HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 5, 1992 Budget & Finance053'7'74
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS RUSS BEIRICH, KAY CENICEROS,
CORKY LARSON, PAT MURPHY)
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Minutes will be distributed at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting.
4. GENERAL ITEMS.
4A. UCR INLAND EMPIRE BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DATA BANK AND FORECASTING
CENTER.
OVERVIEW
With the growth in size and economic importance of the Inland Empire, the need and
demand for current economic data for planning and forecasting purposes has become
acute. In response to demand for such information the University of California at
Riverside is establishing the Inland Empire Business and Economic Data Bank and
Forecasting Center to generate, collect and analyze specific data pertaining to the Inland
Empire business activities and economic demographics.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission authorize the Executive Director to contribute $5,000 to the UCR
Inland Empire Business and Economic Data Bank and Forecasting Center for Fiscal Year
1992/93.
Page 2
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
4B. CONTRACT REVISION FOR SMITH & ACKLER.
OVERVIEW
D.J. Smith and Associates has been the Commission's legislative consultant since 1988.
During this period, RCTC has been very successful in accomplishing its legislative
agenda. Current and upcoming projects require a need to expand the scope of services
for D.J. Smith. He has now been joined by Will Kempton, previously Caltrans Director of
Legislative Affairs and Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve a revised budget for D.J. Smith for FY 1992-93 of:
Legislative Services of $61,200; Project Advocacy Services of $36,000; Clean Fuel
Locomotive/SCRRA of $25,000 and Travel and Expenses of $5,000 for a total revised
budget amount of $127,200.
4C. GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL. LIABILITY INSURANCE.
OVERVIEW
At its August 1991 meeting, the Commission discussed the need and coverage amount
for general and professional liability insurance. After studying the various options, it is
staff's recommendation that the Commission augment the existing program with a
combination of self insurance and a purchase policy from Armtech.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission: (1) authorize the Executive Director to purchase the general
liability coverages as presented in the staff memorandum in an amount not to exceed
$75,000; (2) attempt to augment its existing program with a purchased policy intended
to cover the Commission for project losses which exceed $5,000,000 by authorizing the
Executive Director to obtain policy quotes for insurance of this type; and (3) authorize the
Executive Director to enlist the support of the various transportation commissions to
pursue legislation which would specifically exempt transportation commissions from
project liability.
4D. CAR ALLOWANCES AND STAFF CARS.
OVERVIEW
As a continuation from the July meeting, the Commission requested additional information
from staff relating to car allowances and the possibility of purchasing Commission
vehicles. Staff will recommend a program as part of the Commission's compensation
package and to relieve staff of travel demands on the personal vehicles.
Page 3
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission: (1) approve a car allowance program which provides compensation
in the amount of $300 per month to Assistant Directors who travel more than 5,000 miles
per year; and (2) authorize the Executive Director to purchase two vehicles for an amount
not to exceed $45,000.
4E. COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS FOR THE MONTH OF JULY.
OVERVIEW
The material attached to the staff memorandum depicts the current cost and schedule
status of contracts reported by Routes, commitments, and Cooperative Agreements
executed by the Commission.
Staff Recommendation
Receive and file.
5. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
5A. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL LOAN FUNDS TO THE COUNTY OF RNERSIDE FOR
COMPLETION OF 1-15/CORRIDOR ANALYSIS.
OVERVIEW
In February of 1990, the Commission had approved the loaning of funds to a maximum
of $62,000 to complete a corridor analysis and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for
Caltrans approval of a new interchange connection. In September of 1990, RCTC and
Riverside County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding project
development funding for a new interchange to be analyzed on the 1-15 corridor, south of
Route 60. In October of 1991, after submission of the Draft PSR to Caltrans for review
and comment, they had extensive comments including the need to incorporate additional
work needed as a result of revised PSR guidelines dated September 1991. The new
guidelines require work not included in the original scope and Caltrans has stated that
the additional effort will need to be completed prior to concurrence with the PSR.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission: (1) approve additional loan funds of $11,980 to Riverside County
for completion of the 1-15 Corridor Analysis and Project Study Report for a new
interchange; and (2) direct staff to revise the Memorandum of Understanding to reflect
the additional loan funds under the same terms.
Page 4
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
5B. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH HOLMES & NARVER FOR
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE ROUTE 91,
ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO MAIN STREET, HOV MEDIAN WIDENING MEASURE A
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
OVERVIEW
Construction of this Measure A Highway Improvement project is proceeding on schedule
and is anticipated to be completed by May of 1993. Because of a current manpower
shortage of Caltrans Construction Inspectors and the need to support the continuing
construction activities associated with this project, Caltrans has requested assistance from
the Commission to provide Consultant Construction Inspectors. Staff and Caltrans have
negotiated with Holmes & Narver to provide the inspectors for a six month duration, with
additional construction support service requests being revisited as the need arises.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve a Consultant Service Contract with Holmes & Narver for
Construction Support Services with a budget amount of $372,659 for the base contract
amount, and $102,341 for the extra work. Also, approve an additional budget of $72,000
for the purchase of five pick-up trucks to be used by Holmes & Narver during the life of
this contract and then returned to the Commission. The total contract value is $547,000.
6. TRANSIT/RIDESHARE/PARK-N-RIDE.
6A. SALINE TRANSIT AGENCY REQUEST FOR FY 1992-93 STATE TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE FUNDS.
OVERVIEW
The SunLine Transit Agency has requested the Commission to program the entire
$1,250,000 in State Transportation Assistance (STA) Funds estimated to be apportioned
to Riverside County for FY 1992-93 to help fund their compressed natural gas (CNG) bus
replacement project.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve the SunLine Transit Agency request to allocate the
estimated $1,250,000 in FY 1992-93 STAF Apportionment for Riverside County to SunLine
to be used for their CNG project.
6B. MEASURE A FUNDING REQUEST FROM RIVERSIDE GENERAL HOSPITAL,
OVERVIEW
The Riverside General Hospital has submitted a request for continued Measure A funding
assistance in the amount of $70,122 to support their transportation program. The
requested funds would be used to support operational costs to continue their current and
Page 5
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
an expanded level of service, and to purchase a new 15 passenger, lift -equipped van to
allow expanded service throughout the County. The request for funds has been reviewed
by both the Service Providers Association of Riverside County (SPARC) and the RCTC
Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council with
recommendations from both groups to support the request.
Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council and Staff
Recommendation
That the Commission allocate $70,122 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds for
Riverside General Hospital's Transportation Program.
6C. MEASURE A FUNDING REQUEST FROM FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
OVERVIEW
The Family Service Association of Western Riverside County (Family Services) submitted
a request for continued Measure A funding assistance in the amount of $85,359 to
support and expand the operation of their transportation program. In addition to the
request for funds, Family Services has requested that the Commission waive the 50%
maintenance of effort requirement on operating funds. Commission staff would like to
support the transportation program provided by Family Services.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission allocate an additional $57,500 in Measure A Specialized Transit
funds for Family Services Association of Western Riverside County Transportation
Program and waive the 50% maintenance of effort on operating funds for the 1992-93
fiscal year.
7. COMMUTER RAIL
7A. FY 1991-92 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT FUNDS.
OVERVIEW
The Commission received approval of $8.85 million of FY 1991-92 Transit Capital
Improvement program funds for the purchase of locomotive and commuter rail passenger
cars. Due to RCTC's position on rail electrification, the Commission chose not to use
State funds for the purchase of diesel locomotives. The date, $7.0 million of the funds
have been applied for the purchase of rail cars for the Union Pacific line service to Los
Angeles via Ontario; $.195 million to the Southern California Accelerated Rail
Electrification Study, leaving an unobligated balance of $1.655 million.
Page 6
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
Staff Recommendation
The Commission approve the use of the remaining unobligated balance of FY 1991-92
TCI grant funds for the purchase of additional rail passenger cars under the SCRRA
Bombardier/UTDC procurement. This results in a commitment of $1.655 million of TCI and
$1.655 million of Measure A funds.
7B. FY 1992-94 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT (TCI) PROGRAM APPLICATION.
OVERVIEW
Last year, the Commission submitted two applications for TCI funding. One in the amount
of $7.6 million for the Downtown Riverside Commuter Rail Station and another for $3.052
million for the Pedley Commuter Rail Station. RCTC staff worked with CTC staff to
arrange a split funded arrangement for the Downtown Riverside Station. Staff
recommends that the balance of the request for the Downtown Riverside Station ($3.1
million) be submitted for consideration in this cycle. Due to economic pressures on the
State Budget and prior CTC commitments for funding, RCTC should only count on
receiving our county minimum allocation of $2.0 million. The possibility exists that a
portion of this project may be unfunded for another year.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission authorize resubmission of the unfunded balance of the Downtown
Riverside Commuter Rail Station for consideration in the FY 1993-94 TCI program.
7C. RADAR RAIL CAR.
OVERVIEW
At the May 13, 1992 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized staff to investigate
the feasibility of purchasing 1957 vintage American Foundry gallery cars which were on
tour in Alaska The marketing flyer announced the cars as being available for $395,000
which appeared to be a very reasonable cost. Staff then met with Radar Rail Car owners
and this resulted in Radar, working with SCRRA technical advisors for equipment
procurement to assess what improvements would be required to insure the cars would
be compatible with SCRRA Bombardier/UTDC and Amtrak equipment. The cost to make
the cars compatible with SCRRA and Amtrak equipment (California Car requirements)
would be exorbitant.
Staff Recommendation
The Commission not procure used commuter rail cars from Radar Rail Car.
Page 7
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
7D. RIVERSIDE STATION COMMUTER RAIL PLATFORM - APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION
PACKAGE FOR BIDDING AND REVIEW OF DESIGN OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMUTER
RAIL STATION.
OVERVIEW
The Downtown Commuter Rail Station is moving closer to reality. The Commuter Rail
Station is being developed in four separate construction efforts. RCTC and Bechtel staff
have been working with SCRRA and their station consultants, and Birtcher on
coordination of the various efforts. The next effort involving RCTC, will be the construction
of the commuter rail platform to serve the site. The design is essentially complete and
should be ready for advertisement in the third week of August. The construction contract
will be awarded by RCTC and will be managed by Bechtel staff. The estimated
construction cost will be presented at the meeting. Staff will be making a presentation
at the commission meeting regarding the platform. Representatives from SCRRA and
Parsons Deleuw will be presenting the proposed station design, which will include an
architectural rendering for better visualization of the platform. Construction could begin
as early as late October with completion in February or March.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve the design package for the Downtown Commuter Rail
Platform to be released for bids and award to be made to the lowest responsible bidder.
The commission should review and give direction for inclusion of any desired architectural
enhancements to the station.
7E. SCHIERMEYER CONTRACT.
OVERVIEW
In reviewing the agreement with Schiermeyer and Associates, staff has identified
additional services needed to be provided in relation to commuter rail. Staff is proposing
modification to the agreement with Schiermeyer and Associates to cover these additional
services.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission approve an additional $10,000 for Schiermeyer Consulting Services
to perform a business outreach service on behalf of RCTC.
Page 8
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committe Agenda
7F. PROMOTIONAL TRIP ON UNION PACIFIC.
OVERVIEW
With commuter rail service implementation finally coming to reality, the Chair has
requested that perhaps a promotional trip be scheduled on the Union Pacific in either
September or October.
Staff Recommendation
That the Commission endorse and direct staff to make arrangements for a Union Pacific
promotional trip in either September or October.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
r. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
BUDGET/FINANCE COMMITTEE
JULY 1, 1992
1. CALL TO ORDER.
The meeting of the Budget/Finance Committee was called to order by Commissioner Beirich at
10:30 a.m. at the offices of Lund & Guttry, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, The Bob Hope Building, Suite
309, Rancho Mirage, California.
Members Present:
Russ Beirich
Kay Ceniceros
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
There were no public comments.
3. FINANCIAL ITEMS.
Corky Larson
Pat Murphy
3A. CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH KEMPER SECURITIES FOR FY 92193 FOR FISCAL
FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the contract amendment as presented.
3B. COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE.
M/S/C to receive and file.
4. HIGHWAYS/LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS.
4A. REV!S!TATION OF CONTRACT WITH JAYKIM ENGINEERS, INC. FOR TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEYING SERVICES FOR THE STATE ROUTE r 1 ] PROJECTS. FROM PALM SPRINGS
TO INDIO.
M/S/C that the Commission approve a budget amount of $415,741.94 for the base
contract amount, and $62,000 for extra work, for a total contract amount of
$477,741.94. The final scope of work, schedule and budget will be approved by the
standard RCTC contract agreement procedure.
Page 3
Administrative Committee Minutes
July 3, 1992
6. SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE).
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TITAN ADVANCED DIGITAL SYSTEMS FOR SAFE
SUPPORT SERVICES.
M/S/C that the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) approve a 2 year
professional services contract with Titan for FY 1992-93 beginning on August 1, 1992
with a FY 1992-93 contract amount of $85,000 and a FY 1993-94 contract beginning
July 1, 1993 in the amount of $20,000. The 1993-94 contract approval would be
subject to Board approval of the FY 1993-94 budget.
7. COMMUTER RAIL.
7A. ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF -WAY FOR DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE COMMUTER RAIL
STATION INCLUDING (1) BIRTCHER PARCEL: (2) UPRR PARCEL: AND (3) PRESS -
ENTERPRISE PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the proposed Property Purchase and
Repurchase Option agreements with Birtcher (revised as a result of discussion with
the Riverside Redevelopment Agency); (2) Purchase of UPRR right-of-way; and (3)
Press -Enterprise Property Exchange Agreement, with a total purchase price not to
exceed $9,179,078.
7B. FUNDS COMMITMENT FOR TRACKWORK DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT OF LONG LEAD
ITEMS FOR LIMONITEIPEDLEY COMMUTER RAIL STATION.
M/S/C that the Commission approve the commitment of $1,000,000 for trackwork
design and procurement of signal related equipment, a long lead Item, for the
Limonite/Pedley Commuter Rail Station.
7C. FY 1991-92 CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR SCHIERMEYER CONSULTING SERVICES.
M/S/C that the Commission: (1) Approve a $25,000 amendment to the FY 1991-92
Schiermeyer Consulting Services contract; and (2) An addition of $22,000 to the
92/93 budgeted amount of $150,000 for a total of $172,000.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
Commissioner Beirich adjourned the Budget/Finance Committee meeting at 11:52 a.m. The next
Budget and Finance Committee meeting will be at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 1992 at
the offices of Lund & Guttry, 39-700 Bob Hope Drive, The Bob Hope Building, Suite 309, Rancho
Mirage, California.
Respectfulbmitted,
aa-, CA-vCft)
ck Reagan
cutive Director
AGENDA ITEM #4A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
With the growth in size and economic importance of the Inland Empire, the need and
demand for current economic data for planning and forecasting purposes has become
acute. Academicians have especially been bombarded with requests to provide such
data. The University of California, Riverside is responding by establishing the Inland
Empire Business and Economic Data Bank and Forecasting Center. The Center has
been widely reported on and favorably received by the media.
The purpose of the Center is to generate, collect and analyze data pertaining to the
Inland Empire business activities and economic conditions. The information generated
will include such data as demographics, income, labor, employment, and business
opportunities. The Center will develop an economic forecasting model for the Inland
Empire and publish quarterly reports. Additionally, the Center will host periodic
workshops and seminar, related to the region's business activities, and once a year will
hold a regional conference.
While, other sources typically report on the Inland Empire as a whole, this center will
specifically provide data for the County of Riverside. Staff believes that it will be
invaluable to the Commission to have access to current economic data and forecasts
specific to Riverside County to assist Commission staff and consultants with financial
planning.
The Center's activities will be guided by an advisory board consisting of the Center's
sponsors. The Center will be housed in UCR's Graduate School of Management. UCR
is currently soliciting funds for the center from public and private sources. Public
agencies are being asked to contribute $5,000 toward maintenance of the Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Executive Director to contribute $5,000 to the UCR Inland Empire Business
and Economic Data Bank and Forecasting Center for Fiscal Year 92/93.
DM:sc
AGENDA ITEM #4B
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 5, 1992
Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Contract Revisions for D.J. Smith and Associates
Since 1988, D.J. Smith and Associates has provided assistance to RCTC related to its
legislative program. During this period, RCTC has been very successful in accomplishing
its legislative agenda. D.J. Smith has now been joined by Will Kempton, previously
Caltrans Director of Legislative Affairs and Executive Director of the Santa Clara County
Traffic Authority. Will's knowledge and experience should enable RCTC to seek other
kinds of services from D.J. Smith and Associates.
The current budget for D.J. Smith and Associates services is $3,500 per month retainer
against which time is billed at $110 per hour. The current budget assumes $1,500 for
reimbursable travel and related expenses.
I propose the following changes to the budget for D.J. Smith and Associate services:
Legislative Services
A noticeable result of voter approval of Proposition 140, which reduced legislators'
staff, is relatively greater reliance upon information available through sponsored
legislative advocates. We estimate that the required workload to better respond
to legislator's inquiries absent adequate staff support is an increase workload of
25%. In addition, D.J. requests an adjustment to the hourly rate of compensation
from $110 to $150, which he currently charges new clients.
As a compromise proposal, I suggest that the monthly retainer remain at $3,500
against which work would be billed at $120 per hour (30 hours). Work above 30
hours per month would be billed at $150 per hour. This works out to an proposed
annual budget of $61,200 (i.e., 360 hours at $120 per hour plus 120 hours at $150
per hour).
Project Advocacy Services
RCTC and Caltrans District 8 have still not resolved differing opinions regarding the
most appropriate scope and cost of projects. It is likely that to help resolve issues
to help expedite projects in a manner more consistent with the Commission's
Page Two
August 6, 1992
Contract Revisions for D.J. Smith and Associates
interests it will be necessary to more aggressively pursue support from those
within Caltrans administration, the California Transportation Commission, and
legislators. In addition, local agencies may desire assistance to advocate their
preferred projects. As an example, the City of Norco and Caltrans have not yet
agreed on the appropriate scope and cost of the Yuma Interchange project.Finally,
it may be desirable to seek some additional assistance in dealing with the
California Transportation Commission on State Transportation Improvement
Program projects and other state rail bond projects. Will Kempton possesses
unique skills and experience which may be of assistance to the Commission for
project advocacy.
I propose that RCTC should budget 20 hours per month for Will Kempton's
services for project advocacy, billed at a rate of $150 per hour. This would be for
on -call services only, but the full budget if used would equal $36,000.
Clean Fuel Locomotive Coordination for SCRRA
Since SCRRA would like to use the personal services of D.J. Smith related to its
clean fuel locomotive program, and RCTC currently has a contract with D.J. Smith
and Associates, they have requested that we add $25,000 to our contract for such
services. The billing rate would be $150 per hour and the total budget would
include travel and related expenses.
Travel and Related Expenses
I propose that the budget for travel and related expenses be set at $5,000
(approximately 5% of the budget for RCTC contract services, exclusive of SCRRA
work).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the following revised budget be approved for D.J Smith and Associates
for FY 1992-93:
Legislative Services $ 61,200
Project Advocacy Services 36,000
Clean Fuel Locomotive/SCRRA 25,000
Travel and Expenses $ 5.000
$127,200
JR:sc
AGENDA ITEM #4C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: General and Professional Liability Insurance
At the August 1991 Commission meeting, a study performed by Advanced Risk
Management(Armtech) was presented to the Commission on general and professional
liability coverages. There were a number of recommendations to expand the
Commission's insurance which were considered at the September meeting. At that time,
the decision was made to postpone obtaining any additional insurance other than that
which would be no additional cost, pending submission of an application for insurance
to the Special District Risk Management Authority (SDRMA).
The SDRMA initially declined to provide insurance due to their lack of familiarity with the
risks associated with a transportation commission. They requested that we resubmit our
application after they had opportunity to research and become more familiar with our "line
of business". We have resubmitted and have been informed by their staff that a
recommendation is being made to the SDRMA board for a quote. If approved, we will
closely examine that option upon receipt of the quote and policy provisions.
Staff now recommends that we adopt most of the coverages recommended by Armtech.
All of the coverages which involved no additional cost to the Commission have already
been included in our existing policy. The coverages which staff is recommending are as
follows:
Type of Coverage Cost
Excess Liability for $10,000,000. $ 3,000
Errors and Omissions $59,750
Crime Insurance(i.e., employee dishonesty) $ 3,000
Business Personal Property($500,000) $ 1,500
Extra Expense Coverage($100,000) $ 500
Earthquake Coverage $ 1,500
Landlords Improvements and Betterments $ 100
The total cost to the Commission for the above coverages should not exceed $75,000.
Page Two
August 6, 1992
General and Professional Liability Insurance
In addition to our general liability insurance, Armtech performed a study, a copy of which
is included, of our professional liability insurance program. Their study outlines our
existing program benefits and disadvantages as well as discusses several options to the
Commission to cover its potential exposure to loss from our various projects. Our
existing program requires each consultant to provide an insurance policy that covers the
Commission up to $1,000,000 for each occurrence with a total cap of $2,000,000. Any
RCTC liability over that amount would have to be covered from existing revenues.
After studying the various options, it is staff's recommendation that the Commission
augment the existing program with a combination of self insurance and a purchased
policy. The self insurance is essentially the Commission being responsible for the first
$5,000,000 and paying that out of existing resources. Any losses above that amount
would be covered by a purchased policy. Staff is in the process of researching whether
such a policy exists and what the actual cost to the Commission would be.
Procedures for administration of the existing program would also be revised. One of the
driving factors behind the Commission exploring other insurance alternatives was the
amount of time and effort involved with insuring that all consultants obtained and
maintained adequate insurance. Staff recommends that we reduce the time and effort
somewhat by performing spot checks of the various consultants insurance policies. If
these spot checks indicate wide spread failure to comply with RCTC insurance
requirements, then review efforts would be expanded.
Legal Counsel believes that in most cases primary liability rests with Caltrans as they
must approve all project design and are fully responsible for project construction. Staff
is pursuing the possibility of legislation which would specifically exempt the transportation
commissions from project liability, and thus make it clear that such liability rests with
Caltrans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1). Authorize the Executive Director to purchase the general liability coverages
as presented in the staff memo in an amount not to exceed $75,000.
2). That the Commission attempt to augment its existing program with a
purchased policy intended to cover the Commission for project losses
which exceed $5,000,000. Authorize the Executive Director to obtain policy
quotes for insurance of this type.
3). Authorize the Executive Director to enlist the support of the various
transportation commissions to pursue legislation which would specifically
exempt transportation commissions from project liability.
AGENDA ITEM #4D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Dean Martin, Controller
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Car Allowances and Staff Cars
The existing compensation package provides car allowances for the Executive Director
and the Deputy Executive Director for $375 and $300 per month, respectively. Roles and
responsibilities are expanding at the Commission as evidenced by the creation of
assistant director positions. To retain qualified staff the Commission has always
attempted to be competitive at a minimum with other government agencies. A survey of
the County of Riverside, OCTA, Sanbag, and Sandag indicated that some form of car
allowance is a part of the compensation package for management and department
heads. There are also a number of staff who make extensive use of their vehicles for
Commission business. Staff recommends consideration of the following program as part
of the Commission's compensation package and to relieve staff of travel demands on
their personal vehicles:
Assistant Director Car Allowances: Provide car allowances for all assistant
director positions in the amount of $300 for those who travel 5,000 miles or more
per year. The additional cost to the Commission, given historical travel patterns
would be $3,600.
Car Pool: Purchase two additional vehicles(one van and one sedan) and make
those vehicles available for staff use. The cost to the Commission would be
approximately $45,000. There may be additional insurance costs of up to $6000
per year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: (1) approve a car allowance program which provides
compensation in the amount of $300 per month to assistant directors who travel more
than 5,000 miles per year; and (2) authorize the Executive Director to purchase two
vehicles for an amount not to exceed $45,000.
DM:sc
AGENDA ITEM #4E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Mark Massman, Measure A Project Manager
Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Cost and Schedule Reports for Month of July
The attached material depicts the current cost and schedule status of contracts reported
by Routes, commitments and Cooperative Agreements executed by the Commission. For
each contract and Agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the
Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date and the project
expenditures by route for the month ending June 30, 1992.
Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and Cooperative Agreement is
available from Bechtel staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
MM/LM:jw
attachments
b )o L e6ed
1'L9'0 LvS
VL9'0 Lb$
Z£ L'L4$
£98'SSS`LS £88'S17LS
E88'£ti L$ £88'£i7 L$
000'0lz'L$
8£S' Lan 99Voz LS
S L L'ZLS$ ZZO'££$
£Z17'6V9' L$ 17£17'L8$
LLV E L9`E$ 6SZ'zZ LS
ZOL'LITV L$ 996'914
SL£'99l'Z$ v6Z'93
EEL'90038$ 9SL'Z98$
EEL'800'8$ 99L'399$
0/096 1799'8E0' l$
0/000 L ti9£'9£V$
9600 l 000'009$
9600 L 000'66 L. LZ$
47)
0/000 L 000'086'6 L$
0/000 L 000'6 Le l$
%88 L£8'069'ZS
0/089 L99'Z08$
9/0L8 OLZ'889'L$
9669 51_5'69934
0/000 L 6LZ'6L L'ZS
0/0E8 9£Z'0LS'Z$
(£)
b5£'a£0'LS
tiS£'8E14
000'009$
000`661'LZS
(ti)
000'096'6 L$
000'6 2' L$
L LS`990`£$
000'S L6$
LLS' LLL'z$
6LL' Leen
6LZ'6L L'z$
(V)
00S'Zb0'£$
000'909'vLS
(£)
000909'17l$
L L L 31nOEl iV1OlenS
(6 LZ6 '9 L060E1)
Apn1S aopuu00
(S L060E1)
ueoi uollonnsuo0
9103r0EId L l L 31nOH
s9 31noa -moans
(£ LZ60E1)
uollonnsuo0
(L0680E1)
uBlsea 1eU13
S133rOEId 98 31110E1
6L mnou -maims
( L L060E1)
loefad uosaepueS
(ER L6'9 L L6'z L L6' L L L60):9
•uonnu3/6a6u3 Anulwmud
S103rOEId 6L 31nOE1
�L ainC8 1V1d1��1S
(ZZ L6'L L l6'S L L6'90 L60E1)
uoilnu3A6u3 tieu1w11e1d
(LOZ6'90Z6'Z L060E1)
lueweel6V en1leaedoo0
S103rOEId vL 31nOE1
"dooJ VN0E1031tl1018ns
(80680a)
(ulooun'eldeW' y11wS)
•33E19V '4:1000 VNOHOO
31V0 Ol Z661 'OE eunf 03111114100 31V0 Ol N011V0011V NOI1d1EI0S30
S3an110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW 13gOn9 d0 S1N3W11WW00 03ZIHOH11V 103f'Odd
I:10A 31AnlION3dX3 39V1N301j3d 1Vkin10Va1N00 NOISSIM100
31f1OE1 AG 11:10d311 1390n9
S103f'OEId AVMHS 3EIf1SUVI 010E1
699'0V6$
699' Oti6$
0WZSE' l$
Ott'Z9E' L$
LEE'86Z' LE$
SLL'L L l'RS
Z99'08 L'ES
68Z'SZt'`OZ$
Z6L'80l$
LLS'SL9'L$
l9Z'b8Z'Z$
699'99£'9 L$
98£'ZL£$
8E8'609$
8E8'609$
S6L'LLES
S6L' l LE$
Otr0.6LO`Z$
LEE'6t'L$
Z6Z'9LZ$
L lt•'£S9' L$
q to Z e6ed
000`2EI.`tr$ 000'Zl6'17$
0/096 000'8EL'17$ 000'Zl6'VS
%L6 E6L'OSE`E$ 6Z9' l89`E$
(l) (L)
%l6 E6L'OSE'E$ 6Z9' 1.89'£$
%98 6t+E' 191r`ZE$ LL8'9L9`LE$
0/098 9L9'8Z L'8Z$ 000'09L'ZE$
(9) (9)
0/056 tiLL'ZEE' VS LLB'998'14
%/8 LL0'999'EE$ £LE'ZVE`8E$
0/0001 Z6L'80l$ Z6L'801.$
0/0L8 l69'EZ8'Z$ LSL'LVZ'E$
0/068 0E6'L99'ES 9ZZ'V00'VS
%L8
899'SSO'LZ$
86 L'Z86'0£$
131H038 1V1018f1S
(00Z6'00 L6'0006'006808)
•A83S 1W9W 103POI:Id 131H038
39NVH01:131N11d1A19f 1S
(Z£L6'LZl6'9ZL6
SZ l6'17Z l6'LO l617L0608)
(S,BSd) 6.16u3 Aieullulleid
WV1:1908d•A01:1d11139NV1-10831N1
SLZ-1 -moms
(ZZZ608 'Z8dL000
'8 L8dL000'6006't7006'£00608)
Aum-10-1469d
(0Z06'8 L06'800601:1)
•uomu3/6.16u3 Amulwlle1d
S103P08d SLZ-1
3if108 1V1018f1S
(l£ 1608)
SlZ-I 01 SL-1
(0£ 1.6'6Z 1.6'8Z 1.6'£Z 1608)
Sl-10l lLBS
(Z LZ6'S016'EO L6'Z0 L6' LO L6011)
Amyl col enou6elq
(t' LZ6'EE l6'Z006
L006'Z068' L068' L08808)
(AOH)100 01 ellou6eyi
81031'08d l6 311108
31V0 Ol Z661. 'OE aunt
S3af1110N3dX3 030N3 H1NOW
EIOd 38f1110N3dX3
031111W00 31V0 Ol NOI1V0011V NOI1d180930
139Of19 d0 S1N31111WW00 03ZIa0H1f1V 1031'01:1d
39V1N301:13d 1V8f110Va1N00 NOISSI10100
amou A818nd38139am
S103fOEld AVMH! 38f1SV3141 0108
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES
Program Studies
(R09006, 9010, 9013, 9108, 9119)
Corridor Studies
(R09017,9110,9120)
Mapping Control & OA
(R09007)
SUBTOTAL, PROGRAM.:PLAN $ SVCS,
PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM
(R09113,9114,9121,9134,9202,9203,
9204,9205,9211,9210,0007CA2,Impr)
SUBTOTAL PAWL-N-RIDE
COMMUTER RAIL
Studies
(R09021,9105,9220)
Station/Site Acq/OP Costs
(R08905,9201,9209,9009,9223
9224 & 0007PR2-Rail only)
SUBTOTAL COMMUTER RAIL
TOTALS
RCTC MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS
BUDGET REPORT BY ROUTE
COMMISSION CONTRACTURAL PERCENTAGE EXPENDITURE FOR
AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS OF BUDGET MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES
ALLOCATION TO DATE COMMITED June 30, 1992 TO DATE
$1,926,661
$675,480
$2,429,362
$5,031,503
$751,774
$751,774
$805,625
$13,816,760
$14,622,385
$150,108,185
$1,886,542
$660,540
$2,429, 362
$4,976,444
$751,774
$751,774
$805,625
$13,816,760
$14,622,385
$124,074,522
90%
92%
100%
9596
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
82%
$2,573
$22,277
$24,850
$53,004
$53,004
$27,858
$51,748
$79,606
$4,406,887
NOTE: (1) Loan against interchange improvement programs.
(2) May be reduced by passage of SB 300 funds.
(3) RCTC project to determine share value allocated to Route 91 and portion allocated to IC Improvement Program (loan)
(4) RCTC portion only of Ca!trans Contract
(5) SANBAG responsible for 25%
All values are for total Project/Contract and not related to fiscal year budgets.
Page 3 of 4
$1,747,075
$636,694
$2,329,658
$4,713,427
$617,105
$617,105
$795,364
$13,568,172
$14,363,536
$89,319,098
Status Mo Ending 06/30/92
lob e6ed
06/0C/90 611ipu3 •o{ry snle)S
30NV-IV8 NVOI 31V0 Ol
omaNV1Slf10 S1N3W3Sdn9W131:1
•sla6pnq mei( Iuosi' of pomp.] lou pua louguoonoafoid 10' a./a sown Dv
*spun' 00E as Jo a6ussud Aq paonpai aq AuN (Z)
•swei6ad wawanwa 1w! a6u>?l'wialui lsuOu uuol (l) :310N
000'000' L i $ S1 V101
000'000'LL$
000'000'L l$
wool 1v1onins
swewenoidwl e6ueyamiul
SlZ-USI-I luewew6y ueoi
v_onlunw 3o AllO
31V0 Ol Z661 '0£ eunr NOI1V0011V NOI1dI1:10830
S3Hn110N3dX3 030N3 H1N011 03ZI1:1OH1f1V 103f01:ld
aOd 31:1f1110N3dX3 NOISSIWWOO
3111013 AO 11:1Od3H 1390n8
S103P01:1d AVMH' 31:InSV3W OlOH
-_
=- - --
-
] 1 n a] H J s Ad 11 w w n S
WUfflOdd 1WAOddWI IdOdSNUdt U 3Jnsuw
,INel ptl a�JPg �/O
I
w! .9wajsd5 2JBA2WIJd [DI
zbNnfOE 4sIU13 taaroJd
bBNtlfZ }Jets }aaroJd
ss inu tr +a• � C
O tl C i..z I7
uoisi n�
ayP4
C �,
ss.sx41u
.Rg ssa.bodd L I
Jopos,s.a
zb3nrl ale(' 2104
- -- - --'-� -. _.. .._
ESIWWO0 NidOdSNUdl Al Nnn 3aIS T\Id
1.!1,�a I
ilea AP9b.e x.....+s
atoll
MOD 111N739
r I a I W416
I J
zbinroz told
NOIIMISN09 I I
AdM 30 1H9Ia L I
38Sd ONd N9IS30 -MIA 4
1d1NNNOdIAN3 8 9NIa33NI9N3 AdUNIWI13ad J 1
1
( a3AIa O1NI9dr S 11NWOdld3a 390Ia9 NOSOMUS b41II
j
NOI100a1SN00 1 FBI
AdM 30 IHOIa
DSc' ONd N9I530 -MIA
M
.
AO b 01 CUM - (SIdd3d NI )15 9 01 1S HIL 1,41N
1d1NNNOdIAN3 8 9NIa33NION3 AadNIWIUdd [
SAO I, 01 N30IM - 1S H14 01 SII W.6
AUM 30 IH9Ia l 1
I 385d ONd NOIS30 MA U
lUINNNOdIAN3 8 9NIa33NI9N3 AbdNIWll3ad l
y
SBV1 8 01 N30IM - SlI IN Ol AdM A311dA 091d
J AdM 30 1H9Ia
I 38Sd ONd N9IS31 1dNI3
A d d N I W I l 3 d d
1d1NNNOdIAN3 8 9N1a33NION3 AadNIWI13ad
S3Nd1 9 01 N30IM - OA18 SONd103a 01 SIZI 091d
I NOIIMIISN03
AdM l0 1H9Ia 1 I
32Sd ONd N9IS30 1dNI3 1
1d1N3WN0aIAN3 8 9NIa33NION3 AadNIWI13ad I
S3Nd1 9 01 N30IM-9I Sle/lb/09 01 AdM A311dA 0918
I J N0I130819100
AdM 30 1H9Ia f 1
DSc] ONO N9I530 1dNI3 1 1
ldINNNOdIAN3 A 9NIa33NI9N3 AadNIWIl3ad [
3910-13 1NI 100dISNO3 - as CWOA ld Slid
o O 5! I r1 r w ul W1 31 r
d Nl oI s d[ r1 r W1,7(1 w1 J1 r
ajN1 o] 5 tit r I r1 W101 wA r
a(N o s r r r wl o W J r
a N 0{ 5 u r
r W d{WA r
al Ni l 5 d rf r1 W1 dj W a r
a[N 0i s1 H1 r1 r W tlN31 r
9bbl
5bbl
thbl
Uhl
i.bb1
lbbl
Obbl
I
3 f 1 0 3 H a s A d u w w I l S
J u i ' s w a } s R s e J 2 A e w 1 J d , ] ,
z b N n r O C g s i a i l } a a r o J d
- -
W d N J O N d 1 W A O t 1 d W I 1 ��i 0 d S N t i ��l l d 3 N 0 5 1 ��3 W
, 0 A , u 6 . J P g u o t s a a p ,
b B N t l f Z } J e } s } ] a f o J d
- -
I i d ��0 I
��0 2 6 U
��F 7 . . . " '
��� ' -
1 ! ' d
N S S I W W U N 1 a 0 6 N 0 a 1 A 1 N 0 0 3 3 a I 9 d 3 A I N
������e ��a , e = i 4
& I n r t a l e ( ) a } e 4
M O D 1 1 1 I I D 1 8
i �� z F
' a l e 0 H e y . . 8 A . . . . s 1 1
z o n r o i a l e s } o l d
1 d 1 N 3 1 0 1 0 8 1 A N 3 ' 8 9 N I H J N 1 9 N 3 A d V N I W I l 3 a d f l 1
1 A O H N C I a 3 W - 1 S A a d W 0 1 3 A C C I l O N 9 C W l b l a
1
N O I 1 0 0 8 1 5 N 0 0 L 1
A 1 N O N O I I C 0 I 3 I l d 3 0 A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I d [ m a y
3 8 S d O N C N 9 I S 3 0 1 C N I 3 1
A O H N C I a 3 W - 1 S N I d W 0 1 3 N I 1 A 1 N 0 0 0 3 9 N U d O l b l d
1
N O I D O a 1 S N O O . l I
A 1 N 0 N O I 1 O I 3 I 1 a 3 0 A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I d 8
3 8 S d O N C N O I S 3 0 1 C N I 3 I
A O H N C I a 3 W - 3 A V C I l O N 9 C W 0 1 I S N I C W l b l a
N O I 1 0 0 8 1 S N 0 0
3 8 S d O N d N 9 I S 3 0 R I N I 3 ) 1
N 1 I , 0 1 N H I M - S S 0 8 3 d 3 A 0 N 1 0 0 N I 1 / 3 1 d d W / H 1 I W S 1 b 1 8
( A d U N I W I l l d d ) N O I 1 3 0 a 1 S N 0 0 I I
A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I d I
i m m I
3 8 S d G N U N O I S 3 0 1 O N I 3
1 I
1 1 E S I a 8 1 1 0 A 8 N 3 O I M - 9 9 3 0 0 1 Z 8 3 A d 9 8 1 8
( A d U N I W I 1 3 d d ) N 0 1 1 0 0 8 1 S N 0 0 I I
A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I a 1
] i
3 8 S d O N d N O I S 3 0 M I A I
1
`
` 1 1 8 1 5 I 0 8 1 1 0 A 8 N 3 a I M - 8 S 3 A d 0 1 9 9 3 A d 9 8 1 8
N O I D A E S N 0 0
A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I d I I
3 8 S d O N O N 9 I s 3 a 1 d N I 3 I
1 1 8 1 5 I 0 8 1 1 0 A 8 U O I M - 8 S 3 A d 0 1 a s N 0 1 1 I 0 9 8 1 d
( 1 T c a 0 1 0 N I I O N l d 3 0 8 N O I l I S I O I ) 0 C M / a ) A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I 8 I - - - - - - - -
1 W A N N O a I A N 3 8 9 N I 8 3 3 N I 9 N 3 A N d N I W I 1 3 8 d f 1 �%
I
S 3 N d 1 b 0 1 O H M - 1 S 1 8 0 d M 3 N 0 1 1 S 8 3 1 1 3 M 6 4 1 8
N O I 1 0 0 8 1 S N 0 0 l 1
A C M 3 0 1 H 9 I d I .
3 8 S d G N U N 9 I S 3 0 1 C N I 3 [
1 0 1 N 3 W N 0 H I A N 3 8 9 N I 8 3 3 N I 9 1 , 1 3 A d V N I W I l l d d 1
1
S 3 1 , 1 0 b 0 1 1 , 1 3 0 I M - 1 S 1 S l 0 1 a d S N C W 1 I 9 b o l a
a l N O I S I H ( ' l r l w l l l W 3 r
a l N I 0 . S d ( ' U . 1 1 0 I W 3 r
a N I a s d ` r I r w ( 1 w l i t r
a N 0 s l l j l r l r w l d j w 3 1 r '
a l N f o f s l d l r
r 1 4 1 i s 0 1 r
a N o f s l d f r i r i w l d l w l 3 l r
a l N l o f s l d r l r l w l d l w l 3 l r
9 b b l
S b b i
b b b l
C b b l
Z b b l
l b b l
O b b l
wl •50215lia 420A1.21rrud 101
MOO 14111318
WE 1.15
3lna3HJs Ad�lwwns
WUMOdd 100ddWI 1dNENNdl U MOWN
NSSIWW03 N1dOdSNddl AIM 3aI9d3AId
NOI100d1SN00
i
AUM l0 1HOId L (y
1N3W3d000dd 8 NOIS30 1UNI3 ( J
1tl1NTOOdIAN3 e ONId33NION3 AdtlNIWIl3dd
L 1
4,.,P WHOullsaiN d/O
sg ssa..6.1d 1
uolsa eu6ie J I
sales .t1,R3/.c3 AJeim5 1
ZbNNfOC 4siull luarwd
b8NUfZ 1Jo15 JJaroud
Z6181'1 alea ele0
Zb1nfOZ ale0 told
AddNIWIl3dd
NOI1tl1S 31INOWII lItld d31nWW00
NOI100d1SN00
AUM 30 11-19Id
1N3W3a000dd 8 NOIS30 1UNI3
1tl1N3WN0dIAN3 ONId33NION3 AdtlNIWI13dd
r
I
AlNO (dSd) 1d0d3d AOn1S 103rOdd
NOI1U1S WId31NI NMO1NM00 lItla d31nwm
I I A
A1N0 ( aSd) 1dOdld A0015 103rOdd
Slz la NO S1N3W3A0ddWI 39NO0d31NI
lb la NO S1N3W3A0ddWI 39NUH0d31NI
AlNO ( aSd) 1d0d3d an15 103rOdd [ 1 1
09 la NO S1N3W3A0ddWI 3ONUH0831NI
AlNO (aSd) 180d3d gifts 103rOdd
I I J
DI la NO S1N3W3A0ddWI 39NUH0d31NI
11N0 ( aSd) 180d3a AOnis 103rOdd
(aSd) 511,13143A0ddWI - Slz/lb/09 39NUH0d31NI Slept
1tl1N3WN0dIAN3 8 9NId33NION3 AdtlNIWI13dd
S3Ntl1 8 01 N30IM - 108S 01 10r Slz/093 SlZla
A1N0 ( aSd) 1dOdld ants 103rOdd
A1N0 (dSd) 1d0d3d 1001S 103r0dd
I
( SNOI1tl001 9 ) S1N3W3A0ddWI d00Idd00 lllld
ONIN30IM 30IS100 - SIZI 01 SII lbld
(i
N[ u[
11
r� r
'Ibb I
1tl1N3WN0dIAN3 'N ONId33NION3 AdtlNIWIl3dd
W� tl
w
O
H
0
I � t
NOI100d1SN00 1
AlNO NOI1tl0I3I1d30 AUM SO 1HOId
r
r
Sbbl
w
W
a
N
0
S
t�
38Sd ONtl NOIS30 1UNId
rlr
bbbl
W� tl
WI 11 rr0
-N
0
�tl
I ! I
rl rE wL1N
Wl �� r
w
N
0
quirr1w1tl1W1A
Ebb!. , ebbl
r
ONIN30IM 30IS1n0 - SII O1 ILK lbld
AOH NE 03W - 1S AdtlW 01 3Atl UP ONOUW lbla
01 NI 91 S
li
r
r
l bb l
w
errwlr
a� NI al sr Kr
r
Obbl
W
a
WJ 'r
AGENDA ITEM #5A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Tom Horkan, Measure "A" Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Additional Loan Funds to the County of Riverside for
Completion of I-15/Corridor Analysis
In February of 1990 the RCTC board had approved the loaning of funds to a maximum
of $62,000 to complete a corridor analysis and prepare a Project Study Report for
Caltrans approval of a new interchange connection. In September of 1990, RCTC and
Riverside County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding project
development funding for a new interchange to be analyzed on the 1-15 Corridor, south
of Route 60.
The County selected the firm of Wilbur Smith Associates to complete the study. Wilbur
Smith, Riverside County, and Caltrans have been working on the study and PSR
development since September of 1990.
In October of 1991, Riverside County submitted a Draft Project Study Report to Caltrans
for review and comment. Caltrans had extensive comments on the Draft PSR including
the need to incorporate additional work needed as a result of revised PSR guidelines
dated in September of 1991. The new guidelines require work items not included in the
original scope and Caltrans has stated that the additional effort will need to be completed
prior to concurrence with the PSR.
Riverside County is requesting additional loan funding in the amount of $11,980 to
complete the 1-15 Corridor Analysis and Project Study Report. The proposed additional
scope of work to complete the study is attached. The Memorandum of Understanding
between RCTC and Riverside County will also need to be amended to reflect the
additional funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: (1) approve additional loan funds of $11,980 to Riverside County
for completion of the 1-15 Corridor Analysis and Project Study Report for a new
interchange; and (2) direct staff to revise the Memorandum of Understanding to reflect
the additional loan funds under the same terms.
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS ■ PLANNERS
d_l _ _ _ - • - _ • ' - - . _ •
May 15, 1992
Mr. Ed Studor
Riverside County Transportation Department
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
Riverside, CA. 92501
Re: Modification to Scope of Work
I-15 Corridor Analysis Contract
Dear Mr. Studor:
The attached scope of work modification covers,additional work by Wilbur Smith Associates necessary
to modify the Project Study Report (PSR) for the I-15/Galena Street Interchange to conform to the
recently adoptellCaltrans Guidelines for the Preparation of Project Study Reports._ As you know,
the new Caltrans Guidelines are substantially more comprehensive than those in-piace when the
contract was signed. The budget for this work is based on the rate schedule included as part of the
original contract.
We are prepared to start this work as soon as we are given notice to proceed. The first milestone
would be submission of the Advance Planning Design Study, which would be submitted two weeks
after notice to proceed The final draft PSR would be submitted 30 days after approval of the
Advance Planning Design Study.
Please call if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely yours,
Wilbur Smith Associates
Thomas A. Cooney
Principal Associate
EvriBfr
_-
AL3ANv, Nv • AL_ANCE. O� • CA RO EGY=' • C'HARI.=S ON. SC • SC • COLL:MS S, CH • DES MOINES, .A • =A__S --
-ONG KONG •=OUSTCN. -X • KNOXV"_LE, -N • LEX'NGTON. K-v • _CNDCN. ENG'LAND • _CS .ANG=_ES CA • MIAM • EENA,- r.
NEW riAVEN, C" • OAKLAND. CA • ORLAND.0 =_ • P''SBL:RGM, ?A • P•ORRTSMCL,"-. NH • PROV!UENCE. R, • RAL= G- NC
R'CHMOND. VA • RIVERSIDE, CA • ROSELLE, L • SA•N:RANCISCO, CA • SAN DOSE, CA • SINGAPORE • TORONTO, C.a.`.ADA • ',ti-S:,,tiC.;-CN DC.
EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY
Modification To Scope Of Work
I-15 Corridor Analysis Contract
This scope of work modification covers additional work by Wilbur Smith Associates necessary to
modify the Project Study Report (PSR) for the I-15/Galena Street Interchange to conform to the
recently adopted Caltrans Guidelines for the Preparation of Project Study Reports. The scope
modification covers the following work tasks:
o incorporate required mapping information (right-of-way, utilities, parcel information, etc) to
be prepared by RC:11.);
o incorporate the hazardous materials initial site assessment to be prepared by RCTC/Caltrans;
o perform an environmental resources evaluation based on the Caltrans Checklist;
o add landscaping information to the PSR;
o refine traffic and safety information in response to Caltrans comments; = -
o prepare an Advance Planning Design Study for the interchange structure;
o refine cost estimates to conform to conform to new Caltrans guidelines;
o extend/refine plan and profile drawings in response to Caltrans comments;
o add traffic management section to the PSR document;
o restructure and revise the draft PSR document to conform to Caltrans requirements and
comments;
o two meetings with Caltrans and one meeting with RCTD.
2
Estimated Budget
I-15 Corridor Analyses Contract Modification
Level
Hourly
Rate ($)
Estimated
Hours
Estimated
Cost (S) i
Officer
106
20
2,120.00
Associate
91
20
1,820.00
Senior Engineer
76
40
3,040.00
Engineer
H 60
20
1,200.00
Junior Engineer
45
20
900.00
Support Staff
30
60
1,800.00
Direct Expenses
1100.00
Total
11,980.00
- -is=•
�•
3
AGENDA ITEM #5 B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Karl Sauer, Measure "A" Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of Consultant Contract with Holmes & Narver for Construction
Support Services Consultant Agreement for the Route 91, Orange County
Line to Main Street, HOV Median Widening Measure A Highway
Improvement Project.
Construction on the above referenced Measure A Highway Improvement Project is
proceeding on schedule and it is anticipated that the project will be completed by May
of 1993. Because of a current manpower shortage of Caltrans Construction Inspectors
and the need to support the continuing construction activities associated with the
referenced project, Caltrans has requested assistance from the Commission to provide
Consultant Construction Inspectors for the referenced project. Reference the attached
letter from Manoj Kar, Caltrans Resident Engineer, dated July 14, 1992.
Staff and Caltrans have been negotiating with Holmes & Narver, the #1 ranked firm for
Construction Support Services, to provide four Civil Inspectors and one Electrical
Inspector for a six month duration. Additional or continuing construction support services
requests by Caltrans will be revisited as the need arises. Staff and Caltrans are in
agreement with the scope of work associated with these services and staff is in
agreement with the final cost estimate for these services as outlined below.
Base Contract - $372,659
Extra Work - $102,341
5 Trucks - $ 72,000
Total Contract - $547,000
Note: An additional $72,000 will also be required above and beyond the base
contract amount of $372,659 for the purchase of five pick-up trucks that will be
utilized by Holmes & Narver for the duration of this contract. At the completion of
this contract Holmes & Narver will turn over possession of these trucks to the
Commission and they will become the property of the Commission, to be utilized
on other Measure A construction projects. These trucks can either be purchased
by the Commission or by Holmes and Narver and billed back to the Commission.
Page 2of2
Route 91, Construction Support Services
The five consultant construction inspectors provided to assist Caltrans as part of this
contract, are replacing five Caltrans construction inspectors, who are no longer on the
project. These five positions are required at this time to keep the project on schedule. The
Master Construction Agreement Between Caltrans and the Commission specifies that the
Commission will pay for all costs associated with providing construction support
personnel, Caltrans or Consultant, to support construction on a Measure A project.
Therefore, the costs associated with this contract to provide consultant construction
support personnel in lieu of Caltrans construction support personnel will come out of the
existing construction support budget for the project and will require no new budget.
Holmes & Narver has reviewed the standard contract agreement and is in agreement with
all its requirements. BBK will be provided a copy of the attachments to the final contract
for review prior to the Commission meeting. The final scope of work and budget will be
approved by the standard RCTC contract agreement procedure. Staff recommends that
the Commission approve this contract.
To keep the project on schedule and meet the immediate needs for Construction Support
Services for the project, Holmes & Narver was given an advanced notice to proceed by
the Executive Director. This notice to proceed was for an amount not to exceed $50,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve a Consultant Service Contract with Holmes & Narver for
Construction Support Services with a budget amount of $372,659 for the base contract
amount, and $102,341 for extra work. Also, approve an additional budget of $72,000 for
the purchase of five pick-up trucks to be used by Holmes & Narver during the life of this
contract and then returned to the Commission. The total contract value is $547,000.
KS:sc
attachment
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
July 29, 1992
Mr. George Gipe
Holmes & Narver, Inc.
999 Town & Country Road
Orange, California 92668
Subject: Contract RO-9308 Advance Notice to Proceed for Holmes &
Narver to provide Construction Support Services for the
Route 91, Orange County Line to Main Street, HOV Median
Widening Measure A Highway Improvement Project.
Dear Mr. Gipe:
Caltrans has requested assistance from the Commission to provide
five Consultant Construction Inspectors for the reference project.
My staff has informed me that we are in agreement on the scope of
services and the related costs for those services to provide five
Construction Inspectors for a duration of six months. My staff has
also informed me that you are in agreement with the terms and
conditions of our standard consultant agreement. Therefore, in
order to meet the Caltrans request and support the project
construction schedule, I am authorizing Holmes & Narver, Inc. to
proceed to provide five Construction Inspectors and five re
pick-up trucks for the referenced project, in advance of approval
of the contract agreement RO-9308.
This advance notice to proceed shall allow work to start
immediately, with authorized costs not to exceed $50,000.00. If
there are any questions concerning this advance notice to proceed,
please contact Karl Sauer at this office.
Sincerely,
� L.1
� y -- X!
i J.ick Reagan, EX cutive Director
I Riverside County Transportation Commission
JR/KS
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501
(714) 787-7141 • FAX (714) 787-7920
AGENDA ITEM #6A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 6, 1992
Budget and Finance Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SunLine Transit Agency Request for FY 1992-93 State Transportation
Assistance Funds
The SunLine Transit Agency has requested the Commission to program the entire
$1,250,000 in State Transportation Assistance (STA) Funds estimated to be apportioned
to Riverside County for FY 1992-93 to help fund their compressed natural gas (CNG) bus
replacement project.
The Commission recently allocated the $1.25 million FY 1991-92 STAF Apportionment to
SunLine to be used for this same purpose. Additional funds are still needed to make this
project a reality. The attached tables show two possible funding scenarios. Table I
assumes purchase of used buses with a total project cost of $11.7 million and $1.67
million still needed from local funds or "other sources". Table II assumes purchase of new
buses with a total project cost of $14.4 million. A total of $6.36 million is needed from local
or 'other sources" to fully fund the project and match federal funds.
Staff recommends allocating the entire apportionment of State Transportation Assistance
Funds available for FY 1992-93 to SunLine Transit Agency to support them with their
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) project for the following reasons: Local Transportation
Funds will be allocated for streets and road purposes in the Western County in Fiscal
Year 1992-93; all Local Transportation Funds in the Coachella Valley continue to be used
for transit; SunLine is making every effort to secure Federal funds; and this is a high
visibility "Clean Fuel' bus project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the SunLine Transit Agency request to allocate the
estimated $1,250,000 in FY 1992-93 STAF Apportionment for Riverside County to SunLine
to be used for their CNG project.
AGENDA ITEM #6D
-•] RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
August 5, 1992
Budget and Finance Committee
Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Measure A Funding Request from Riverside General Hospital
The Riverside General Hospital has submitted a request for continued Measure A funding
assistance in the amount of $70,122 to support their transportation program. The
requested funds would be used to support operational costs to continue their current and
an expanded level of service, and to purchase a new 15 passenger, lift -equipped van to
allow expanded service throughout the County.
The request for funds has been reviewed by both the Service Providers Association of
Riverside County (SPARC) and the RCTC Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Service
Transportation Advisory Council with recommendations from both groups to support the
request. Commission staff recommends approval of this request.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission allocate $70,122 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds for
Riverside General Hospital's Transportation Program.
CB:sc
AGENDA ITEM #6C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Staff Analyst III
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
August 5, 1992
SUBJECT: Measure A Funding Request from Family Service Association of Western
Riverside County
The Family Service Association of Western Riverside County (Family Services) submitted
a request for continued Measure A funding assistance in the amount of $85,359 to
support and expand the operation of their transportation program. In addition to the
request for funds, Family Services has requested that the Commission waive the 50%
maintenance of effort requirement on operating funds.
Commission staff would like to support the transportation program provided by Family
Services. We recommend allocating an additional $57,500 in Measure A Specialized
Transportation Funds for a total of $75,500 in operating assistance to operate one vehicle
for the full fiscal year and a second vehicle for six months. (Arrival of the second Family
Service vehicle is not expected until late in the year so full funding is not necessary). We
also recommend approval of their request to waive the 50% maintenance of effort
requirement with the understanding that Family Services must continue their efforts to
secure other sources of funds to support their program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission allocate an additional $57,500 in Measure A Specialized Transit
funds for Family Services Association of Western Riverside County Transportation
Program and waive the 50% maintenance of effort on operating funds for the 1992-93
fiscal year.
CB:sc
AGENDA ITEM #7A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: FY 1991-92 Transit Capital Improvement Program Project Funds
The Commission received approval of $8.85 million of FY 1991-92 Transit Capital
Improvement program funds for the purchase of locomotives and commuter rail
passenger cars. Due to our position on rail electrification, the Commission chose to not
use State funds for the purchase of diesel locomotives.
To date we applied $7.0 million of the funds for the purchase of rail cars for the Union
Pacific line service to Los Angeles via Ontario; $.195 to the Southern California
Accelerated Rail Electrification Study, leaving an unobligated balance of $1.655 million.
The SCRRA has received a favorable legal counsel opinion to extend the order for
additional commuter rail passenger vehicles in the Bombardier/UTDC procurement. Staff
recommends the Commission to approve the use of the remaining TCI funds from the FY
1991-92 grant and the requisite Measure A match to procure additional cars which will
serve as growth or reserve vehicles to our existing purchase. The $3.31 million will
purchase approximately 2 passenger cars.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission approve the use of the remaining unobligated balance of FY 1991-92
TCI grant funds for the purchase of additional rail passenger cars under the SCRRA
Bombardier/UTDC procurement. This results in a commitment of $1.655 million of TCI and
$1.655 million of Measure A funds.
HS:sc
AGENDA ITEM #7B
DATE:
TO:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 5, 1992
Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: FY 1993-94 Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Program Application
Last year the Commission submitted two applications for To funding. One in the amount
of $7.6 million for the Downtown Riverside Commuter Rail Station and another for $3.052
million for the Pedley Commuter Rail Station. As you are aware, RCTC staff worked with
CTC staff to arrange a split funded arrangement for the Downtown Riverside Station. We
received approval for $4.5 million for FY 1992-93 with $3.1 million to be acted upon in this
up coming cycle.
The TCI program establishes a "county minimum" level of funding to "guarantee" some
funding to each eligible county/agency which submits a compatible project funding
request. The RCTC county minimum is approximately $2.0 million.
Staff recommends that we resubmit the balance of the request for the Downtown
Riverside station ($3.1) for consideration in this cycle. Although we have been successful
in obtaining TCI commitments far in excess of our minimum, the economic pressures on
the state budget and prior CTC commitments for funding probably preclude us from
obtaining more than $3.1 million. CTC staff has indicated that we should only count on
receiving our minimum allocation ($2.0 million).
Therefore the possibility exists that we may have a portion of this project be unfunded for
another year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission authorize resubmission of the unfunded balance of the Downtown
Riverside Commuter Rail Station for consideration in the FY 1993-4 TCI program.
HS:sc
AGENDA ITEM #7C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Hideo Sugita, Assistant Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Radar Rail Car
At a vendor forum at the APTA Commuter Rail Conference in Washington D.C., Radar Rail
Car was marketing used commuter rail vehicles. The vehicles were 1957 vintage American
Foundry gallery cars which were in tour service in Alaska. The marketing flyer announced
the cars as being available for $395,000 which appeared to be a very reasonable cost.
At the May 13, 1992 Commission meeting, the Commission authorized staff to investigate
the feasibility of purchasing these used rail equipment. Staff then met with Radar Rail Car
owners and this resulted in Radar, working with SCRRA technical advisors for equipment
procurement to assess what improvements would be required to insure the cars would
be compatible with SCRRA Bombardier/UTDC and Amtrak equipment.
Making the cars compatible with SCRRA and Amtrak equipment (California Car
requirements) increased the cost of a trailer car from the first advertised price of $395,000
to $720,000 plus tax. A cab car would cost an additional $100,000 or $820,000 plus tax.
Even though the proposed cost is approximately 40% less than the new vehicles _ .Jrrently
under procurement staff recommends that we not engage Radar to produce cars for
RCTC. The reasons are:
o Irrespective of the refurbishment, the superstructure and under carriage of the cars
are already 35 years old and maintenance may be a major problem,
o Metrolink would have to maintain additional parts/tools, as well as storage for
same, for maintenance purposes,
o Due to the height of the car floor the only way to make the car accessible to
wheelchair users is to retrofit the car with a mechanical lift. The Bombardier/UTDC
cars will employ a concrete mini -ramp and fiberglass bridge which is a
configuration the handicapped community supports.
Page Two
August 5, 1992
Radar Rail Car
o If we were to purchase these vehicles RCTC would be the only agency within
SCRRA deploying used vehicles thereby potentially creating an image of providing
second class service.
The Radar Rail Car representatives have been exceptionally professional, have been very
responsive in configuring a proposal which addresses our requirements and should be
commended. However, staff recommends the Commission to not move forward to
procurement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Commission not procure used commuter rail cars from Radar Rail Car.
HS:sc
AGENDA ITEM #?D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: August 5, 1992
TO: Budget & Finance Committee
FROM: Tom Horkan, Measure "A" Project Coordinator
THROUGH: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Riverside Station Commuter Rail Platform - Approval of Construction
Package for Bidding and Review of Design of the Downtown Commuter Rail
Station
The Downtown Commuter Rail Station is moving closer to reality. The Commuter Rail
Station is being developed in four separate construction efforts.
1) Trackwork has been designed by consultants working for SCRRA and
award of the construction of the trackage has been made to Herzog Inc. by
SCRRA. The construction work is expected to commence in September of
1992.
2) Signaling and communication work will be completed by Union Pacific in
conjunction with the track work.
3) Design and construction of the commuter rail park and ride lot will be
completed by Birtcher Inc. as part of the acquisition of property for the
parking lot.
4) The design of the Station Platform is being completed by Parsons Deleuw
under contract to SCRRA. The design package will be let for construction
bids by RCTC.
RCTC and Bechtel staff have been working with SCRRA and their station consultants, and
Birtcher on coordination of the various efforts. SCRRA selected Herzog, Inc. as the
lowest responsible bidder for the work on completing Union Pacific rail line and siding to
serve the downtown station. A notice to proceed for construction is expected to be given
around September 1.
The next effort involving RCTC, will be the construction of the commuter rail platform to
aerie the site. The design for the platform is being completed by Parsons Deleuw under
contract to SCRRA. The design is essentially complete and should be ready for
advertisement in the third week of August. The construction contract will be awarded by
Page Two
August 5, 1992
Riverside Station Commuter Rail Platform - Approval of Construction Package for Bidding
and Review of Design of the Downtown -Commuter Rail Station
RCTC and will be managed by Bechtel staff. The estimated construction cost will be
presented at the meeting.
The construction package will be the first major construction project directly awarded by
RCTC. Staff has been working with Best, Best and Krieger in developing contract
documents based on model contract documents provided by SCRRA for other similar
projects. BB&K has been working to customize the package to reflect any policies of the
commission which are different than the Rail Authority. As the contract documents are
quite bulky they have not been included in the agenda packet, but will be available for
review at the RCTC offices.
Staff will be making a presentation at the commission meeting regarding the platform.
Representatives from SCRRA and Parsons Deleuw will be presenting the proposed
station design, which will include an architectural rendering for better visualization of the
platform. A similar presentation will be made earlier in the day to the City of Riverside
Design Review Board. Comments from the City will be passed along at the Commission
meeting. Initial comments from City planning staff have indicated a desire to accentuate
several architectural features of the Marketplace more prominently into the design.
Parsons Deleuw is investigating the feasibility and cost of these features. The
Commission may be presented with several options for architectural enhancement to the
basic design for items that have significant cost. Items mentioned by the City that have
minor cost implications will be incorporated into the design as feasible.
With only minor revisions to the basic station design after City and Commission review
the construction package may be advertised in August with contractor selection in early
October. Construction could begin as early as late October with completion in February
or March.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission approve the design package for the Downtown Commuter Rail
Platform to be released for bids and award to be made to the lowest responsible bidder.
The commission should review and give direction for inclusion of any desired architectural
enhancements to the station.
TH:sc
AGENDA ITEM #7E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Modification of Scope of Services for Schiermeyer Consulting Services
Schiermeyer Consulting Services (SCS) provides commuter rail planning services for the
Commission. For the new fiscal year, the Commission has approved a budget of
$150,000 to continue the work performed by SCS over the past two years in suport of
the Commission's overall commuter program.
While the recent agreement with the Santa Fe Railway, the Commission will be taking title
to the San Jacinto Subdivision and all of the leases, licenses and easements tied to that
piece of property. In consideration of the need to review and catalogue these
documents, the Commission approved an expansion of the SCS contract at its July
meeting to include $21,700 for this activity. One staff member at SCS is dedicated solely
to this effort.
The Commission and SCS have been receiving inquiries for some time from major
businesses and Employee Transportation Coordinators about the proposed commuter
rail services towards Orange County. There is at present no mechanism in place at the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority or the Commission to systematically provide
this important information to this key support group. SCS has performed extensive
analysis of employer and employee data collected by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. This data provides an accessible data base to reach out to key
companies and provide valuable information on RCTC commuter rail plans. SCS
estimates that it can conduct a thorough outreach effort to businesses located adjacent
to planned stations for a total of $10,000, using a staff assigned exclusively to this task.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission approve an additional $10,000 for SCS to perform this business
outreach service on behalf of RCTC.
JR/SCS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 5, 1992
TO: Budget and Finance Committee
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Promotional Trip on Union Pacific
I will brief the Budget and Finance Committee at their meeting on August 5th on plans for
a promotional trip on Union Pacific. Staff will be working with Union Pacific staff to
schedule such an event. Cost and plans for this event is not available at this time but will
be presented to the Committee at their meeting. This event could be scheduled in either
September or October.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Commission endorse and direct staff to make darrangements for a Union Pacific
promotional trip in either September or October.
nk