Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 4, 1992 Budget & Finance053770 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE (COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, KAY CENICEROS, CORKY LARSON, PAT MURPHY) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1992 10:30 A.M. LUND & GUTTRY 39-700 BOB HOPE DRIVE, THE BOB HOPE BUILDING, SUITE 309 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. GENERAL ITEMS. 2A. SELECTION OF AUDITORS FOR 1992 FISCAL AUDIT Staff Recommendation Review and discussion. 2B. MEASURE A RCTC/CALTRANS LOGO. Staff Recommendation That the Commission: 1) Approve the expenditure of Measure A funds in the amount of $15,000 for FY 91/92 to uesign and purchase project signs displaying the Measure A logo; 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; 3) Direct staff to: Develop a family of Measure A signs around the new logo which allow for customization based on a projects funding partners; 4. COMMUTER RAIL. 4A. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACCELERATED RAIL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM - DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff Recommendation 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 NOX EMISSIONS AND METHANOL. Staff Recommendation That the Commission review and possibly take action. 5. FINANCIAL ITEMS. 5A. MONTHLY COST/SCHEDULE REPORT. Staff Recommendation Receive and file. 5B. CONTINUATION OF B&F PRESENTATION ON PROJECT STRUCTURE (SCHEDULING AND CONTRACTS). Staff will continue the presentation of project structure (scheduling and contracts). 6. RCTC EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENT. Staff and Legal Counsel will provide material and make presentation at the Budget & Finance Committee meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT. AGENDA ITEM #2A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 4, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Selection of Auditors for 1992 Fiscal Audit When the Commission hired the firm of Ernst & Young to perform our annual fiscal audit, it was for a period of three years. The time has arrived to consider either extending that contract or soliciting new bids. There appears to be some value to extending the E & Y contract for an additional two years. I will be prepared to discuss with you further the basis for that conclusion and to present my recommendation(s) with respect to our audit services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and discussion. DM:sc f: userslpreprintmar.82\audirpf.dm AGENDA ITEM #2B DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 5, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Marilyn Williams, Senior Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A RCTC/Caltrans Logo As Measure A projects entered the implementation phase, Riverside County voters began to see the results of their voter mandate. However, it became clear from public inquiries that the few words on the highway and freeway funding signs did not create adequate public recognition that Measure A projects were being delivered. To address the issue a joint Commission/Caltrans effort was initiated to develop a Measure A logo. Staff will unveil the new logo selected by the cooperative process at the Commission's March meeting. A logo is a proven mechanism used by the marketing world to enhance public recognition of an entity or product. It is also the image used to convey an array of ideas about the entity or product. What should a Measure A logo communicate? Guidelines were set early on in the design development process to focus staff's efforts. In general, it was felt that the logo should: represent transportation in its broadest context; convey a sense of action, direction and professionalism; reflect partnership between agencies (local, regional, state) having responsibility for or participation in delivery of Measure A projects and programs; and create visual recognition of Measure A in different applications such as freeway signage or stationary letterhead. The new logo will provide high visibility for all Measure A efforts. Given that, the Commission, in partnership with Caltrans, should retain approval rights over use of the logo to ensure consistency of application and use. f Ausers\preprint\mer.82\Jolnlogo. mw .:" 3 DATE: TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Estimate 1992-1996 The Commission has been advised that LTF Revenues are running below prior estimates. The original revenue estimate for FY 1991 /92 was $26,000,000, an increase of 5% over the actual revenues received in FY 1990/91 of $24,544,000. Our revised FY 1991 /92 estimate for LTF revenues based on receipts to date is $ 21,506,000, a decrease of $4,494,000 from our prior estimate. The revised estimate represents a decrease of 17% from our prior estimate and is 5% below actual receipts for last year. The attached TABLE I shows our five year estimates for LTF revenues for FY 1992-96. The estimates for FY 1991 /92 and 1992/93 have been reviewed and agreed with by the County Auditor and SCAG. The remaining years were estimated using percentage increases from our Measure A Financial Plan ranging from 7% in 1992/93 to 9% in 1994/95. While revenues for FY 1991 /92 will be lower than expected by $4.49 million, there will be adequate funding to meet the allocations approved by the Commission for transit and for streets and roads as shown on the Table, there was a carry-over of $ 3.83 million in unapportioned funds from prior years, and there is another $5+ million in apportioned but unallocated funds from prior years which was not included in the Table ( approx. $1.8 million for the Western County and $3.2 million for the Coachella Valley). In addition, the Commission reserved $3 million in the Western County for bus replacement which will not be entirely claimed and disbursed this year. Staff from the Commission, the RTA and a subcommittee of the WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee met recently to evaluate the continued availability of funds for streets and roads in the Western County Area, TABLE II was prepared and presented at that meeting. The LTF revenues reflected in this Table agree with the estimated revenues from Table I for the Western Riverside County Area. Transit expenses for LTF funding were taken from the FY 1992-96 Short Range Transit Plan and were adjusted to reflect a recently completed Five Year Financial Plan developed by the RTA. The table indicates that all of the LTF funds available to the Western County Area will be needed for transit in the next few years. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 5, 1992 f Ausers\preprint\mer.92Uftest. pb 3e/0El10 (SO eeump 01 Pe{9ne leeodmd auluumld Jo1 eimume3:9310N OLVrEA'OZ! Zee'8L9'YZ r99'eW'ZZS Ll9'900'lZ! LL9'00r! Lll'L9ES r£E'9EES ZLVZlE! 9Z9'L0►'9, EW'r9e'r! Z£Z'eE9'rS Ltl'L1Z'rS rL£'9Zl'In Z6l'L9E'el! 88049EL1S 90e'9L1e91! WL'meta! Zio'BeZ! Zl9'eW'r! Kr lOL'e it %00'OOl 469Lfr' l %9YL0'OZ %e9c►'SL Plol !o % NOI1V111d0d 319Y11VAV 1V101 RMlell ePilll1 pled RNRA eIM4•00 kunoo > eM YAM 0L9'rEe'9Z! Zee'81.944 1991e09'ZZ! Ll9'900'lZS WCedD'EZ! 319V11VAV 3001V1V9 999'e1r9S £99'£091 ZZ1,'1914 1,89'8Zr! 81,9'£9r4 eWIIIPAV 1ZS99 OS OS OS O! OS •Punlekl 1Z8 9S 989'er9S E99'£09! ZZr' 19r! 1,89'env! er9'£8rS (%Z) lZ8 9S 99Z'rer'LZS 91P9'Z81'93 9L0'lL0'£Z! 10Z'rEr'1ZS Llr'Z81'rZS 3ONV1V8 atr'rtS aLr'rLs eLr'res eLr'ra acr'rc! euluu•ld OVOS 91 t'Z99$ 1Ee'063 9Z9'93LS 000'9L9S 9£e'e9LS (%E) BulUUeld MO lZE'poet lZE'rOES IZE'ton lZE'r0£! IZE'r0£! uIWPV DVOS 000'ZIS 000'Z1$ 000'ZIS 000'Z1S 000'01S J011PnV e9l'LEL'94 9LE'r9E'9Zs 009'Lltl S 000'009'ZZS 091'=VC* 1V101 e9l'LEL'SZS 9LE'r9E'9ZS OOB'Lel'rZ! 000'009'ZZ! 000'909' 1Z! a r3 Of O! O! OS 09l'9Ze'ES (peuowoddeun) xmoitinra - - 99e1 9ee1 reel £eel Zee1 S1N3WNOl1HOddY 96--Z661 ALNn00 30/St13/1/!i - ONfld NOIlYlNOdSNYtll 7,007 AGENDA ITEM #3B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 5, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Funds - Western County Streets and Roads - Revision FY 1991 /92 In October, the Commission approved the allocation of $4,656,829 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) for streets and roads purposes. Due to a discussion regarding lower than estimated receipts, the proposed allocations were recalculated during the meeting to reduce the amount allocated. Because of a reduction and the handling of the reserve for Bus Capital ($3,000,000) in the formula, the City of Banning was allocated $ 97,802 rather than $162,449 it should have received and the City of Riverside was allocated $0 rather than $23,642 it should have received. This resulted in the remaining cities and the county received a total of $88,289 more than they should have received. The most recent fiscal audit shows approx. $1.8 million in available funding for the Western County Area from prior year apportionments that were not claimed and could be used to provide these funds to the two cities. The Commission has two options to provide the appropriate amount of streets and roads funds Banning and Riverside: (1) allocate funds to Banning and Riverside from prior year carryover funds or; (2) reduce the allocations to the remaining cities and the county for FY 1991 /92 to provide the additional funds for these two cities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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. PB:sc AGENDA ITEM #3C DATE: TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 5, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Additional Local Transportation Funds Commission staff has received a request from the City of Beaumont for $63,900 in additional local transportation funds to cover increased operating expenses on their Bial- a -ride system. The City experienced a prior year budget shortfall, higher than expected costs for salaries and benefits with the addition of four full time equivalent positions (+$26,500), as well as increased maintenance costs of $37,650. In addition, the City is requesting an additional $57,000 in capital assistance funds to purchase a replacement bus. The vehicle to be replaced is a 1984 Ford van with over 180,000 miles. The industry standard for the useful life of a van is 5 years or 100,000 miles. The cost to maintain the older buses is rapidly increasing and the van is needed to maintain service integrity. In previous years, the cities have funded operating deficits out of their general fund. However, due to current budgetary problems experienced by all local governments, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the city to continue to fund the deficit out of their general fund. The Western County Area has approximately $1.8 million available in prior year apportioned but unclaimed LTF funds which can be used to accommodate this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission allocate to the City of Beaumont Dial -A -Ride an additional $63,900 in local transportation funds for operating assistance, and $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. PB:sc Musers\preprl nt\mtv.82\beaum. cb FEB 26 '92 T6:15 CITY OF BEAIMONT, CA act of Bzaumont 560 East Win Street P.O. Box 158 Beaumont mont CA 93223-0158 Frvralihs0Office of: February 26, 1992 Paul iilaikwelder Deputy ,Executive .Director • Riverside CountyTransportationCommission 3$60 ln# exsity Avenue, - Suite 100 Riversid*, CA 92501 • Dear W . Blackwelder: The City'of Beaumont is requesting an additional $63,900,in operating :assistance funds to cover higher than expectad iex- pauses to operate our dial -a -ride transit service. During fiscal; ylar 1992 We experienced higher salary and benefits coots of $26, 250. The increases to our benefits package ;con= tain increasing medical premiuma and workers' eaupensatidn • coverage Also, .our maintenance costa are higher by $17,450' due to r}sing parr costs as well as the increased maintanr�ancai required vu our older fleet of vehicles (avers ■ ago is 5.7)., It is critical that we receive these additional operating dollars to Continue the provision of a successful transit prd- 8=am: r • I In addti.xi:on, the City ie .requesting an additional $57 , 00 in capital assistance funds co purchase a 17 pessenge7r,' lif equipped bus. Ridership on our system hoe eteadily incr ased and wir care experiencing excessive down time and higher int-. enance;c s�t on our older vehicles, This vehicle ppurchas vill.rMpptace a vehicle that has in excess of 180,000 mil a and is;ioeComing vary difficult to keep in reliable eervide, We' make ivory effort to•route..as efficently as possible( evi:den4e by our current productivity levels of over 9 pq°ss• - engers p r hour. ; Aowaver, the ridership growth coupled wiith- our a in . high *usage fleet neceseit,ete* purchase of art . additional vehicle to meet passenger demands. Thank yoy- vary much fox.your thoughtful consideration. L Sincerely,• P. 22 hn A': *soda JDS: s . 1 •l AGENDA ITEM #3D DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 5, 1992 Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee Dean Martin, Controller Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Murrietta Springs Mall - Measure A Loan The Murrietta Springs Mall developers were referred to the Commission approximately a year ago by the County of Riverside to determine if a Measure A Loan could be made to assist in financing of improvements required for the Murrietta Springs Road/I-215 interchange. The Commission referred this item to the WRCOG for a recommendation. Both the developers and the City of Murrietta are anxious to proceed with the project and are asking for the Commission to enter into a business deal to loan Measure A funds for the project. We have met with the City on several occasions and have requested specific information the Commission will need to decide if the proposed business deal is worthwhile should they decide to consider making this type of loan. The information requested includes: the amount of funds needed based on alternative payback plans; a commitment to a payback period not to exceed 5 years; and commitment from the city to secure the loan with Measure A Local Streets and Road funds, General Funds, and Gas Tax. We expect to have the information for presentation at the Committee meeting. The City and the developer have been patient for months awaiting an opportunity to have their request heard by the Commission. WRCOG had been waiting for the Measure A Financial Plan Update prior to making a recommendation to the Commission. The Update has been delayed for several legitimate reasons. Staff promised the developer and the City that their proposal would be scheduled for the March Commission meeting and the Executive Director of WRCOG was requested to obtain a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" recommendation on this proposal prior to the Commission meeting. Attached is a Report containing a recommendation from the WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee to be presented to the WRCOG Executive Committee for approval on March 2, 1992. The recommendation does not provide a specific recommendation regarding the Murrietta Mall Project as we had requested. The recommendation is for development of a 'loan program" in which all of the cities and the County could participate on an annual basis. We will work with the WRCOG to attempt to develop such a program as well as the "Complimentary Programs" outlined in their Report if the fAusers\preprinAmed.92\murrie. pb WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS County of Riverside • City of Banning * Ctty of Calimesa * City of Canyon Lake • City of Corona • Ctty of Hemet * City of Lake Elsinore * City of INoreno Valley * City of Norco • City of Perris * City of Riverside * City of San Jacinto * City of Temecula * FEBRUARY 25, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: WRCOG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FROM: A.J. WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RE: AGENDA ITEM 3B, MEASURE "A" LOAN PROGRAM. The attached report has been prepared to be included in your agenda for your meeting of March 2, 1992. It is late due to the fact that the committee preparing the recommendation could not meet until yesterday. The concept of a loan program to expedite regional projects funded with local Measure "A" allotments is under consideration because local communities cannot commit their local Measure "A" funds for the purpose of securing debt due to the fact that all measure "A: funds are pledged to secure the debt of RCTC. The matter is further complicated by the fact that their exists s cap on the debt that ROTC may incur, even if it's revenue stream was capable of supporting additional financing. Considering those factors, the special committee has focused on a Measure "A" loan program structure and has also considered other financing options we should pursue collectively to implement transportation improvements in western Riverside County. 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 * (714) 787-7985 * FAX (714) 787-7920 d. The loan amount should not exceed 80% of the projected local Measure "A" funds which would be allocated to the jurisdiction requesting the loan during the following 5 fiscal years. e. 100% of the local Measure "A" funds should be retained by RCTC to repay the loan at the earliest possible time. f. The interest rate of the loan should be at no less than the "cost of money" to RCTC. g. RCTC would determine an annual amount of funds which could be made available to this loan program without jeopardizing the successful implementation of the Measure "A" program. h. During the first year program, an application period should be established which would allow all western Riverside County jurisdictions to submit projects they would wish to expedite through this loan program. The projects would be reviewed by the WRCOG transportation Technical Committee who would prepare a priority report to be reviewed by the WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee with final recommendations to the WRCOG Executive Committee. The WRCOG Executive Committee would then recommend a priority list for projects to be funded through the loan program. RCTC would allocate the available funds to the highest priority projects. i. WRCOG would complete a prioritization study for the western Riverside County regional network which would be used as the basis for priority in subsequent years if funds should be available. COMPLIMENTARY PROGRAM EFFORTS. In an effort to assist member jurisdictions in expediting the implementation of the regional network elements within their local are, the committee recommends the following additional efforts be conducted by WRCOG in cooperation with member jurisdictions and RCTC. Recommended Action: Based upon these recommendations of the special committee of the TAC, the following actions are recommended to the Executive Committee. 1. That the Executive Committee endorses the recommendations of the special committee on conditions and procedures to establish a Measure "A" loan program and instructs the Executive Director to communicate these recommendations to RCTC for their inclusion in any loan program. 2. That the Executive Director be instructed to work with member jurisdictions to develop a structure for a shared Pool program for local Measure "A" funds. 3. That the Executive Director be instructed to develop the feasibility of a financing pool which would serve to expedite local Measure "A" projects. 4. That the Executive Director be instructed to work with the City of Canyon Lake to develop a financing package which would implement the improvement of Railroad Canyon Road in the City of Canyon Lake. AGENDA ITEM #3E DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 5, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1991-92 FTA Section 9 Program of Projects for Riverside County Annually, the Riverside County Transportation Commission prepares and adopts an Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 9 Program of Projects (POP) for the three urbanized areas in Riverside County: Western Riverside County; Hemet; and Palm Springs. The POP's are typically prepared using the previous year's final apportionments because the proposed funding levels are not available at the time the programs are developed. This allows the operators to proceed with filing their grant application and avoid further delays. Final apportionments approved under the new Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), were published in the December 23, 1991 Federal Register, providing $1.44 million more in federal funds to Riverside County and created another urbanized area, the Indio -Coachella Urbanized Area in the Coachella Valley. Sunline Transit Agency has requested an amendment to the FY 1991-92 Program of Projects for the Palm Springs Urbanized area to increase the federal funds for operating assistance by $265,946 and capital assistance funds by $128,591. In addition, a Program of Projects for the newly created Indio -Coachella Urbanized Area has been developed for approval which provides an additional $274,015 in federal funds for operating assistance and $63,440 in capital assistance. The amount of additional federal funds available in the Western County area is $734,880. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has requested the Commission to amend the FY 1991-92 Program of Projects for the Riverside -San Bernardino and Hemet Urbanized Areas and will provide specific details to staff prior to the Administrative Committee meeting. fAueen\preprinl\mer.92\eec9. rl URBANIZED AREA: APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS: TRANSFER FUNDS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: RECIPIENTS: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) SUNLINE OPERATING ASSISTANCE JULY 1,1991 TO JUNE 30, 1992 (2) SUNLINE PURCHASE ONE (1) REPLACEMENT COACH TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE UMTA SECTION 9 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FY 1991 /92 PALM SPRINGS $697,397 $31,036 $0 $728,433 TOTAL AMOUNT SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS $741,299 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $6,600,000 $549,299 0 $240,000 $192,000 C $6,840,000 $741,299 ($12,866) • NOTE: Deficit will be funded using resources from the Indio/Coachella Urbanized Area. APPROVED BY RCTC: July 10, 1991 REVISED BY RCTC: JR: 02/25/92 STATE STATE FEH-25-1992 13:26 FROM RTA TO 7877920 P.02 R77:4 p--1 r-•. February 19, 1992 < Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 9250i Re: Revised FY 1991-92 TA (UMTA) Section 9 Apportionments Dear Jack: Thank you for the information regarding the additional allocations available to the Riverside -San Bernardino and Hemet urbanized are as under the Section 9 program of projects. At this time, RTA will apply for the additional allocations and will amend our original applications to apply for the new amounts for the April 1, grant cycle. Please let me know if I or my staff can be of any assistance and thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Susan J. Rainer General Manager SJH:dt TOTRL P.02 AGENDA ITEM #4A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 5, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Southern California Accelerated Rail Electrification Program - Draft Executive Summary Accelerated Electrification Task Force members will be present at the March 11, 1992 Commission meeting to present a summary report on the Task Force report findings and recommendations. The Executive Summary is enclosed in your Administrative Committee agenda package in order to allow time for your review. This will be an approximate 40 minute presentation with a 20 minute question and answer period. Please keep this report for the March 11 th meeting in Palm Desert and for future reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and possibly take action. HS:sc Musem\preprl nt\mer. BTrei lelec. h5 AGENDA ITEM #48 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 'TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 5, 1992 TO: Administrative Committee Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Action to Purchase Additional Locomotives to Demonstrate Lower NOx Emissions and Methanol Attached is an item which was agendixed and approved by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) at their February 14th meeting. This item requests RCTC consideration of the purchase of locomotives to demonstrate technology to reduce NOx emissions as well as demonstrate the feasibility of retrofitting a diesel locomotive to operate on methanol fuel. As you are aware, RCTC previously acted to not exercise an option for the purchase of diesel locomotives in consideration of the rail electrification study effort. However, we are still attempting to work out the possibility of leasing locomotives for the start up of commuter rail service on the Union Pacific route. At the time of this agenda preparation discussions were still on -going with the SCRRA and the California Transportation Commission. Staff will report on any new developments at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission review and possibly take action. HS:sc attachment f:\userepreprintVneu.92\eltiusil.hs .--C I , ! l �! METRCUNK Southern California Regional Rail Authority February 7, 1991 Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associate] Govemments Ventura County Transporation Commission TO: SCRRA MEMBERS & ALTERNATES - 2/14 MEETING FROM: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL LOCOMOTIVES TO DEMONSTRATE LOWER NOx EMISSIONS AND IMPLEMENT NEW SERVICE ISSUE: SCRRA has the opportunity to reduce NOx emissions from the new commuter rail locomotives further and simultaneously implement new service. To accomplish this objective, two additional locomotives must be purchased. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the SCRRA: o Subject to funding approval by member agencies commit $250,000 as a matching grant for equivalent SCAQMD funds for a demonstration of a methanol -fueled locomotives and authorize the Executive Director to notify SCAQMD of SCRRA's intent to participate in the methanol -fueled locomotive demonstration. o Subject to funding approval by member agencies, authorize the Executive Director to exercise an option under General Motors locomotive contract for three additional locomotives as follows: * 1 locomotive to be used by General Motors to design and install electronic emission controls which will further reduce NOx emissions to 70% of a regular passenger locomotive (an FP-59). This clean diesel locomotive will be available in 18 months. n (� • 818 West 7th Street. Suite 1100, Los Angeles. California 90017 Tel. 213-623-1194 Fax 213-489-1469 • SCRRA - 2/14 MEETING February 7, 1991 Page 3 A second proposal comes from Valley Detroit ❑iesel Allison at a cost ❑f $500,O00• This project would demonstrate the feasibility ❑f retrofitting the SCRRA locomotives to operate on methanol fuel. Durability and emission tests would be accomplished with this locomotive. The budget for the methanol demonstration is shown in Attachment 2. SCAQMD staff have agreed to contribute half the funds for the demonstration. The option would exist to return the locomotive to clean diesel operations if the tests fail. If the tests are successful, then the locomotive would be placed in service, probably on the Riverside -Los Angeles (UP) line. A combined retrofit program could subsequently begin converting all locomotives to methanol fuel and electronic controls. General Motors also suggested a natural gas demonstration program. This proposal is still in the formative stage. A budget has to be developed. Staff will return to the Board at a later date with a report on this option including participation by other parties in a natural gas demonstration. Prepared by: James Ortner, PhD LACTC Air Quality Transportation Administrator RICHARD STANGEF3 Executive Director attachments 3f ATTACHNIENT 2 Valley B7DGET °POJECT;CNS Engineering Design Modeling Re -location of auxiliaries Parts/Procurement Cylinder Components including Piston crowns supplied by EHD Air Management _Components Turbocharger/Ratios Air box bypass 175,000 $ 85,000 Evaluation to be conducted with EHD and Valley; costs included in Engineering, Fuel System Components Fuel cooling/filtration/storage Fuel injectors (with EHD and DTC) Engine Modifications Labor, z iaal :report, Training Support $ 55,000 $ 120,000 Head End Power New Detroit Diesel 8V-149 methanol engine; price includes trade-in of removed diesel engine $ 51,000 Emissions 'eating $ 5,500 Spare Farts $ 5,000 TOTAL $ 496,500 Conversion back to diesel $ 135,000 (Delivery: 30 days) DELIVERY Delivery time is estimated at 90 days. Delivery time could be influenced by vendor component delivery, although vendors have tentatively committed to this timing. AGENDA ITEM #5A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 4, 1992 TO: Budget & Finance Committee FROM: Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager SUBJECT: Monthly Cost/Schedule Report At the time of the agenda mailing, the monthly cost/schedule reports were not completed. The will be distributed at the Budget & Finance Committee meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. AGENDA ITEM #5B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 4, 1992 TO: Budget and Finance Committee FROM: Mark T. Massman, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: Discussion of Measure A Project Structure At the February meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee, Bechtel staff presented a portion (Sections 1-3) of the project structure presentation requested by the Committee. In March, Bechtel will present the remaining section (4) in a 40-45 minute presentation: 1. Overall Project Phases, Costs, and Timing -Phase 0 (Environmental and Preliminary Engineering) -Phase 1 (Final Design) -Phase 2 (Right -of -Way Services) -Phase 3 (Construction Management and Inspection) -Phase 4 (Construction) -Phase 9 (Utility Clearance and ROW Acquisition) 2. Technical Content of Project Phases 3. Measure A Program Management Systems -Expenditure Plan -Two Year Expenditure Plan -Annual Budget -Collecting and Reporting on Costs -Collecting and Reporting on Schedule Performance 1:\users\preprint\mer.92\projstru. b8f