutes
The Commissioners asked where the funds for this request would come from, to which
Jerry Rivera responded they would come from $1.8 million in allocated, but unclaimed LTF
funds.
That the Commission.-(1} allocate to the City of Beaumont Dial -a -Ride an
additional $63,900 In local transportation funds for operating assistance. rand
ia+l
3D. MURRIETTA SPRINGS MALL - MEASURE A LOAN.
Dean Martin stated there are two considerations concerning this item: (1) The policy
consideration related to loan requests of this type; and (2) Whether this specific loan
would be a good business deal for the Commission. This item was referred to the
WRCOG and they would like to defer it for another 30 days before they come to a
decision.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked Dean Martin if there was any money to loan for this type
of program to which he replied the money could come from the bond proceeds. She
further asked if by loaning this money, would it delay, or jeopardize other Measure A
projects to which Dean Martin responded that the five year repayment period was
designed to minimize any potential impact to other Measure A projects.
M/S/C that the Commission: (1) Defer any action on the Murrletta loan
pending recommendation from the WRCOG and financial and structural
analysis by staff and financial consultants; and (2) Defer any decision on a
loan program for local jurisdictions pending analysis by staff of the potential
impact to designated Measure A programs and review by RCTC staff of
proposed WRCOG guidelines for any modifications felt prudent by staff.
3E. AMENDMENT TO FY 1991-92 FTA SECTION 9 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
Commissioner Beirich expressed concern that the reprogramming of local transportation
funds requires a formal request and an amendment to the Short Range Transit Plan.
Concerning the 6 vans and 2 mini -buses for RTA, this was not done, an attachment was
added to the Budget and Finance Committee agenda which listed these items as part of
the revisions to the FY '92 Transportation Improvement Projects. They also did not feel
sufficient request was made from RTA to transfer the $1 million out of reserve to use to
purchase the new buses.
Page 5
March 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee Minutes
M/S/C that the Commission:
(1) Approve the proposed FY 1991-92 FTA Section 9 Program of Projects
for the Indio -Coachella Urbanized Area which provides an additional
$274,015 In federal funds for operating assistance of $63,440 In
capital assistance;
(2) Approve the revised FY 1991-92 FTA Section 9 Program of Projects
for the Palm Springs Urbanized Area which increases the Federal
funds for operating assistance by $265,946 and Capital Assistance
funds by $128,591;
Approve the revised FY 1991-92 FTA Section 9 Program of Projects
for the Riverside/San Bernardino and Hemet Urbanized Areas which
Increase the Federal funds for the two areas by $574,667; and
(4) Authorize an amendment to the FY 1992-96 SRTP for Riverside
County to incorporate the above revisions.
(3)
4. COMMUTER RAIL.
4A. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACCELERATED RAIL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM - DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Hideo Sugita outlined the elements of the Southern California Accelerated Rail
Electrification Program - Draft Executive Summary and stated that Task Force members
will be present at the March 11, 1992 Commission meeting to present a summary report
on the Task Force findings and recommendations.
M/S/C that the Commission receive the Draft Executive Summary of the
Southern California Accelerated Rail Electrification Program and possibly take
action.
4B. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (SCRRA) ACTION TO PURCHASE
ADDITIONAL LOCOMOTIVES TO DEMONSTRATE LOWER NO„ EMISSIONS AND
METHANOL
Hideo Sugita reported that the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) at
them February 14th meeting requested RCTC consideration of the lease/purchase of
locomotives to demonstrate technology to reduce NO, emissions, as well as demonstrate
the feasibility of retrofitting a diesel locomotive to operate on methanol fuel. He further
reported the initial staff recommendation was to provide the balance of RCTC's FY 1991-
92 TCI funds ($1.655 million) which was originally approved by CTC for the purchase of
diesel locomotives, to the SCRRA for the purpose of supporting a portion of the
alternative fuel locomotive demonstration.
Page 6
March 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee Minutes
Members of the Budget and Finance Committee, in noting the Electrification Task Force
report is circulating for review and comment purposes, did not support the staff
recommendation to allocate the balance of the TCI for the locomotive alternative fuel
demonstrations. They suggested staff work with AOMD to address this issue.
5. FINANCIAL ITEMS.
5A. MONTHLY COST/SCHEDULE REPORT.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
5B. CONTINUATION OF B&F PRESENTATION ON PROJECT STRUCTURE (SCHEDULING
AND CONTRACTS).
There was no time during the meeting to address this item so it will be carried to the April
Budget & Finance Committee meeting.
6. RCTC EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENT.
Commission Larson stted that she had some concerns relating to the process for amending the
Expenditure Plan.
M/S/C that the Commission receive and file.
7. URGENCY ITEM - PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR EXCHANGE WITH THE
PRESS -ENTERPRISE.
M/S/C that the Commission: (1) approve the expenditure of $610,000 for acquisition
of two parcels of land, for use In negotiating a property exchange with the Press -
Enterprise, as part of establishing the right-of-way for the Commuter Rail system
between Riverside and Los Angeles; and (2) that this be a Consent Calendar item.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business to come before the Budget and Finance Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
spectfully submitted,
N ty I{o nha Cffice Services Manager
sc
AGENDA ITEM #4A
prowo, .;3= ] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 1, 1992
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: City of Canyon Lake Measure A Loan
The City of Canyon Lake is requesting approval of a Measure A Loan in the amount of
$3.5 to $4.0 million to improve Railroad Canyon Road as a single project. The roadway
will be a regional arterial with an 86' right-of-way; a 14' raised median; two travel lanes
in each direction; and a 13' emergency parking/bike lane in each direction that will be
converted to additional travel lanes if needed in the future.
The proposed improvements include: pavement rehabilitation; relocating the existing golf
course entrance and installing a traffic signal at Skyline Drive; construction of a 14' wide
raised median, sound walls and sidewalks; and relocating overhead utilities underground.
The improvements are consistent with improvements required to be constructed as part
of a large private development near Goetz Road. The project described above is
currently being programmed by the city in fundable pieces each year in the Measure A
Local Streets and Road Program.
The proposal to fund the entire construction cost of this project at one time has been
reviewed and supported in concept by the WRCOG Executive Committee and by staff of
the County of Riverside Transportation Department (see attached letter). There are some
unique circumstances regarding the City of Canyon Lake that deserve consideration.
Railroad Canyon Road is the only public roadway in the city. All other roadways are
private. The amount of funding requested is relatively small in terms of overall Measure
A, LTF, and Gas Tax revenues available. We expect that there will be a cost savings
constructing the entire project now during the recession rather than in pieces over a
number of years.
The City is estimating that future State Gas Tax subventions will exceed ongoing
maintenance costs for this, their only eligible roadway. The Commission and all local
governments surely envy their position. The City is interested in using these excess
revenues both in a proposed pooling program under consideration by the WRCOG, to
assist cities and the County to fund large construction projects, and in trading excess
gas tax to other cities and the county for general fund revenues.
Cat ❑f Can on Lake TEL:714-244-2955 Mar 25,92 13:38 No.004 P.01
TO
FROM:
CITY aF CAHY6N LAM.
USHORAN UO F;
SUB.186T t .
3 D/ 19 9 .2. 4,K..6 )4A ftA �
44-1-z,
toz4,4,o 4-19)-tiz-/ (00
a
.I;
7..J�� �.,�J� „y.'�2 c
}jry
4,40
1.4,a-z, ,ipreeatt% faet,•••,' 01)-VA:4"1"2- 41-L
,„4,4462.,4J3 aet., 14. 4 22 e pg.,344
.24. 00-g, ,^e
M1' i 4 - .:y46.41• 1. 1 M i
r.(/i•iL +• _ .21. • sue .
or t e,
J _
cde ./1444-rtiza gAr-
Cis Canyon Lake TEL:714-244-2955
Mar 25 .92
13 : 42 No .005 P .03
44. •�
August 28, 1991
CITY OP CANYON LA1OE
Jack Reagan
Executive DirectoT
Riverside County ranaportation Commission
3560
University Avenue, suite 100
Riverside,92501
( / . r
Dear Mr Reagan:
it
The Canyon Lake City Engineer and I recently stet with Prank
Sherkow and Tek Tenaka of the County Transportation
Department regarding Railroad Canyon Road within the City,
limits. possibilities did ao am part
optionsof our etorrts to fully undertaking assoonas
funding them
possible the major improvements needed on this important
roadway.
During that diecuesion, the idea arose of the City requesting
acceleration of its rreeip�iodthose
of several yurs•i7► primary':t would
otherwise receive vv■ pr
example would be the
pxlreadyobeenpapp� nt�sbyoRCTCiascthe
Canyon Road which hs
city's five year Measure A expenditure plan.
As we understand it, this might be cc�ls*hedpori;i a of the
utilizing RCTC's bonding authority
to funds presently available in your Measure A account. The able
benefits to the City would be many,
to proceed with Railroad Canyon Road improvements ari ■
Fiscal singl■, comprehensive pstjacloWirats ofiinterest;Ya�d;(3)
(Z)
incurring debt service
getting the biggest "bang for our buck"
ronment to the qunttor.
favorable competitive bidding
such work.
To the extent that federal road
dnfunding sources might
&leo be
available to the City over .. ,
interested in discussing the possibility of#simiiirlyhat ..
expediting their early receipt in some wayre
we
would really like to do is have
inthe
th pnee,rulutureososweomay •
all such funding possibilities
determine how we may beat evelopand Pro proceed with the
Railroad Canyon Road Imp
rovement
JIMnr W. Trembly
Mayor
Annabelle Midi
Morw Pro Tan
Guie llmwb mm ii
n+
Co cilnirn
. )eiM (WAMelil
Ccuicilmiin
Jodi Wuaiey
Councilman
L Jeff 1Wt�lert
• ` City Manama
31312 Railroad Canyon Rood. Sulk: 101 and 10L1. ;,i Lakc. CA 925117.714l2a#-�5 0/A4-CYLK1 FAX 714/2A-20
C.us]K • .
_i
City of Canyon Lake
3
6194541694
b51 CONSULTANTS INC F-733 T-967 P-002 3AN 30 '92 17:05
1.
DATE:
TO:
TEL:714-244-2955 Mar 25.92 13:47 No.005 P.05
•
MEMORANDUM
Jeff ButzYa, City Hansgez
Ian► Weston, Cry Fad.
1l�i% . I
Mark Chagnon, agnon, BSI Co niut�, , ftro,
Project f4 Improve Railroad Ceram . _•: _ ,.
SUB�EGT �.•:-
�on of the l� workshop meeting an � sub pad tfi 3'u�u!ry' A Ch7
At the �# � ti3 deter diet t� -
tbaY City staff should research potential Count y opt of Rat* Canyon Rom-.• �,�, is was
monies available for the im
degree provement
°type neof ]sr��p;Ni vouls-iavctq w*.u�i afterithben�myould be left fiber the "�►�w .
,
ad
teme
Ilrumtia
were made. R was also decided dant the eneineering.de sl*'44 Pm:10 );47' ,
of the deely� made b City C �g the
'rho fa11�►� u a wm�Y i ypcapaae-iu.� b� m �'° �� °'f.
b a cost a �7. Their
followed scope. of wort � to a ist the City in ifs � �� bticl��
design the engineering.
� p of your review cook eadlor °orim/ied,�"e, � C��. Yqc.
ffart4. p� � � 1.. -�:
Terrill P� a work , Schedule and fee � far. �it9►'e , .�,
,. The Y.
curb ^
14' nixed with 12' and 1 I' travel Una and I 1 13` g�y. ��
lane in cach direction, The eminency l����m
lanes in to
.
The roadway has dge
a new lindt Of 45 mph. 1111341i thea 'of the with
reveals a 45 mph desk speed, th° � old not be �
cans to the vertical � in w
thef Sorrel
La e. In Yaa of some ease t ae � speed
Lane. In order to � a� racy � �� rv�l lea �. iad
ill be
designated to iump�rave fight distuca , street be better d
the overall perception of the roadway
City of Canyon Lake TEL:714-244-2955
6194511654 B5 i ,LTPKI S I h16
Railroad Lyon Road
Iarwary 30, 1992
Page Three
Biagotarasarairsmaum
F -733 T -867 F-00=
Mar 25 , 92 13 : 48 No .005 P .07
3A14 .30 ' 92 17: i6
The City wishes t0 purs
ue the relocation of the 11444 golecourse right-
of-way. to
opposite�� eve. The t� will evaluate and act to &e dit �
Ito Will he � m' the
T�1B acca�a �
� A m�rr traffic
pralirninarY design phase and subject to available -ofkrot.,
will be designed at the Skylink Dave intersection. lb&,nigh* entrance ;nay
remain
as a right tau in only.
•
The existing 121N and 33XV power lines will post maim to'n° rauAd
(Southern California Edison is currently preparing in eadma'te). he City
research mdinmaces to sec if atleast aFad of ibs'overheid bias•Hu be
- • .. ' .
The design of improvements are to be correlated with the
propoaal near eta mod.
1.
2.
3.
#.
5.
6.
?.
;Oa
9.
10.
11.
Item,
Pavement
Aligner Revision. CV Sorrel Una
Raised Median
Drainage System
Street Lights (subject by further review)
Sidewalk.
Paltways
comae ta'se EntranceEntranceRelRelocateda�l
hfaccllaneaus (Relocations, Adjustments, etc.)
Siibtatal
Condtgencies, Dann and Construction . r,.
-coot.hSupSupport • �T'0'f'pL,
•
o►r*� J�
For *aisi+��/ fuF�+h p+rikwert ofav * aro worm* As prf.ppef!f w6M nYtidt
*0,0 '
i38,coa.
2 pobo .
12,6,ccio
.242,000
0 R000
1 .110,000
•
2,000
Citu of Canuon Lake 7EL:714-244-2955
Mar 25 .92
13 :52 No . CC5 P . C9
11.
N
K•
Jeff Butzlaff, City Eger
February 28, 1992
Page Two
. $30,000 - S35,00O (assumes length of 8000't)•
- $6,000 - $7,000 (submitted in report forte.
- Administsatran - $25,000. IroP'ectice and Testing - $95,000
- $105,000. Staking - $75,000 - $95,000.
PrOaratiiog - $10,000.
- $6,000 to $8,000 (required only if street manumits
are missing or have been disturbed. Monuments disturbed during construction will be reset
at the contractor's expense).
Cilizcaktdifhattiglabri - $2,500 (2-page color 81/2* x 11° format printed and !hailed to
5,O00 rraidenuiburirusses.)
of Canyon Lake TEL:714-244-2G55
Mar '25 ,92 13 ;53 ho .CC5 P.11
1.4 S,chinclule of Wort
Upon receipt of written Notice to Prooexd from the AGENCY, BSI shall
perform Services in the Scope
of Work with diligence. BSI shall not be responsible for
may, nor small BSI be responsible for damages � �° a �°r deemed failure of AGENCY w
be in default
by reason of stzilaes, lockouts, �ldents, or � or delay or
furl timely information or to ap-prove or disapprove HSI'S work promF y
b AGENCY, other contractors, a governmental ageY�, or any other
faulty performance YDelays notwithstanding, BSI shall
delays beyond BSI'5 COMM' ar �f �t � � 20 wer�cof the receipt of the elate of the
complete ttsa services in the scope
Notice, to Proceed.
ARTICLE 2
COMPENSATION
2.1 at.
AGENCY agree -a to compensate BSI by a fined fee in the AGENCY also
ount of One
Hundred Forty -Six Thousand an Four vials �Hundred uDollars 9. 0146,400.00).
agrees to compensate B5
I for 2.2
All payments due BSI shall be paid to:
BSI CONSULTANTS, INC.
16880 West Bernardo Drive
San Diego, California, 92127
2.3
BSI will submit invoices monthly for the percentage of work comps in the
previous monde. AGENCY agrees to pay all undisputed invoice amounts within thirty (30)
AGENCY agrees to notify BSI of any disputed invoice amounts
days of the, invoice date. my wall subject to a late
within twenty (2.Q) days of tiro invoice date. � motes, which i# an annual
e rod at a per�dlc rate of 1 % par
peroentag of 1carirling �8 �will be applied as any unpaid balance commencing sixty (60)
days after date of the original invoice.
In the event AGENCY feats to Pay soy undisputed amounts dens BSI within
that BSI shall have tees
��, (�) days after invoices one rendered, ach of then � the � of BSI under
right to consider said default a � � l� vrixhotrt liability� � upon ben �1[�) ++�
this Agreement may be, terming y
arldng
days advance written Notice.
adraiaitqmeraaleherliali e
City of Canyon Lake
TEL:714-244-2955
Mar 25,92
14:42 ho .CC2 P .C2
3.4 Nice of CancellatloniEI]dorsement
BSI agrees to provide ten (10) days wri en Notice to AGENCY prior to
cancellation, modification or suspension of any policy. BSI shall provide endorsements
showing such coverage (as modified to include the additional named insured).
ARTICLE 4
TERMINATION
4.1 Temaination of Contract
This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time with or without
cause upon thirty (30) days prior written Notice. In the event of termination by AGENCY,
BSI shall be paid prorate under this Agreement within thirty (30) days of submittal of invoice
for all services performed to the date of termination.
ARTICLE S
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
5.1 CtiencallizugDommeaga
All plans, specifications, reports and other design docents prepared by 13SI
pursuant to this Agmement are instrtunents of service which shall be deemed the property
of the AGENCY. AGENCY acknowledges and agrees that all plans, specifications, reports
and outer design documents prepared by BSI pursuant to this Agreement shall be used
exclusively on this Project and shall not be used for any other work without the written
consent of BSI. In the event AGENCY and BSI permit the muse or other use of the plans,
specifications, repairts or other desigrh documents, AGENCY shall require the party using
them to indemnify and hold harmless AGENCY and BSI regarding such reuse or other use,
and AGENCY shall requins the party aching them to eliminate any and all refereraces to BSI
from the plans, specifications, reports and other design docunnpns. BSI may apply for
copyrights or patents on all or any part of the work performed under this Agreement.
City of Canyon Lake
-EL _4-244-2:55
6.5 Llawdeus MatarLgls
Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, BSI and its subconsuhants and/or
Mors shall have no responaility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or
disposal of, or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any farm at the site of the
Project.
6.6 Thlts
The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not
put of the Agreement..
6.7 Extent of Agreement
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated Agreement between
AGENCY and BSI and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements,
either writes or oral. This Agreement may be modifud or aniended only by a subsequent
written agreement signed by bath: panties. No waiver of any terms or condition of this
Agreement shall be a continuing waiver thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the; parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date and year first above written.
Date: G- 2e - q z
BSI CONSULTANTS, INC.
BY: /+*�
TITLE: i e t p
TITLE: rce
C:ty of Canyon Lake
-EL: 14-244-2955
h'ar
14 •4, !.,o , CC8
Task S. Final Design
Based on mot; from the City, finalize the design of the improvements, Prepare finished
cross -sections of the roadway and profiles of the new median and curb. Complete the
drainage study and the drainage system design including profiles of the main Lines. Prepare
wall profiles and cestst ruc ion details for the walls and street and drainage improvements u
necessary to sweet the County of Riverside Standard Drawings. Prepare aging and
striping plans crud traffic contiral planes.
Tusk 6. Project Sper.lfications, Estimate and Pinar Plans
Prepare technical provisions by referencing the Standard Specifications for Public Worics
• Construeion (Green Book) and modifying, as necessary, for this project. Prepare general
provisions by modifying a BSI -developed or City provided set of boilerplate specifications.
Submit 100 % project plans, specifications and a project coat estimate for City approvaL
Send copies of the plans to effected utility agencies for their review instructing them to
coordinate any issues with the City's Public Worms Conunittee, After City approval, BSI
will submit one set of original mylar drawings, one original engineer's estimate And one set
of original unbound specifications.
Tank 7. Project Management
Project management is continuous from Task 1 through Task 6 to ensure that the City's goals
and objectives are met,. This task includes overall supervision of the B.S1 provided servioes,
pact quality control, preparation of correspondence and regular status reports, and
attendance at up to ten (10) meetings at the City.
Task 8. Reimhtulable Expenses
Reimbursable ratpensea _xxyt to estimated at this_,tima.and.&SI pznposas to . provide all
reimbursable: at cost + 15 %. We suggest that yen initially establish a budget of $3,000.
prapa••werrtrigm ar.
i
City of Canyon Lake
-EL:7:4-294-2955
h'ar 25.92
14:47 t.o .CC8 P C13
i
FEE SUMMARY AND PROJEcr SClimi1LE
Yask1(12, Est
Receive Authorization to Proceed 0
Task 1 Phatagrunmetiy 4 S 14,160
Field Surrey 4 19,120
Existing Cross -Sections 5 3,320
Task 2Geotechnical and Pavement Study 5 $ 9,800
Task 3 Complete Base Drawings 5 $ 4,900
Task 4 Preliminary Design of Street improvements 7 $ 12,700
Streedightung design 7 1,300
Sidewalk, rdaining wall and soundwall layout 8 5,200
SoundwaIl concepts (3) 8 1,500
Preliminary drainage study and system layout 8 5,800
Preliminary desk meeting 9
Return of City comments 10
Task 5 Final Design of Street Improvements 14 $ 17,800
Finished Cross -Sections 15 5,400
Final Drainage Study and Storm Drain Design 15 6,700
Retaining WaIUSaundwall Design and Profiles 17 11,500
Construction Details 17 5,700
Signu,g arid Striping Design 17 4,200
Traffic Control Design 17 3,600
Task 6 Project Specifications
Cost Eatimafa
i 00 % Submittal to City
Return of City Comments
Final Submittai to City
18
18
18
19
20
4,400
2,300
Task 7 Project Management 11../2)
Total Fixed Fee $146,400
Task 8 Reimbursable Expenses Cast + 15 %
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 1, 1992
TO: Buget and Finance Committeee
FROM: Karl Sauer, Measure "A" Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Acquisition of Right -of -Way for the Route 79, Keller Road to Newport Road,
Measure A Highway Improvement Project.
The Project Report and Environmental Document for the Measure A project on Route 79
between Newport and Keller Roads has proceeded on schedule with environmental
certification expected in December 1992. While it is not anticipated that the project will be
programmed for construction in the near future, staff feels that it will be cost effective to
proceed with immediate acquisition of right-of-way (ROW). The ROW estimate for the
Ultimate Route Concept Six Lane Facility is $1.5 million. Also, in support of this effort, staff
would like to proceed with right-of-way engineering services and acquisition.
The Commission approved Agreement No. RO - 9112 at the November 1990 Commission
Meeting, for Centennial Civil Engineers, Inc. to provide Preliminary Engineering Services
for the subject project. With the Commission approval, expenditures of up to a maximum
of $498,446 for the base work and $74,767 for extra work were authorized to perform the
required engineering services. Staff expects that the preliminary engineering services
provided by Centennial will be completed on schedule and under budget. It is projected
that approximately $95,000 for the base work and all $74,767 for the extra work will not
be expended at the completion of Centennial's present scope of work.
Staff recommends adding the right-of-way engineering services for the project to the
Centennial contract because:
1. Centennial is qualified to perform the services. Centennial qualifications
have been reviewed by staff and Caltrans.
2. Centennial has performed the preliminary engineering services for the
project. It is cost effective to continue to use Centennial as there will be no
engineering learning curve.
3. Centennial is currently under contract with RCTC and there will be minimal
effort in administering the required contract amendment.
AGENDA ITEM #4C
"
1 . _ , R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
A p r i l 1 , 1 9 9 2
T O : B u d g e t & F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : M i k e D a v i s , E n v i r o n m e n t a l M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H : J a c k R e a g a n , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : F r i i s P r o p e r t y A c q u i s i t i o n H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S t u d y - I n c r e a s e I n A u t h o r i z e d
C o n t r a c t A m o u n t f o r T e t r a T e c h , I n c .
T h e F r i i s p r o p e r t y n e a r 1 - 2 1 5 a n d S p r u c e S t r e e t i n R i v e r s i d e i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e 6 0 / 9 1 / 2 1 5
I n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s i n c l u d e d i n R C T C ' s 1 9 9 2 S T I P p r o p o s a l . S t a f f h a s b e e n
w o r k i n g t o a c q u i r e t h e p a r c e l u n d e r t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y p r o t e c t i o n p r o g r a m p r e v i o u s l y
a p p r o v e d b y R C T C f o r t h e i n t e r c h a n g e . I n i t i a l d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h C a l t r a n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t
t h e y w o u l d p e r f o r m t h e r e q u i r e d H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S t u d y . I t w a s l a t e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t
C a l t r a n s c o u l d n o t s u p p o r t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n s c h e d u l e . S t a f f r e q u i r e d c o n s u l t a n t a s s i s t a n c e
t o c o m p l e t e t h e s t u d y .
T e t r a T e c h , I n c . w a s i n i t i a l l y s e l e c t e d t o p r e p a r e t h e H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S t u d i e s f o r
C o m m u t e r R a i l S t a t i o n s . A s u b s e q u e n t a m e n d m e n t ( A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 ) w a s a p p r o v e d
b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r T e t r a T e c h t o p r e p a r e a P h a s e 2 ( s o i l s a m p l i n g a n d t e s t i n g ) f o r
t h e F r i i s P r o p e r t y t o s u p p o r t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n s c h e d u l e . A f t e r A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 h a d b e e n
a p p r o v e d C a l t r a n s r e q u e s t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l A s b e s t o s S u r v e y o f t h e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d
o n t h e F r i i s P r o p e r t y . S t a f f r e q u e s t e d t h a t T e t r a T e c h i n c l u d e t h e A s b e s t o s S u r v e y i n t h e i r
c u r r e n t w o r k e f f o r t . O n M a r c h 1 2 , 1 9 9 2 T e t r a T e c h s u b m i t t e d a p r o p o s a l i n t h e a m o u n t
o f $ 3 6 5 1 . 4 6 t o c o m p l e t e t h e A s b e s t o s S u r v e y a n d h a v e p o t e n t i a l l y h a z a r d o u s s o i l
s a m p l e s r e m o v e d f r o m t h e s i t e a n d d i s p o s e d o f a t c e r t i f i e d l o c a t i o n .
T h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t h e T e t r a T e c h c o n t r a c t i s c u r r e n t l y $ 5 7 , 2 1 4 . 0 0 i n c l u d i n g t h e i n i t i a l
C o m m u t e r R a i l S t a t i o n c o n t r a c t o f $ 3 1 , 7 1 2 . 0 0 a p p r o v e d b y R C T C a t t h e A u g u s t 1 4 , 1 9 9 1
m e e t i n g a n d A m e n d m e n t N o . 1 f o r t h e F r i i s P r o p e r t y P h a s e 2 S t u d y i n t h e a m o u n t o f
$ 2 5 , 5 0 2 . 0 0 a p p r o v e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n a t t h e D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 1 m e e t i n g ( A g e n d a I t e m
7 B 3 ) . T h i s A m e n d m e n t N o . 2 f o r t h e A s b e s t o s S u r v e y a n d h a z a r d o u s s o i l s a m p l e s
d i s p o s a l w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e t o t a l c o n t r a c t a m o u n t t o $ 6 0 , 8 6 5 . 4 6 . T h e a m e n d m e n t w i l l b e
r e v i e w e d b y L e g a l C o u n s e l .
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N :
T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v e A m e n d m e n t N o . 2 t o c o n t r a c t R 0 9 2 0 1 w i t h T e t r a T e c h , I n c .
i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 3 , 6 5 1 . 4 6 t o c o m p l e t e t h e H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S t u d y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e
F r i i s p r o p e r t y a c q u i s i t i o n .
AGENDA ITEM #4D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 1, 1992
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment for Tudor Engineering on Route 74 Traffic Engineering
Services
Tudor Engineering was retained by RCTC to perform Traffic Engineering Services on
Route 74 for three projects. Project #1 included widening between 1-15 in Lake Elsinore
to 7th Street in Perris, Project #2 involves reconfiguration and widening of the Route 74
and 1-215 interchange and widening of Route 74 to G Street in Perris, and Project #3 was
realignment of a reverse curve between Winchester Road to Warren Road.
Project #1 and Project #2 have proceeded with project development activities since
January of 1991. Each project has involved substantially more analysis than was
originally envisioned when the traffic engineering services were scoped and costed.
Previous allocations were made from the 15% Extra Work Contingency in the amount of
$11,621. There remains $3,898 in contingency available. Project Development for Project
#3 was stopped after Tudor had completed most of the traffic work for the project.
Tudor has notified RCTC that they will be exceeding the currently allocated budget for the
projects. The reason for the extra work is additional alternatives being analyzed for
Project #2, along with the collection of additional data and additional detailed analysis not
originally envisioned. Extra work activities for Project #1 have included further detailed
study of County General Plan arterials which intersect Route 74 and development of traffic
forecasts to a greater level of detail than originally scoped. A two mile segment of Route
74 in Lake Elsinore will also be environmentally cleared for a larger project (seven lane
vs. five lanes) at the request of the City of Lake Elsinore. The traffic work for the seven
lane project has also added extra work to Tudor's scope of services. Tudor has
projected the total additional funds needed to be $17,621.
Tudor also performed an analysis of two proposed Park and Ride facilities near the Green
River interchange on Palisades Drive. Staff had Tudor prepare this study because they
are serving as the traffic subconsultant for the Green River interchange Project Study
Report. This work was originally expected to be funded from the contingency amount
AGENDA ITEM #4E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Keith Fullenwider, Project Coordinator
Mark Massman, Project Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Contract Agreement No. RO-92-XX with Jaykim Engineers, I n c . f o r
Topographic Surveying services for the State Route 111 projects, from Palm
Springs to Indio.
April 1, 1992
Jaykim Engineers, Inc. GJKE} is the SruveyslMapping firm assigned to Route 111 through
the 1989 RCTC Consultant Selection Process. JKE has been directed by RCTC to
prepare a proposal to perform topographic survey mapping to be utilized in the
preliminary engineering studies leading to the preparation of a Project Study Report for
various project sites along the SR 111 highway. Meetings with Caltrans have concluded
that aerial photomapping is not required, that mapping based upon field surveys will be
adequate.
The scope of work is divided into three phases. The first phase will establish the vertical
and horizontal control necessary for the actual surveys of the projects. The second
phase will be the topographic surveys of eight projects in the cities of Palm Springs,
Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Indio. The final phase will
compile all of the survey data and prepare 1" = 50' scale base drawings to be used by
the engineering consultants for the preliminary engineering studies and preparation of the
Project Study Reports and Project Reports.
The proposed duration for the surveying services for the three phases of work is three
months from the date of the notice to proceed.
Currently, final negotiations are being conducted for the scope of work, schedule and
budget estimate. Staff recommends that RCTC approve a budget amount of $372,000.00
for the base contract amount, and $37,000.00 for authorized extra work, for a total
amount of $409,000.00.
The final scope of work, schedule and budget will be approved by the standard RCTC
contract agreement procedure, upon completion of the final contract negotiations.
AGENDA ITEM #4F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 2, 1992
TO- Administrative Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
Shirley De La O, Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Contract Revision for Valley Research and Planning Associates.
Valley Research and Planning Associates is performing the technical write up for the
Measure A Financial Plan Update and for portions of the Measure A financial statements
for a total not to exceed $30,000. The scope of services includes development of the
narrative incorporating priority analysis of Measure A projects, rail projects and other
transportation issues. They will assist in the formation of documentation and completion
of final documents.
Recently, the Commission authorized the purchase of the TRANPLAN software package
to assist in highway modeling. Valley Research will provide the training to staff on how
to effectively use this new software. Valley Research estimates that the cost of the
training will be approximately $20,000. Since the purchase of the software package was
charged as a highway expenditure, staff intends to also charge the training as a highway
expenditure.
Our original contract value with Valley Research was for a total of $30,000 to perform
CMP modeling. This will revise the contract to reflect the expanded scope of work for
highway modeling and the addition of work for the Measure A Financial Plan Update and
financial statements. We are asking the Commission to approve these changes in scope
of work and to increase the contract value to an amount not to exceed $80,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the contract amendments to Valley Planning and Associates as outlined in the
memo. Authorize the Executive Director to transfer $50,000 from Contingency with
$30,000 allocated to Professional Services, and $20,000 allocated to Highways for a total
contract value for Valley Research and Planning Associates of $80,000.
DM:sc
33/23/1992 13:45 2094320458 VALLEY RESEARCH PLAN PAGE 01
VALLEY RESEARCH AND PLANNING ASSOCIATES
Transportation / Traffic Modeling / Land Use / Environmental Analysis / Air Quality
P.O. Acer 3502 Fresno, CA 93650.3502 PEE (209) 32.5960 FAX (209) 412-0451
TF,LECONESI[1MCATION C'OFER PAGF.
TO:
AREA CODE A TE%ECOFIER NUMBER
AREA CODS & OFFICE NUMBER
SUBJECT:
e,106/4_,teY --z/ze,c.7
TOTAL NUMBER. OF PAGES 'TRANSMITTED INCLUDING COVER PAGE:
�f Yen do not receive all the pages, please call (209)432-S960
4,410t-iez4",_�.
1992 Measure A Financial Plan
Cost: $25,000
Task 1: Continue development of Plan narrative incorporating Measure A Highway
Projects priority analysis results, rail program and other transportation issues and
policies. 510.000
Teak 2: Format document consistent with ROTC Staff recommendations and ptovide a
draft copy of the plan fat RCTC staff review and comment 210,0X1
Task 3 : Considering RCM staff comments. revise the draft document. $2.500
Task 4: Prepare a cammst-rmady copy of the Plan incorporating graphs and maps
developed try ROTC staff. S2,500
MAR 2-3 1992 •
County
Transportation Comnnizz:Jn
03/23/1392 13:45 2034320450
VALLEY RESEARCH PLAN PACE 02
Scope of Work - Revised Contract
ROTC and Valley Research and Planning Associates
1992 Measure A Financial Statement - Measure A Project Descriptions
Cost: S5,000 4
Task 1: Revise project descriptions which are understandable to Riverside County
residents. Revision of the descriptions will include reformatting existing
descriptions considering a "suggested" format provided by RCTC staff.
$3,500
Task 2: Format project descriptions and provide the descripdom to RCTC staff for
review. $500
Task 3: Based on ROTC staff comment, revise project descriptions and provide a carrien-
ready copy to ROTC.
$1,000
AGENDA ITEM #5A
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
April 1, 1991
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Caltrans/ROTC Draft Telecommuting WorkCenter Contribution Agreement
Caltrans District 8 contacted the Commission and San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) several months ago regarding the potential availability of
additional funding for each agency's telecommuting demonstration projects. As a result,
the two managers of the Telecommuting Centers, Economic Development Partnership
(EDP) and Inland Empire Economic Council (IEEC), submitted a joint marketing proposal
to Caltrans in the amount of $150,000.
The attached proposal outlines those activities that would be developed jointly and those
efforts that would be targeted based on the needs of each demonstration project. The
marketing plan split the available funding equally between the two county projects with
disbursement of funds passing from Caltrans to the Commission and SANBAG as lead
agencies and on to the respective Center managers.
Based on the marketing proposal, Caltrans has allocated the requested funding to the
Commission and SANBAG. The draft Caltrans Contribution Agreement will be presented
at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting and must be approved by the
Commission to allow Caltrans to release funding in the amount of $75,000 for marketing
of the Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County. To facilitate the process, it is
staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the draft Caltrans agreement with
the condition that any subsequent language changes be subject to Legal Counsel review.
EDP will hold responsibility for carrying out the marketing proposal tasks and complying
with the reporting requirements of the Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) approve, subject to review by Legal Counsel, the Caltrans
Contribution Agreement awarding $75,000 in state funding to the Commission for the
Telecommuting WorkCenter of Riverside County; 2) authorize the Commission
Chairperson and Executive Director to execute said Agreement, and 3) upon receipt of
funds transfer same to the Economic Development Partnership pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement for implementation of the identified marketing tasks.
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
April 1, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Rideshare Incentive Tracking Program Database
The Measure A Commuter Assistance Rideshare Incentive Programs are currently being
managed by Inland Transportation Services (ITS). Existing incentives that are being
provided and tracked by ITS include the Local incentive Demonstration Program, the
Vanpool Quickstart Demonstration Program, and the Riverside Freeway Incentive
Program. The existing process consists of manually tracking the appropriate incentives
for participating companies and employees. The reports documenting the progress of
the Rideshare Incentive Programs are also currently being performed by hand. With the
current number of participants, manually maintaining all the data and producing the
reports associated with these programs has become unmanageable.
Staff has solicited estimates from three independent sources to produce a computer
database that would electronically store all of the information that is currently being
maintained manually, and would further have the capability of generating all of the
required reports that track the success and progress of the Programs. The three
estimates came in at $12,000 from RCI Systems; $3,900 from Technology/one; and
$2,137.50 from Kevin R. Odom an independent database engineer. Staff recommends
that a contract with Kevin R. Odom be put in place to develop a Rideshare Incentive
Tracking Program database.
To cover the initial programming cost as well as the contingencies and modifications to
the data base design that will develop as the data base programming progresses, staff
recommends that a $5,000 budget be established to provide Kevin R. Odom
compensation to develop this program. It is proposed that the database development
costs be absorbed by the existing Measure A approved budgets totalling $357,820 for
the three Programs.
The proposed contract to be used for this consultant will be a reduced version of the
standard agreement and is attached for your information and review. The insurance
clauses have been significantly reduced to include only personal automobile and
Workers' Compensation Insurance (if applicable). This modified agreement is currently
being reviewed by Legal Counsel and the consultant.
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into this 18th day of February, 1992 by and
between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as
"RCTC," and Kevin R. Odom, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, RCTC desires to create a Rideshare Incentive Tracking Program (the
"Project") and there is a need for a programmer to create, install and train personnel on
the use of the program; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is a professional consultant, experienced in providing
FOXPRO programming code; and
WHEREAS, RCTC desires to engage CONSULTANT to render certain consulting
services as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, RCTC has entered into this Agreement for the purpose of obtaining
the personal services of Kevin R. Odom;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the promises set forth herein, the receipt
and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION I
SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT
1. General Scope of Services. CONSULTANT shall provide consulting services
and advice on various issues affecting decisions of RCTC regarding the Project,
hereinafter referred to as "Services." Such Services shall include, but not be limited to,
the following services:
A. Creating original FOXPRO code, menus and reports for the rideshare
incentive tracking program.
B. Installation of the program, including source code, at one location.
C. Training of one group of employees on use of the program.
D. Provide telephone and or site support as required.
2. The term of this Agreement shall be from April 8, 1992 to the conclusion of
the Project or January 1, 1994, whichever comes first.
profession. CONSULTANT further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all
such licenses, permits, and other approvals during the term of this Agreement.
7. Insurance. CONSULTANT shall obtain and shall require its subconsultants
to obtain insurance of the types and in the amounts described below and satisfactory to
RCTC.
A. Personai Automobile Liability Insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain
personal automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a combined single limit of
not less than $150,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall include coverage for
owned, hired and non -owned automobiles.
B. Workers' Compensation Insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain
workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and employers' liability insurance
with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident at any times during the term of this
Agreement during which CONSULTANT may retain employees.
SECTION III
FEES AND PAYMENTS
1. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall receive $45.00 an hour for
programming and support services. This amount will be paid on a monthly basis until
completion of the Project. Telephone support will be billed at 1 /10th hour increments.
On -site support will be billed at 1 /10th hour increments with a minimum of a 2 hour
charge. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be
compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
2. Payment of Compensation. After the conclusion of each Month in which
work has been performed, CONSULTANT shall submit an invoice to RCTC for the amount
of work performed during that Month. RCTC shall, within 45 days of receiving such
statement, review the bills and pay all approved charges thereon.
3. Reimbursement for Expenses. CONSULTANT shall not be reimbursed for
any expenses unless authorized in writing by RCTC.
4. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, RCTC may
request that CONSULTANT perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any
work which is determined by RCTC to be necessary for the proper completion of the
Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the
execution of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not perform Extra Work until receiving
written authorization from RCTC's Executive Director.
3
RCTC:
Jack Reagan
Attention: Bill Hughes
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed,
forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and
addressed to the party at its applicable address.
3. Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party
arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation
shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of suits.
4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the
parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations,
understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing
signed by both parties.
5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
of California.
6. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of
this Agreement.
7. RCTC's Right to Employ Other Consultants. RCTC reserves right to employ
other consultants in connection with this Project.
8. Successors and Assign. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by CONSULTANT
without the prior written consent of RCTC.
SECTION VI
SUBCONTRACTING
1. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work required by this
Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of RCTC.
2. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all
provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
5
AGENDA ITEM #5C
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
April 1, 1992
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency-FY 1992-96 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment
At the March 11, 1992 meeting, the Commission reviewed a request from the Riverside Transit
Agency to reprogram $333,641 in local transportation funds to purchase six (6) vans and three
(3) mini -buses for service expansion. The RTA plans to implement new dial -a -ride services in
the Jurupa and Lake Elsinore area, and to expand current dial -a -ride service in Perris and
Hemet/San Jacinto. Also, service frequency will be improved from two hours to one hour on
Lines 31 and 32. The Commission agreed to the budget change "in concept". However, since
the service expansion was not included in the current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and
had not been reviewed by the RTA Board of Directors or the RCTC Citizens' Advisory
Committee, the RTA was asked to follow the process for a SRTP amendment and bring the
item back to the April 1992 Commission meeting.
The SRTP amendment was approved by the RTA Board of Directors at their meeting of March
26, 1992. This amendment also includes the necessary plan revision to account for the 4
replacement buses approved by the Commission at the March meeting ($1,005,708 in LTF from
capital reserves). A copy of the agenda item and related service justification is attached.
Barbara Bray, RTA Transit Planner, discussed the proposed SRTP amendment with the
Citizens' Advisory Committee at their meeting of March 23, 1992. The Committee recommends
approval of this request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve an amendment to the FY 1992-96 Riverside County Short Range
Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the Riverside Transit Agency for
the purchase of six (6) vans and three (3) mini -buses from their existing allocation and 4
replacement coaches to be funded from the balance of the Western County capital reserve.
CB:sc
attachment
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 Third Street
Riverside, CA 92507
March 26,1992
TO:, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
THRU: Susan J. Hafner, General Manager )404i
FROM: Barbara A. Bray, Transit Planner
SUBJECT: FY 1992 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment
Subject: In May of 1991, the board of directors approved the FY 1992 Short Range
Transit Plan (SRTP) which detailed service changes scheduled to be
implemented in September of 1992. The SUP also outlined RTA's capital
requirements for FY 1992. In addition to the capital requirements approved
for FY 1992, staff has recently had the opportunity to purchase additional
vehicles which were not contained in the original SRTP. These
opportunities include additional Section 9 monies which will allow staff to
purchase eight buses instead of six buses and three vans instead of one.
Staff is also utilizing current TDA monies from 1991 and 1992 leftover
TDA accounts to purchase three minibuses and six vans. Staff will
coordinate with the existing Jurupa area non-profit social service provider,
Family Services, to ensure that they have every opportunity to provide input
on the service, which may even possibly include their direct operation of the
Jurupa Dial -A -Ride service, conditional to ADA and cost considerations. In
this current fiscal year, Riverside County Transportation Commission set
aside $3 million to fund RTA coach replacement. Funding for eight buses
out of this fund was committed by ROTC and funding for four additional
buses remaining in that reserve account was committed by RCTC in March
of 1992. ROTC has already revised the regional Transportation
Improvement Plan to reflect the additional nine vans, three minibuses and
14 full-size coaches and is requesting that RTA's SRTP be amended to
reflect this information. Attached is a letter from Jack Reagan, RCTC
executive director, explaining the process for SRTP amendments. Also
attached is staffs response which contains the requested information to
meet the requirements of the process.
Staff notes that of the incremental cost increases outlined in the attachment,
those associated with the ADA services are an anticipated effect of ADA
implementation.
Recommendation:
Authorize the General Manager to amend the FY 1992 Short Range Transit
Plan to reflect additional capital requirements of three minibuses, nine vans
and 14 full-size coaches, and also to continue working with RCTC to
ensure that their requirements are fulfilled
-2-
This increase will represent improved hourly headways Monday through Friday and will
not include hourly headways on Saturdays. It is estimated that average passengers per day
will increase to 189 and nine passengers will be carried each vehicle hour. The subsidy
will decrease to $2.72. Qvercrowding is often reported during the morning and afternoon
trips, most notably on the segment from Banning coming towards San Jacinto. At this
time, staff recommends adding the additional minibus over the implementation of a larger
bus because of the shortage of the full-size coaches and the improved hourly headway
which will be produced with the second vehicle. This could not be obtained by replacing
the original minibus with one larger vehicle.
The second minibus will be used to improve the frequency on Route 32 which provides
local service in Hemet to Valle Vista from two hours to one hour. Route 32 was
implemented in July of 1987 with one vehicle, with a Monday through Saturday schedule.
operating from 7 am to 7:19 pm on weekdays, and 7 am to 7:12 pm on Saturdays. Current
annual passengers total 26,841 and gross annual operating costs total $87,159. Annual
vehicle miles are recorded at 58,238 and annual vehicle Hours are recorded are 3,905.
Average passengers per day number 89 and there are seven average passengers per hour.
Currently, the subsidy per passenger is $3.25. Staff proposes to implement an additional
minibus on Route 32 on September 6, 1992. It is estimated that ridership will increase to
46,972 passengers, gross operating costs will increase to $146,428, annual vehicle miles
will increase to 97,852 and annual vehicle hours will increase to 6,562. This increase will
represent improved hourly headways Monday through Friday and will not include hourly
headways on Saturdays. It is estimated that average passengers per day will increase to
163 and seven passengers will be carried each vehicle hour. The subsidy will decrease to
$3.11. At this time, staff recommends adding the additional minibus over the
implementation of a larger bus because of the shortage of the full-size coaches and the
improved hourly headway which will be produced with the second vehicle. This could not
be obtained by replacing the original minibus with one larger vehicle.
The third minibus will be used as a backup vehicle for Route 23 in Temecula. Route 23
will be operated by a different contractor than the one which currently operates all of RTA's
Dial -A -Ride services and contracted fixed routes and they will rewire a back up vehicle to
support the Route 23 services, as they will not have access to any other pool of vehicles.
One of the six vans will be used to implement new Dial -A -Ride service in the
Jurupa/Rubidoux area. This service will be designed to meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and will be introduced in July of 1992. Staff proposes that
only one vehicle lx allocated to this area until such time as demand dictates an expansion of
vehicles. Service will operate from 5:34 am to 8 pm on weekdays as a parallel to RTA
fixed routes 21 and 29 and will provide local curb to curb service. Weekend service will be
phased in at a later date. In the Jutupa/Rubidoux area, about 975 persons are estimated to
be ADA eligible. Preliminary discussion among SPARC participants and members of the
public indicates that the service area should probably extend to the Riverside Downtown
Terminal and the Galleria at Tyler so that passengers can udlixc RTA fixed routes and
Riverside Special Service vans. In keeping with RTA's policy, this service will be
available only to the seniors and persons with disabilities, with first priority given to
individuals who are certified to be ADA eligible.
-4-
Performance standards for Route 31, 32 and the Dial -A -Ride services will be revised
through the FY 1993 Short Range Transit Plan process.
Thank you for your attention in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me for any
additional information.
Sincerely,
u
arbara A. Bray
Transit Planner
BAB:sda
Attachment
EXHIBIT A/2 of 2 pages
Thirty seven buses out of RTA.s fleets have been targeted for replacement. Most exhibit structural
fatigue and in certain cases, also exceed mileage of 350,0130 for smaller buses, 500,000 for larger
buses or they have surpassed their useful life of 7 years for smaller buses and 12 years for larger
buses. Listed below is a description of which buses are being replaced and through which funding
mechanism.
Line 1 • Four (4) Gillig buses have exceeded their useful life of 7 years
• These are being replaced with an option for 4 out of 5 possible purchases
on the Montebello order. Purchased with 100% TDA monies.
Lines 2-4 • Five (5) GMC buses show structural fatigue and have also reached the 12
year replacement threshold in 1979
• These are being replaced with Hive Montebello buses through Section 9
grant monies.
Line 5 • 18 GMC buses show structural fatigue and are in excess of 500,000 miles.
They will reach the replacement threshold in 1992.
• One bus will be replaced with the fifth out of Hive possible purchases on the
Montebello order, purchased with 100% TDA monies. Ten will be replaced
with an ongoing new purchase, seven are to be replaced with Section 9
grant monies and three are to be replaced with 100% TDA monies. Seven
will be replaced with a new purchase of 8 buses out of Section 9 grant
monies (still to be awarded).
Line 6 Ten out of 13 buses show structural fatigue and exceed 500,000 miles
One out of the ten will be replaced with the eighth of eight purchases to be
obtained with Section 9 grant monies. Four will be replaced with a new
purchase of 100% TDA monies.
'The above plan leaves 5 out of the 37 buses needing replacement ands these five will be scheduled
for replacement in FY 1993 with Section 9 grant monies.
AGENDA ITEM #5D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 1, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: City of Beaumont Capital Funds Request
Last month the Commission reviewed a request from the City of Beaumont for $57,000
in additional local transportation funds to purchase a replacement van. The vehicle to be
replaced is a 1984 Ford van with over 180,000 miles. The Federal Transportation
Administration (FTA) minimum definition for the useful life of a van is 5 years or 100,000
miles. The cost to maintain the older van is rapidly increasing and a replacement is
needed to maintain service integrity.
The Commission decided to table action on this item in order to receive comment from
the other Western County public operators regarding this request. All the operators met
on March 19, 1992 to discuss various issues and Beaumont's request was reviewed. The
group was informed that the Western County area has approximately $1.8 million
available in prior year apportioned but unclaimed local transportation funds which can be
used to fund Beaumont's request. They were also asked to inform Commission staff if
they had any immediate capital replacement needs which they wanted to bring before the
Commission. The group agreed that Beaumont's request should be recommended for
approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1) Allocate to the City of Beaumont Dial -A -Ride an additional $57,000 in local
transportation funds for capital assistance to purchase a 17 passenger, lift -
equipped replacement bus from prior year carry-over funds available in the
Western County Area.
2) Authorize an amendment to the FY 1992-96 Riverside County Short Range Transit
Plan and Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Beaumont Dial -A -
Ride.
CB:sc
BEFILXIONr , ZIA
111111Froritili Office of:
February 26, 1992
Paul Bla
Deputy.
Rivereid
3560 Vni
Riversid
Dear Mr.
The City
operatin
pensee t
fiscal y
costs of
tain inc
coverage
due to r
required
It is cr
dollars
gram.
In addit
capital
equipped
and ve a
anance c
will rap
and Leib
We mek e
evidence
angers; p
our Agin
addition
Thank yo
Sinceral
9°1"
ohn 1)
JDS: ss
City of Ezaurriont
550 Earl Sixth atroat
P.O. Sox 130
Seaunnard, CA 12223-0135
kwelder
ecutive Director
County Transportation Commission
ersity Avenue. Suite 100
CA 92501 •
Blackwelder:
of Beaumont is requesting an additional $63.900,in
assistance funds to cover higher than expected,es-
operate our dial -a -ride transit service. During
ar 1992 we experienced higher salary and benefits
$26,250. The increases to our benefits package con -
easing medical premiums and workers' campensatidn
Also. our maintenance coats are higher by $37,650
sing part costs as mall as the increased maintenance
on our older fleet of vehicles (average age is 5.7).,
tical that we receive these additional operating
e continue the provision of a successful transit prd-
`7141$45-1171
FAX 16454413
_n, the City is requesting an additional $57,00d in
Assistance funds to purchase a 17 passenger, 104
bus. Ridership on our system has steadily increased
e experiencing excessive down time and higher saint -
et on our older vehicles. This vehicle purchase
ace a vehicle that has in excess of 180,000 mild.
naming vary difficult to keep in reliable servide.
very effort to routeas efficently as possible.
by our current productivity levels of aver 9 pose-
✓ hour. However, the ridership growth coupled .Kith
high mileage fleet necessitates purchase of an
vehicle to seat passenger demands.
very much for your thoughtful consideration.
t
AGENDA ITEM #6
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
April 1, 1992
Budget and Finance Committee
Bob Wesley, Commuter Rail Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Contract R09021 with Morrison-Knudsen
The Morrison-Knudsen (M-K) Agreement to provide technical services to study the
impacts and costs related to use of Santa Fe Railway for providing Commuter Rail service
is nearing completion. This effort has been key to the regional effort in negotiating a joint
commuter rail/freight joint use with Santa Fe. There are, however, several additional efforts
have been requested requiring modification of the contract. These requests include:
1. RCTC received a request from LOSSAN to have M-K analyze track capacity
for additional San Diegan trains on the LOSSAN corridor between Hobart
and Irvine. A copy of this request is included in Attachment 1. Since this
effort is to be fully reimbursed by LOSSAN work initiation has been
authorized by the Executive Director, however, the effort needs to be
included in a formal contract amendment. The authorized cost of the work
as approved by LOSSAN is $9,970.
2. A further study effort is required to provide additional analysis regarding
staging of the expansion between the low, intermediate and high levels of
traffic analysis. Two stages will be included between the low and
intermediate levels, and one between the intermediate and high levels. The
analysis will be conducted on a segmented route basis: San Bernardino -
Riverside, Riverside - Fullerton, and Fullerton - Los Angeles. The changes
in service levels will be analyzed to determine the effect on proposed track
expansions and related costs. Staff has requested and received a proposal
from M-K for this analysis (Attachment 2). The cost of this study will be
$9,988.00.
3. The Morrison-Knudsen study is in the final wrap-up stage. The study has
cost $798,137 to date, of which $254,490 has been reimbursed by other
participating agencies. Included in Attachment 3 is a letter received from M-
K indicating that they anticipate final costs will exceed the contract budget
by approximately $25,000. The primary cause of this extra cost is that the
Other Direct Costs for the study have considerably exceeded the original
estimate. Primarily this relates to additional travel to meetings and
Page Two
April 1, 1992
Amendment to Contract R09021 with Morrison-Knudsen
additional printing of report copies requested by RCTC. As such, staff feels that this
request is justified. The additional Measure A obligation required will be $7,488.00 as
$10,000.00 is a pass through to LOSSAN and $27,500.00 remains in Extra Work to be
authorized by the Executive Director.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve amending Contract R09021 with Morrison-Knudsen
Corporation in the amount of $44,958.00 for the following tasks:
o $ 9,970 LOSSAN Corridor Analysis
o $ 9,988 Additional Stages for Traffic Analysis
o $25,000 Additional Other Direct Costs
A standard contract amendment developed and reviewed by Legal Counsel. The contract
is a three party agreement with AT&SF, therefore the amendment must be approved by
AT&SF. This amounts to an additional Measure A obligation of $7,488.00.
BW:sc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
MORRiS0N;KNUDSEN
ENG.NEERS wC
RCTC/AT&SF COMMUTER RAIL sTuDY
PROPOSAL F R AI)llITICINAL. SERV F_.5
TRAGIC CAPACiT�' A AI.I'SIS O LO5SAN CORRIDOR
SCOPE F SERVICES
�� ctiv'e of the analysis is is determine the track Capacity' expansions required on the
Theo , Fullerton -Orange segment) to
analysis se be based
LOSSAI� Corridor bitw�n Hobart and
Irvine
(including
gervece �ieue+
aecvmmod�Le a specified growth In
the revious. Task 2 study results and will provide either a verification. of the previous
an P
study results or a modification thereof.
specific Amtrak traffic data to be applied in the dialysis will be supplied by the LOSSAW
The spe; �e County commuter
Rail Corridor Agency, along with related assumptions regarding Onange new analysis will
rail service. Other trafft g ' ill be as used in the Task 2 study. The service level scenarios
include a reassessment o �e,� Justed Base Case
with and without the proposed growth in Amtrak service. Four to five modeling runs will
be performe
d for the analysis. For the resulting track expansion projecus order-of-magnes itude
tulle
capital cost estimates will be prepared, extrapolating
r���yynew engineering work will be required to
in the Task 2 report. It is not p
define the track expansions.
The conclus
ions of this analysis will be presented in a Tea.:ltnical,Memorandumfy �� tins track
l
define the new traffic data input, describe
eresentanalysis
related conclusions.
expansion projects and itteu p
SC`HEDU`LE
tional work described above will be performed within four weeks of authorization
The ad'�i
ro proceed.
ESTDIA I--00ST
" �
i�i1:E Labor: Prof: 8 M-H @ $ 41.80 $ _33
Adm : 8 M-H Q $13.60 S 09
Subtotal
43
Burden & Overhead (155 io) �6 687
�
Consultant: Owen: 7'' M-H Q95.20
$1, 000
Other Direct Cost: Computer
rravel (1 trip) 1 3L0
$1,300
407
Admin. Cost (5 `"0 of cons. + ODC) 07
Fee (10% of MKE labor) $9,1804
13
Subtotal l F5
pkg, insurance Prc;mium (1.69"�) 166 59.
Total Estimated Cost
CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM 1-G
June 2, 1991
TO: LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency
FROM: Executive Director
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF $10,000 ADDITION TO THE MORRISON-KNUDSEN
STUDY
RECpMT'iENDED ACTION: Approve a $10,000 addition to the Riverside
County Transportation Commission contract
with Morrison-Knudsen to study track capacity
needs associated with a 9th and 10th inter-
city train.
BACKGROUND:
During the meetings of the Operations Committee
Topeka, e Joint
Right-of-way Negotiating Team, the Atchison,
ta Fe
Railway Company indicated that in the event the right-of-way Were
not sold to the public agencies, it would allow a 9th and 10th
San Diegan intercity round trip to operate in the corridor,
provided that the trains do not run in commuter times, and do not
er-
interfere with freight service. Santa an tiered during Fcommua er times cated a� for
ampltex-
trains could considered
departure from San Diego) if
ample, an 8:❑0 a.mm..
Morrison-Knudsen's scope of work were extended to demonstra e
that there is sufficient track capacity to allow such intercity
trains to operate without freight interference.
To demonstrate the relative adequacy of track capacity associated
with operation of two additional intercity ctrains,
with itRiverside
uld be
necessary to amend MK s existingpresently e
County Transportations Commission.
has The LOSSAN
SAis pre00• The
funding partner in this study,
increased work would require y cr s increasing
totalSo'f $4ntribution to
the study by an additional $l
On May 22, 1991 the LOSSAN Technical Advisory Committee approved
a request to the LOSSAN RCA Board for the expenditure of $10,000
to authorize Morrison-Knudsen to conduct the track capacity
study.
42
Q4 n n .
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
1RP 29 ' S2 15 : 37 M E SRN = RRNC 1 xU
P.2
hICONISONIOW01201COPIPOMMOO1
RCTCJAT&SF CON0. 1UTYR RAIL STUDY
FROP'O
LNALYSIIILEMMEntiME-C-ELMLa
MARCH ?A, 19n
n11=132E6
The 1`abY 2 Regan gar the Commuter Ralf Study proposed There 6rtwtiai differences
basic commuter service
level.♦: LOW Case, Intermediate Case and High Case,
in serer level between the 3 rases.
This Cask will provide additional analysis to stage the expansion between the low,
intermediate and high cases. l' o stages will be included between low and intermediate
levels and one between Intermediate and high levels, Also the analyaie Will be conducted
on a se;meatad route basis: San Bernardino - Riverside, Riverside - Fullerton, and
Fullerton - Los angeles. The changes in service levels will be analyzed to determine the
effect on proposed trui expansions and related costs.
WORK APPROACH
1. Track requirements will be establiahed for thn six atagea of service now
proposed: Lew (Combined with adjuated base case), two expanded levels,
Intermediate, one expanded level, and High.
2. Order -of -magnitude capital cost estimates will bs pry for each .tags,
modifying previous estimates, track expandons and facility improvements.
3. The Conclusions of the analysis will be presented in a Technical
Memorandum, describing the Send= level analyzed, than tic expansions
Intl Fatty impravernenu required, and associated capital outs.
The additional work described above will be performed writhise four week' of authorization
w pecceed. Intermediate rewire %la be issued during trig period as available.
c.'1wru+naCfllRe'[c-irrt Muds A, Ira
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
<• MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION
Nir. Robert Wesley
R.nersi�e County Transportation
3560 University Ae„ Suite 100
Ri,,erside, CA 92501
Sub: RCTC, AT&SF n mm tCosts` r ail Study
NINE Consulter
Dear Mr, Wesley:
� , the attached Tana ie shows the status of our :.ar.si::as t
As we discussed 'ay telephone yes:erda• latest invoice With our scn:=�5
f December 27, 1991, the �a:e of aw••
costs vs. budget as a� S be in order, with a view to °7^-aliztf:a vt:*
nearing completion, a number of obse:yat.o.,s may
contract. w �ie::aR e
rr t".e initial Set of study tasks,
Task Groups 0l through 0 it 1. • s for the Conventtona.4 Ra.,l Stud} CTask
apparent score ;:rre ago that the cos:
20 would exceed our original estimate because of various addi�aonei
Group ) particular was she series of ,4T&'F
tasks that wererequested. One task in
presentations, which were never budgeted, 'out amounted to approxir mow,^
prose this potential overrun. we arranged $11, � � n labor costs. Recognizing � P�
ben 3 , 1 S9C�� tc scale tack
Carl Schiererneyer {see try setter to RCTC of Decem.
several
remaining tasks (Task Groups 40 through 70) tored� thenthr.fists. for
By
this effort, we were able to complete the initial Task Groups
approximately $9,000 under budget, as shown on the attached table.
ably exceeded :he angina.
2. The Other Direct Costs for :he study have consider
resenration meetings, ax:o
estimate, primarily because of travel costs for P RCTC or
report printing
costs. In spite of an augmentation of this budget by
000.
$1
4 404 this group of costs has exceeded the budget by about 535,
mental tasks. Task Groups 80. 81 and 82, are still
in progress
ogr s a be
3 The ldPbe We are projecting should be complete(' is February.
l ted within their established budgets. n .he attached �bl budge
ts
include the 544,s
comp a In
in contract amendments currently being processed
Groups 81 and 82).
3871-202.20
January 30, 1992
FACSIMi:.E MESSAuE
TI X�; c _�� ��� �—
7
yti
ware. r and ate
Charge No _�—`
Tots; N,;rntar Jt Paces
AGENDA ITEM #7A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 1, 1992
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Cost and Schedule Reports for Month of February
The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status of contracts reported
by Routes, commitments and Cooperative Agreements executed by the Commission. For
each contract and Agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the
Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date and the project
expenditures by route for the month ending February 29, 1992.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and Cooperative Agreement is
available from Bechtel staff.
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
MM/LM:jw
attachments
.111ro 1311.1a3I
zmumEZ'2I0d l�ld
cazmw t '71e0 oleo
E 4.0 t I»45
3 1 n 0 3 H 3 S A d v w W n s
W0d9Odd 1WAOddWI idOdSNUdi d 3dnal3W
NSSIWW00 NidOdSNUdi J11N000 30ISa3AId
ZbO318Z .4e 1u11 ;02ro.di
baMt1ra ;Juts 4DaP0.2d
1661-1961 DUI 'cw}CAG e.�anwl-41
.00JEO.d
JO►v1OS0 I801314) 0
NAM 4.103 /JB i-mo+C I 1
NOI10OdISN00
1tl1N3WN 0dIAN3 7 9NI8331119N3 18UNIWI13ddt
I
I
4
S3N1d1 i 01 N30IM - IS 180dM3N 01 1S 831113M bL d
OA 30 1H9I8
31Sd ONtl N9IS30 ltlNI3
NOI10(181SN00
I
I
I
I
1V1N3NNOMIAN3 1 9NI833NION3 A8VNINI13801l
I
1
S3111/1 t 01 N30IM - 1S 1St 01 ddS NVW1I9 bad
AVM 30 1H918
32Sd 0NV N9IS30 1UNI31
I
I
:11
1V1N3WNO8IAN3 1 9NI833NI9N3 AdVN1WI138df
(83AI8 O1NIOWSl1NWOtlld3d 390I80 NOSHONVS bL18
1VIN3W14081AN3 1 9NI833NI9N3 AdVNIWI138dl
I LI 1 (TH IV U 1
1N3NN9I1V -3M 3AdO0 - N388VM 01 831S3H0NIM iL18
1V1N3N1108IAN3 1 9NIII33NI9N3 AdUNIWI13Ndl
NOI10081SN00
S3Ntl1 t D1 MOM - StZI 01 1S 9 iL N
AVM 30 1H918 L
31Sd ONV N9I530 1VNI3 L__
31.1V1 4 01 N30I11 - (S18d3d NI US 9 OL 1S H1L iL h
NOI10081SN00
1tl1N3WNOMIAN3 a 9NI833NI9N3 AdVNIWI1384
I
S3Ntl1 t OL N30IM - 1S H1L 01 St1 4618
ONO NOI1tl3I3I1833 AVM JO 1H9I21
32Sd ONV N91530 -MIA
I
1
I
I
1 NOI10O81SN00
ION 30 LH9I8
I
I
S314111 9 01 N30IM - AVM A311VA OL SlI 13r 0918
f
1 31�Sd GNU N9I930 -MIA
1V1N3N14081AN3 1 9NI833NI9N3 AdVNI41I138d1
l
3NVl 0 01 N30I11-0A10 ONV1038 01 10f SlZ/093 0918
J NOI13081SN00
AVM 30 111918
31Sd ONO N9I630 1VNI3
I
I
(
J
1tl1N344N0dIAN3 1 9NR133NI9N3 A8U NIWIl3ad1
S3Ntf1 9 01 N30I11-0I SlZ/lb/09 01 AVM A3110 0918
[11 Miligy►lWllil".IIMINIM1131H1-'IllINIIINWEIMIdl+I1MMILUIdlil:lEINFIlllK4131414WiliCI1•JlMIM13141411IIIIIILMUE1141M413141.117[iI1I1`.IEI:iRllli[II NIOI MUIilill:ll• I R EA
r. If.
Pua10i
(11:III1
diro 1311t11a
RAIL
MaREF .*IDO }aid
mlwa
E 6 1-'aLIS
3ina3H)s Addwwns
W d908d 1WAOddWI idOdSNIMI ti 3ff1503W
NSSIWW00 N1a0dSNOK AINHO 30I9a3AI8
7b03.48E ' 4o lul 3 452Po-d
beworZ 1-N4s ;aaru^ad
11361-aebl 74-11 •cma4GAG a.saAoul.y 1
Me
.+o1aal Me 100111-0 0
+FAO AI.M3 /aka "Mi G 1 1
( 010H NO 3-1SI dIOA 1FJ aSd )
4431411EI17t111".IL7l:4RI1Mll;lldl-"lii]Illll IN JI:iRI11i[liINVIlyLJ11 NIM 11:1RIM[41314111 l[ i ll:illlMI1 1111411141dllll:f171:itMIM1310141UldWAJ1:1fMIM1ii111 INIM ll:lL•Jl'. N
K
AlNO tdShc I80d3d AOO1S 103fOdd4
Ste la NO S1N3N3A08dNI 30NUNDO1NI
AGENDA ITEM #7B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 2, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Mid -Year Budget Revisions
The Commission has approved several budget changes which are now being
incorporated into the mid year budget revision. The decline in revenues is also reflected
in the revised budget. Additionally, several of our administrative and program budget
categories, based on activity through February 29, 1992, require adjustment.
The overall impact on the budget is a projected increase in the Measure A surplus of
approximately $59 million to about $64 million. The SAFE budget surplus is larger due
to higher than expected interest earnings and revenues, while RCTC essentially breaks
even.
Staff will be prepared to discuss specific line item changes at the committee meetings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the budget revisions as shown on the worksheet included
in the agenda packet.
DM:sc
£ to l e6ed
1TY9L'9S£$
09L' 95£$
000'01.e l$
000'0LZ'l$
£19'099'L$
l6V69Z$
ZZ£'lVP' l$
LL£'E£L'Z$
Zl8'8l£'L$
599'4117' L$
9Li7' lL l'9$
9L17' lL l'9$
31V0 Ol
S31jn110N3dX3
0$
LL£'8l$
LL£'8l$
£6enn
90Z'VS$
S8L'OLZ$
178e San
178ZSan
3661 '63 AnEtniged
030N3 NINON
1:103 31:10110N3dX3
%S6
%L8
% 0 0 1.
96001
%00l
%00l
%88
%88
%L8
9669
%00 l
% £ 8
LLl'l86$ 45£'8£0'l$
LL l' l8£$
000'009$
000.66l' LZ$
04
000'086'6l$
000'61.e L$
L£8'069'Z$
C1311WW00
Beans AO
30V1N301:13d
L99'Z08$
OLZ'888' l$
S lS'689't'S
62'6L l'Z$
9£Z'O LTZ$
(£)
V8e8£ti$
000'009$
000'66l' lZ$
04
000'086'61.$
000'6 Le l$
L lS'980'£$
000' S l6$
LlS'lLl'Z$
6LL'LZZ'S$
6LZ' 6L L' Z$
04
OOS'Zb0'£$
000'8091,3
(£)
000' 90917 3
l L L 31nOa 1V101enS
(910600
Apn1S Jopuao0
(S L060a)
ueoi uopormsuo0
S1031'Oad L L L 311101:1
98 311101:1 1tl101enS
(£ 1Z60a)
uopmusuo0
(L06801a)
u6pea leuy
81031'01:1d 98 31110H
6L 31nOa 1V1018nS
(L LosOa)
10elwd uosaepueS
(8 L 1.6'9 L 1.6'Z l ls' 111604:1)
'uoivw3/6i6u3 Anulwllead
81031'01:1d 6L 31nOa
1•L alma 7V101enS
(ZZ 1.6'L L 1.6'S l 1.6'90160a)
uonnu3/6.113u3 keulwlleid
(LOZ6'90Z6'Z L060a)
lueweeJBV enneJed000
S103POad VL 31n0a
•1:1000 VN01:100 iV101enS
(80680a)
(ulooun'eldeW' i I, ws)
-33a9V •d000 VN01:100
31V0 Ol NOI1V0011V NOIldId0S30
S1N3W1IWW00 03ZI1jOH1nV 103f0Hd
1V1:1n10V1A1N00 NOISSIWW00
31101:1 AG 11:10d31:1 139ane
S103read AVMH9IN lansV3w alga
£ to £ e6ed
I 3e/e7.„20eWOU3 'Ow SOMS 'Sle6pnq ,u0A leosy of peLeleJ Lou pue loeJluo0me1OJd lelol JOI eJe senlen IIV
%gZ 101 elglsuodseJ JVgNVS (S)
LoeJluoO sue4le0 10 /quo uollJod 01911(t)
(ueol) weJ6oJd luewencudwl OI of peleoolle uo!1Jod pue L6 elnod of peleoolle amen eJeys eulwJeLep of 130(1 d O19Fi (£)
'spunl 00£ GS to e6essed Aq peonpeJ eq AeW (Z)
•sweJ6oJd LuewenoJdwl e6ueyoJelu! 1swee ueol (L) :310N
6Z l'L61r'9L$
ZL8'LZS'8$
LSL'OL8'L$
SLL'LLL$
Z90'L9PS
Z90' L917$
1781'LVS14
6 L9179Z'Z$
£SO'V L9$
ZlS'899' L$
9 L9'80l'L$
990'l6$
£Z9'£9$
£44'LZ$
9L9'ZSS
9L9'Z£$
ZSL' 134
L017' LZ$
vES'Z l$
9669
96001
%001
%00 l
96001
96001
%S6
%001
9126
%06
31Va Ol mak '8Z Anstruge3 031111LN00
S31in110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW 13DOn9 d0
1j03 3dn110N3dX3 39V1N301j3d
61.9'09VOLl$
6S6'SZ9'8S
ZZ9'698'L$
L£ l'95L$
Ol9'S/5S
Ol9'£lS$
Z9£'6ZV'Z$
00£'Z09$
96l'6LL' L$
elS'L£9' ltil$
6S6'SZ913S
ZZ9'698'LS
L£ L'99L$
Ol9'S lSS
Ol9'£lS$
S9l'£8614
Z9£'6Zb'Z$
ESZ'lS9$
OZS'Z06'l$
S1V101
llV1i li31f11NIN0O 1V1019n3
(60Z6' LOZ6' ' '7,808)
MOO d0/boV al!S/uo!lulS
(1Z060Fi)
selpms
11V13133111111400
30111-N-AIVd 1V10113f1S
(l LZ6' SOZ6'1.OZ6
'£OZ6'ZOZ6'V£ L6' lZ l6'V l l6'£ l L 6011)
NM19011d '1N3ON1/30111-N-MEIVd
`SOAS V NVId WVl19011d 1V1018nS
(L006011)
VO'8 Ia uoO 6u!ddeyi
(0Z 16'O l 1.6'L L060EI)
selpnl$ JopuJoO
(6l L6'9016'£ 1.06'0 L06'90060E0
se!pn1S weJ6oJd
S391A113S18 NVId VIVI:190M
31V0 Ol NOI1V0011V NOI1dI110S30
S1N3W11WW00 03ZI130H1nV 1031'01:Id
ltldnlOVFl1N00 NOISSI111100
31f1011 AG 1110d311 imam
91931'01dd AVMHJIH V 311f1SV31191011
Line item
MEASURE A
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original
2/29/92 Budget
Changes
Revised
Budget
Sales Tax Revenues 29,665,891 50,880,000 (5,080,000) 45,800,000
Reimbursements 137,836 4,770,000 (4,520,000) 250,000
TCI Grant 0 9,950,000 (6,950,000) 3,000,000
Interest Income 4,345,648 5,970,000 280,000 6,250,000
Prior Year Fund Balance
34,149,375
121, 747,278 9,671,203 131,418,481
193,317,278 (6,598,797) 186,718,481
Salaries 258,585 549,086 0 549,086
Retirement 7,718 99,319 0 99,319
Medicare 3,456 8,087 0 8,087
Insurance 8,182 7,958 0 7,958
Health Insurance 31,062 72,776 0 72,776
Deferred Compensation 15,712 28,540 0 28,540
Equipment Maintenance 18,025 29,095 0 29,095
Office Lease 93,422 126,722 0 126,722
Communications 20,017 46,184 0 46,184
Household expenses 6,714 12,777 0 12,777
Line item
MEASURE A
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original
2/29/92 Budget
Changes
Revised
Budget
Insurance 656 7,750 0 7,750
Office expense 21,185 26,600 9,400 36,000
Commissioners per diem 13,080 21,889 0 21,889
Publications/Notices 1,555 3,320 0 3,320
Special Departmental expense 18,328 20,645 15,355 36,000
Transportation and Travel 22,643 65,292 (20,000) 45,292
Bond Counsel 90,903 100,000 400,000 500,000
Financial advisor 51,963 200,000 55,000 255,000
Legislative advocate 19,657 34,638 0 34,638
General legal counsel 62,328 224,063 255,937 480,000
Audit services 111,950 140,250 0 140,250
Equipment 37,821 103,092 0 103,092
Measure A program manageme 1,009,378 1,750,000 100,000 1,850,000
Professional Services -Contract 42,780 60,800 0 60,800
Professional Services -Highway 12,830,717 49,198,600 (24,092,937) 25,105,663
Professional Services -Right of 20,962,655 25,700,000 0 25,700,000
Professional Services -Regional 428,165
5,587,845 (2,837,845) 2,750,000
Line item
MEASURE A
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original
2/29/92 Budget
Changes
Revised
Budget
Professional Services -Elderly & 1,485,365 3,248,380 (673,380) 2,575,000
Professional Services-Commut 194,412 2,016,693 (1,516,693) 500,000
Professional Services-Commut 5,746,796 11,703,200 18,967,000 30,670,200
Operating Transfer Out 7,216,518 10,824,875 0 10,824,875
Pass thru-Local streets and roa 11,432,077 19,366,963 (1,999,603) 17,367,360
62,263,825 131,385,439 (11,337,766) 120,047,673
Contingency
Budget surplus
1,968,726
59,963,113
1,918,726
64,752,082
Line item
DMV User Fees
Interest Income
Prior Year Fund Balance(i.e., carryover)
SAFE
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original Revised
2/28/92 Budget Changes Budget
475,370 900,000
91,182 120,000
60,000 960,000
60,000 180,000
2,098,910 125,399 2,224,309
566,552 3,118,910 245,399 3,364,309
Salaries 11,935 32,143 0 32,143
Retirement 5,814 0 5,814
Medicare 152 473 0 473
Insurance 678 466 0 466
Health Insurance 1,079 4,260 0 4,260
Deferred Compensation 660 1,671 0 1,671
Equipment Maintenance 1,319 2,297 0 2,297
Office Lease 6,318 10,004 0 10,004
Communications 1,324 3,646 0 3,646
Household expenses 491 1,009 0 1,009
Insurance 7,598 9,750 0 9,750
Office expense 1,594 2,100 742 2,842
Commissioners per diem 780 1,728 0 1,728
Publications/Notices 107 262 0 262
Special Departmental expense 1,194 1,630 1,212 2,842
Transportation and Travel 1,313 5,155 (1,579) 3,576
Line item
SAFE
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original Revised
2/28/92 Budget Changes Budget
Legislative advocate 1,273 2,735 0 2,735
General legal counsel 3,199 8,149 0 8,149
Audit services 3,050 2,800 0 2,800
Equipment 2,986 8,139 0 8,139
Professional Services -Contracts 345,804 3,003,300 (2,050,000) 953,300
392,854 3,107,531 (2,049,625) 1,057,906
Contingency
Unprogrammed reserves
2,306,403
10,000
2,296,403
RCTC
1992 BUDGET
WORKSHEET
Actual
Line item 2/28/92
Sales Tax Revenues
Interest Income
Prior Year Fund Balance
Salaries
Retirement
Medicare
Insurance
Health Insurance
Deferred Compensation
Equipment Maintenance
Office Lease
Communications
Household expenses
Insurance
Office expense
Commissioners per diem
Publications/Notices
Special Departmental expense
REVISIONS
Original
Budget
780,000 1,070,000
23,769 30,000
398,812
Revised
Changes Budget
(20,000)
3,700
5,760
1,050,000
33,700
404,572
803,769 1,100,000 (16,300) 1,488,272
184,880 267,718 0 267,718
20,550 48,425 0 48,425
2,312 3,943 0 3,943
7,015 3,880 0 3,880
11,505 35,483 0 35,483
7,037 13,915 0 13,915
3,958 6,891 (0) 6,891
18,955 30,013 0 30,013
3,973 10,938 0 10,938
1,472 3,026 0 3,026
155 2,500 0 2,500
4,527 6,300 2,226 8,526
2,340 5,184 0 5,184
322 786 0 786
3,581 4,890 3,636 8,526
Line item
RCTC
1992 BUDGET REVISIONS
WORKSHEET
Actual Original Revised
2/28/92 Budget Changes Budget
Transportation and Travel 3,938 15,464 (4,737) 10,727
Legislative advocate 3,819 8,204 0 8,204
General legal counsel 14,045 17,788 7,926 25,714
Audit services 131,241 185,850 0 185,850
Equipment 8,958 24,417 0 24,417
Professional Services -Contracts 37,922 304,400 15,000 319,400
Local/Regional Distributions 145,771 472,980 (10,000) 462,980
618,276 1,472,995 14,052 1,487,047
Contingency
Budget surplus(deficiency)
1,225
0