Loading...
04 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._„, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION April 1, 1992 TO: Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Mike Davis, Environmental Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Friis Property Acquisition Hazardous Materials Study -Increase In Authorized Contract Amount for Tetra Tech, Inc. The Friis property near 1-215 and Spruce Street in Riverside is required for the 60/91 /215 Interchange improvements included in RCTC's 1992 STIP proposal. Staff has been working to acquire the parcel under the right-of-way protection program previously approved by RCTC for the interchange. Initial discussions with Caltrans indicated that they would perform the required Hazardous Materials Study. It was later concluded that Caltrans could not support the acquisition schedule. Staff required consultant assistance to complete the study. Tetra Tech, Inc. was initially selected to prepare the Hazardous Materials Studies for Commuter Rail Stations. A subsequent amendment (Amendment No. 1) was approved by the Commission for Tetra Tech to prepare a Phase 2 (soil sampling and testing) for the Friis Property to support the acquisition schedule. After Amendment No. 1 had been approved Caltrans requested an additional Asbestos Survey of the office building located on the Friis Property. Staff requested that Tetra Tech include the Asbestos Survey in their current work effort. On March 12, 1992 Tetra Tech submitted a proposal in the amount of $3651.46 to complete the Asbestos Survey and have potentially hazardous soil samples removed from the site and disposed of at certified location. The total amount of the Tetra Tech contract is currently $57,214.00 including the initial Commuter Rail Station contract of $31,712.00 approved by RCTC at the August 14, 1991 meeting and Amendment No. 1 for the Friis Property Phase 2 Study in the amount of $25,502.00 approved by the Commission at the December 11,1991 meeting (Agenda Item 7B3). This Amendment No. 2 for the Asbestos Survey and hazardous soil samples disposal will increase the total contract amount to $60,865.46. The amendment will be reviewed by Legal Counsel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve Amendment No. 2 to contract R09201 with Tetra Tech, Inc. in the amount of $3,651.46 to complete the Hazardous Materials Study in support of the Friis property acquisition. 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